President Bush's new Budget intends to Rain in Domestic Spending: Includes cuts to Veterans Benefits

[tnitsuj]

from the New York Times

That veterans things may prove embarrasing for about ten minutes before they drop it.

In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal, the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9.

The Military Officers Association of America criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal." In e-mail messages to the White House, members of the association asked Mr. Bush, "Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?"

Col. Steven P. Strobridge, director of government relations at the association, said he understood that the Pentagon was now inclined to study the issue for a year and renew the proposal, as part of a systematic effort to "reduce military health care costs."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Col. Steven P. Strobridge, director of government relations at the association, said he understood that the Pentagon was now inclined to study the issue for a year and renew the proposal, as part of a systematic effort to "reduce military health care costs."

In other words, let's not do this until after the election.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Col. Steven P. Strobridge, director of government relations at the association, said he understood that the Pentagon was now inclined to study the issue for a year and renew the proposal, as part of a systematic effort to "reduce military health care costs."

In other words, let's not do this until after the election.

Naw, do it now, don't need the Military vote, Bush would still win in a landslide.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Col. Steven P. Strobridge, director of government relations at the association, said he understood that the Pentagon was now inclined to study the issue for a year and renew the proposal, as part of a systematic effort to "reduce military health care costs."

In other words, let's not do this until after the election.

Naw, do it now, don't need the Military vote, Bush would still win in a landslide.

No matter what happens the President will still dominate the military vote.

 

[XMan]

10/20 is still a pretty damn cheap co-pay for prescriptions. I have fairly decent insurance, and I pay $45 for Allegra-D, which you can't get a generic for I don't think.

 

[tm37]

As a vet I have no problem with them having vets pay a little more for some things.

Did you know a VET can get Hearing AIds REGARDLESS IF the Hearing loss is related to military Service.

I am pretty much PRO VET and think that we should do as much as we can for this BUT when I see VETS getting more than active DUTY I get a little appaulled. I saw the VA in San diego spend OVER 250,000 dollars on audiology equiptment that WAS NOT NEEDED the current equiptment was fine.

Yet the NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER was stuck with out dated equiptment that was dieing.

 

[SuperTool]

Gotta make room for all that Iraqi spending.

 

[HappyPuppy]

I see nothing wrong with military retirees having their copay upped. They get cost of living increases to their pensions, so they have no bitch about paying $10 for a scrip.

On another note,

Did you know a VET can get Hearing AIds REGARDLESS IF the Hearing loss is related to military Service.

tm36, I am a VN Vet with hearing loss and may need a hearing aid some day. Can you provide documentation to this "freebie?"

 

[Genesys]

they really shouldnt complain too much. its not as if its an astronomical raise, and vets still are paying LESS than people with corporation provided HMO/PPO plans.

 

[Witling]

Support our troops.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yep - this ought to be real interesting to watch unfold. Here we have people yapping and whining about deficits and spending increases by Bush...but now all of a sudden when cuts(or limiting increases) are even considered - hold on to your hat because these people will be in your face about some "cut" to an issue they care about. It's always - "cut the other guy's stuff" isn't it? It's rather sad really. If we are to actually "fix" this spending problem in Washington - then we all have to "sacrifice"(or atleast take it like a man). I'm so sick of hearing people whining about some underfunded program or area and then pointing to some other type of funding they think isn't important. Cut it all - Washington created this mess because we all allowed it to happen - and we TOLD them to do all this with our "let the gov't provide/cure everything" mentality. It's always - "what are you going to do for me/my group" type of questions posed to those who wish to represent us.

/me stops now because the more I type the more pissed I become.:|

And no this isn't about any one specific part of the "plan" - this is about attitudes as a whole.

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Support our troops.

active duty, non-active duty, or retired?

and this is a little different than speaking out against their actions and calling them baby killers. its not as if we're withdrawing our moral support here, just asking them to pay a little more for their already riddiculusly discounted healthcare.

and dont worry about my not being a vet, i will be joining the Air Force as soon as i get my degree so i can go in as an officer.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I see nothing wrong with military retirees having their copay upped. They get cost of living increases to their pensions, so they have no bitch about paying $10 for a scrip.

Very good point.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I see nothing wrong with military retirees having their copay upped. They get cost of living increases to their pensions, so they have no bitch about paying $10 for a scrip.

Very good point.

Thank you. I was trying to be realistic.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - this ought to be real interesting to watch unfold. Here we have people yapping and whining about deficits and spending increases by Bush...but now all of a sudden when cuts(or limiting increases) are even considered - hold on to your hat because these people will be in your face about some "cut" to an issue they care about. It's always - "cut the other guy's stuff" isn't it? It's rather sad really. If we are to actually "fix" this spending problem in Washington - then we all have to "sacrifice"(or atleast take it like a man). I'm so sick of hearing people whining about some underfunded program or area and then pointing to some other type of funding they think isn't important. Cut it all - Washington created this mess because we all allowed it to happen - and we TOLD them to do all this with our "let the gov't provide/cure everything" mentality. It's always - "what are you going to do for me/my group" type of questions posed to those who wish to represent us.

/me stops now because the more I type the more pissed I become.:|

And no this isn't about any one specific part of the "plan" - this is about attitudes as a whole.

CkG

You don't hear me say "cut the other guy's stuff", CAD. But from the beginning, I've always said, why cut taxes at all?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - this ought to be real interesting to watch unfold. Here we have people yapping and whining about deficits and spending increases by Bush...but now all of a sudden when cuts(or limiting increases) are even considered - hold on to your hat because these people will be in your face about some "cut" to an issue they care about. It's always - "cut the other guy's stuff" isn't it? It's rather sad really. If we are to actually "fix" this spending problem in Washington - then we all have to "sacrifice"(or atleast take it like a man). I'm so sick of hearing people whining about some underfunded program or area and then pointing to some other type of funding they think isn't important. Cut it all - Washington created this mess because we all allowed it to happen - and we TOLD them to do all this with our "let the gov't provide/cure everything" mentality. It's always - "what are you going to do for me/my group" type of questions posed to those who wish to represent us.

/me stops now because the more I type the more pissed I become.:|

And no this isn't about any one specific part of the "plan" - this is about attitudes as a whole.

CkG

You don't hear me say "cut the other guy's stuff", CAD. But from the beginning, I've always said, why cut taxes at all?

Even without the tax-cuts(that may have helped stimulate things) there was and would have been deficit spending. But then again - I support reducing our gov't spending...and always have.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - this ought to be real interesting to watch unfold. Here we have people yapping and whining about deficits and spending increases by Bush...but now all of a sudden when cuts(or limiting increases) are even considered - hold on to your hat because these people will be in your face about some "cut" to an issue they care about. It's always - "cut the other guy's stuff" isn't it? It's rather sad really. If we are to actually "fix" this spending problem in Washington - then we all have to "sacrifice"(or atleast take it like a man). I'm so sick of hearing people whining about some underfunded program or area and then pointing to some other type of funding they think isn't important. Cut it all - Washington created this mess because we all allowed it to happen - and we TOLD them to do all this with our "let the gov't provide/cure everything" mentality. It's always - "what are you going to do for me/my group" type of questions posed to those who wish to represent us.

/me stops now because the more I type the more pissed I become.:|

And no this isn't about any one specific part of the "plan" - this is about attitudes as a whole.

CkG

The complaints are consistent, Cad. It's about the hypocrisy and perverse priorities of Bush-lite and his minions. We have plenty of money when he wants to pander to the public or give handouts to wealthy contributors. But, when they are asked to deliver on their promises -- "No Child Left Behind," AmeriCorps, supporting our troops -- suddenly money is tight and gee, sorry, we can't fund that as much as we'd hoped. It's just another example of Bush's fundamental lack of integrity.

 

[glenn1]

As a vet I have no problem with them having vets pay a little more for some things.

I agree, although it's perhaps not the smartest move politically and probably will wind up being a non-starter.

 

[Bigdude]

We have a 2.16 trillion dollar budget! We should be spending 1 trillion on the Military, and cut a trillion from the rest of the budget, leaving 160 billion to spend on the core things!

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - this ought to be real interesting to watch unfold. Here we have people yapping and whining about deficits and spending increases by Bush...but now all of a sudden when cuts(or limiting increases) are even considered - hold on to your hat because these people will be in your face about some "cut" to an issue they care about. It's always - "cut the other guy's stuff" isn't it? It's rather sad really. If we are to actually "fix" this spending problem in Washington - then we all have to "sacrifice"(or atleast take it like a man). I'm so sick of hearing people whining about some underfunded program or area and then pointing to some other type of funding they think isn't important. Cut it all - Washington created this mess because we all allowed it to happen - and we TOLD them to do all this with our "let the gov't provide/cure everything" mentality. It's always - "what are you going to do for me/my group" type of questions posed to those who wish to represent us.

/me stops now because the more I type the more pissed I become.:|

And no this isn't about any one specific part of the "plan" - this is about attitudes as a whole.

CkG

You don't hear me say "cut the other guy's stuff", CAD. But from the beginning, I've always said, why cut taxes at all?

Even without the tax-cuts(that may have helped stimulate things) there was and would have been deficit spending. But then again - I support reducing our gov't spending...and always have.

CkG

I know everyone is for reduced gov't spending.......I just find it interesting gov't spending has RISEN almost 24% during the durrent Bush administration....the largest increase in gov't spending in a decade.

 

[outriding]

So let me get this straight...

The majority of people will hang clinton for raising taxes ( primarly on the upper class mind you )

But it is all right for bush to lower the quality of benifits ( equal to raising taxes ) for the people who gave the most to this country.

 

[burnedout]

In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal, the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9.

This increase is negligible for us younger, healthier retirees as well as most retired officers. However, there are quite a few lower-ranking, enlisted retirees out there who could be adversely affected by these measures, especially if in poor health.

Yes, our veterans health care coverage is a comparatively good deal. But personally, I wish they, meaning those at the top, would stop dicking around with our benefits.