Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

Most Retirees Upset By Prospect of No 2009 COLA

The government says we don't get a COLA [cost-of-living adjustment this year] because the cost of living has gone down.  I wonder how many of those folks go to the grocery store!  Even commissary prices have jumped this year.  My grocery bill has nearly doubled since the first of the year and that is with the cost of fuel going down somewhat.

The state of Florida has just increased the cost of registering a car by over 65 percent and same for a driver's license.  County and state governments are increasing fees, or adding on fees, to almost anything they can think of to offset promises of lower taxes.  It is not cheaper to live this year than it was last, even with the fuel prices down.

RODRIC G. HAMMOND
Lieutenant Commander, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

I don't know where those people [at the Bureau of Labor Statistics] get their figures from but they never come close to the real life.

The only thing that dropped a little is the cost of gas, and they're slowly rising again.  Food, clothing, utilities and everything else is still up and is still rising quietly.

The little person is always screwed by the status quo.

CHRIS BEARDEN
Lexington, S.C.

Screwed by Uncle Sam again.

ALPHONSO MANNING
Hospital Corpsman First Class, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

Were it true the cost of living has fallen, then why is my grocery bill approximately $20 to $30 more every week?

We purchase essentially the same stuff we did last year.  Gasoline prices may have gone down, but food and service prices did not.

This is a lame excuse by lame leadership to justify their lame economics.

GEORGE HARRISON
Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR
Bel Air, Maryland

Considering the 5.8 percent COLA we got last year, and being that the COLA normally is only about 2.8 percent, we can feel at ease that maybe we really did get a COLA for next year, of 3 percent, that will be to our advantage for now.

The economy is improving which should keep costs down and dampen the need for COLAs.  If the premium rate for Medicare Part B and TRICARE for Life coverage stays the same, that too can be considered a pay raise.

Before Medicare covered about 80 percent of hospital, doctor costs and medicines, and TRICARE for Life covered the rest.  Now Medicare might cover 70 percent and TFL the rest.

I knock on wood every day that, thank goodness, I served my country for over 20 years and my health care is fully covered.  I also have my wife covered.  Even my Survivor Benefit Plan premiums are paid up and that plan is ready to protect her.

My ship already has arrived in the best port in the world.

PHILIP AARON
Via e-mail

I don't know who this [economist] Malik Crawford is but, as a Navy retiree, I don't think "lucked out” is a good way to describe the COLA we got this year.  I resent the implication.

I don't think our COLA should be dictated by market prices.

JON PRICE
Via e-mail

As a former journalist who always appreciated a kind word from readers, I wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your columns.

Although I'm a ‘civvy' with no relatives in the military, past or present, today's piece about COLAs and about the military widows' win [at the appellate court level] are important issues, as were your pieces about TRICARE.

I am happy knowing my taxes fund these benefits for those who so well-deserve them.  They appear to be something the government does right, or corrects when it fails to do so as in the case of the widows.

It was most interesting to learn Medicare premiums will not rise if there is no COLA next year.  I am not on Medicare but do collect Social Security.

TRICARE makes an excellent case, I believe, for a public option for health care, administered by private insurers much as supplementary Medicare insurance is, but with government regulation on payment of claims and to providers.

I have private insurance that is neither affordable nor particularly efficient.  I never know if something will be covered until the claim is submitted.  The policy carries both pre-existing condition and contestability clauses.

I cannot understand why anybody, military or not, on Medicare or insured by their employer, would object to my having other options than what is out there for people my age.  And I am quite healthy.

Your columns seem to enlighten people on the issue.  I'm glad they do.

PAM GALLAGHER
Via e-mail

Thank God for these widows fighting for what is right.  Now it is time to give all widows and widowers relief from the SBP-DIC offset.

DAWN M. ROAN
Via e-mail

Case For Retroactive SBP

Military members and their spouses are not, or at least were not, well briefed on survivor benefits years ago.  Many declined SBP even after counseling.  In my and my husband's case, we were not jointly briefed. I was never spoken to by anyone in service regarding what I might be giving up.

As Brad Snyder, president emeritus of the Armed Forces Services Corp., explained last year in one of your columns on the military Survivor Benefit Plan, it "cannot be matched by alternatives being pitched to retiring careerists by insurance companies and investment firms."

In our case an agent of USPA&IRA (United Services Planning Association) talked us out of SBP.  My husband attended his retirement briefing without me because that is the way it was done then.  He later presented me with the waiver and I signed it.

My husband was a Vietnam veteran.  The war ravaged his mental health and, I believe, contributed to his alcoholism and subsequent death from alcohol in 1989.  He was 49 years old.

I have received absolutely no benefits from his military career or from his death.  We were married 27 years.  I believe I served right along with him, as wives are doing today, and I should have been given a chance to collect benefits similar to those awarded to other spouses.

My husband retired in 1984.  Effective March 1, 1986, any married member at retirement is enrolled automatically in SBP with spouse coverage unless the spouse agreed in writing to another election requested by the member.  I'm told there is no provision in the law to provide SBP coverage to widows after SBP has been declined.

I am not asking for benefits because I am a widow.  I am asking that legislation be passed to allow any spouse who did not receive adequate counseling on SBP at the time of their member's retirement to be eligible to enroll retroactively.

GAIL M. OSTEN
Colorado Springs, Colo.

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com