Focus, people, focus!

In my role as the retired soldier who hangs a shingle on the web, I get emails asking questions about veteran's benefits, retiree issues, etc.  I answer 'em as I can, and I more often as not push the questioners to join any one of a number of organizations that have as their mission statement watching over those issues and which push out info via email and the web all the time.  But these are perilous times, especially if you've managed your own resources well and are expecting to be punished for living like the ant, vice the grasshopper.

If you look at the world through conservative lenses, as essentially at least half the country does in one form or another, we're in for a rough ride with the current President and Congress and are going to have to fight the fights from a position of weakness, at least until we see what changes occur in the mid-terms.

There will be lots of fights to fight.  So let's expend our energy fighting the fights that matter.  Which means real fights, against real foes - and not raise the hue and cry and reach for the pitchforks and muskets and torches at every straw-man that pops off his pole and is heading down the yellow brick road.  There are some real witches with flying monkeys out there.  Keep your eye on the ball.

Here's an example of a well-meaning distraction, sent in good faith:

 

Good morning, all!

I don't usually pass along forwards and political stuff, but those of us who are active or retired military really need to keep an eye on this! 

This will affect our Tricare benefits now, and when we are eligible for Tricare For Life (the Medicare supplement, otherwise known as TFL). From a health insurance standpoint, the Tricare Prime coverage we retirees pay is WAY below what civilians pay for healthcare. I know for my company, employees are paying about $400 per month for the family plan (Tricare Prime is about $40/month). And TFL is a good Medicare supplement that pays both Medicare deductibles and co-insurance fees. We do not pay anything for TFL! That is our benefit for serving 20+ years.

Other Medicare supplements are quite costly and don't always pay for these in full like TFL! I don't mean to "preach" but working in a doctor's office, I see what they pay and know what a deal it is that we have earned!!!

OK! I'll shut up and let you get on with your day!

Have a good one!

However, if sender had been armed with some practical knowledge it wouldn't be quite so upsetting.  Mind you - some of those very same organizations I mentioned supportively above can also be the source of some of this disinformation when it suits their fund-raising purposes.  And it gets your heart racing.  But you've got to try to sort the wheat from the chaff.  Here's some of the offending info that had the forwarder so breathless.

 

Subject: FW: Heads Up: 90% of disabled Veterans will be reassessed; AD to pay 10% Medical

Change is about all we will have left..... 

"Another benefit subject to change is V.A. medical benefits. Everyone who is receiving a benefit from the V.A. for a service related injury will  have  to be re-assessed and the proposal states this will affect "90% of vets receiving V.A. benefits and will save the government $53 Billion  dollars
over 10 years." 

I guess that we will all pay for the poor judgment of others. 

About Obama's Heath Care proposal on Active Duty Military Families and  Veterans. 

Everyone,
My office just got word today that our new President Obama has proposed  a  plan to cut military health benefits! This is great news for the 99.9%  Veterans and Active Duty members who are currently using health care  benefits. The Congressional Budget Office has made public a proposal  stating  that Veterans (you know the men and women who have fought in wars and spent 20 plus years in the service) are now going to be paying up to 50% of  their  medical bill. That's a big jump from paying nothing for the past 30 some odd  years. 

The biggest kicker is Active Duty Military (yep, I said Active Duty)  will  now be paying 10% of their total bill. They will now be billed for their  kids visiting the doctor. Again, a big jump from being free! 

Another benefit subject to change is V.A. medical benefits. Everyone who is receiving a benefit from the V.A. for a service related injury will have to be re-assessed and the proposal states this will affect "90% of vets receiving V.A. benefits and will save the government $53 Billion dollars over 10 years." 

Needless to say, today is the first time I have heard from the few Obama supporters in my office say "if this gets passed they will not continue to be a supporter". 

Isn't this the candidate that just a few months ago was preaching to get  healthcare coverage to ALL! Isn't it ironic and moronic to steal $53  Billion from vets and active duty military families so the Crack Head down the street will receive free medical coverage. 

GREAT NEWS!! 

If you're as upset as I am then write your elected officials so hopefully some of the dummies running this country see the light and would never ever dream of taking away a penny from a military member! Here are some links to article. 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=4305 

Feel free to Google if you're in dis-belief. 

There's more in the email.  All of it with a kernel of truth, but written in the most scary way imaginable (shades of the NRA and Gun Owners of America fund-raising efforts... and fill-in-the-blank other entities) all designed to get you worried and enraged and engaged.  Well and good.  But it does no good to write your representation and vomit inaccurate or out-of-context information that you are upset about.

While I have no objection to mobilizing to be heard, I have some observations.

OMB does this all the time. It's part of their job to do so, coming up with dramatic proposals, which are rarely implemented as-is, and provide much fodder for discussion and horse-trading.

The raising the costs of retiree health care has been floated for years, started by Rumsfeld under Bush. Did we get our pitchforks out for the President then?

While I'm not keen on paying more, the reality is the cost hasn't increased since 1995, that's 14 years, folks. 14 years in which the costs of health care increased, and (I'm not touching the active duty provisions, I'm out of touch on that) have gone up and our costs haven't. It's no wonder people like me choose to use TRICARE vice the corporate policy available to me - aside from comfort zone (I've been using military health care since age 0 minus 9 months) when the costs to me are thousands of dollars different. Now, admittedly, I only go twice a year and that's pretty much it, I don't go to the doc every time I've got a sniffle, and I do avail myself of physical therapy now and again for my service-connected spinal issues, but I do know some people who do probably over-use the system.  The truth is, I'm not going to crusade on a "Don't raise my costs that haven't been raised in 14 years because that's not fair! I'm special!" platform when the reality is - a change is just due.  I'm going to work to shape *how* that change gets implemented.  Because making no change at all is just kicking the can down the road and not addressing the underlying issue. 

Now, I've been all over with my codel about not imposing the changes all in one fell swoop, arguing for a phase in, so that people can budget for it.  And I fought the Services about their proposal to link TRICARE costs shares and fees to retiree rank. Far better to index it to actual retired pay, in dollars. A retired Captain or Major (or a reserve retiree) who went out 10 years ago isn't pulling in what a retired senior enlisted is who retired yesterday. Making the thresholds dollars vice rank is just more fair to all the flavors of retirees.

And it appears my view is (mostly) prevailing:
 

TRICARE USER FEE Update 32: The DEC 07 report of the Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care got a lot of attention by urging large increases in fees for military retirees under 65 and an enrollment fee for Tricare For Life, among many other proposals. For the last year, those recommendations have been under review by a special committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense. Now that committee has issued its "recommendations on the recommendations." The good news is that the Pentagon panel didn't propose fee hikes as severe as those urged by the Task Force, and it didn't support the proposal for a TFL enrollment fee. The bad news is that it still recommended significant fee hikes for retirees under 65, and proposed means-testing those fees based on total family income. Here are some selected specifics:

• Fees for under-65 retirees: The DoD committee agreed with the Task Force that Tricare fees should be raised and periodically adjusted to reflect some percentage of military health costs, but declined to propose specific fee levels. They recommended tying Tricare Prime enrollment fees to some percentage of the Medicare Part B premium ($96.40 per month this year for the base rate), with a family rate at double the single rate. Tricare Standard deductibles would be raised by an amount sufficient to provide the same relative level of beneficiary cost-sharing. The committee proposed to have DoD secure congressional authority to raise fees and then figure out how much to raise them. They envisioned phasing in the fee increases over a period of years, citing the Task Force's four-year plan.

• Tiering/Means-Testing: The committee recommended setting different tiers of fees based on retirees' family adjusted gross income.

• Pharmacy Copays: The committee proposed eliminating copays for generic and brand-name formulary medications purchased through the mail-order pharmacy system. For retail pharmacy purchases, copays would be $4 for generics (vs. the current $3), $20 for brand names (vs. $9), and $30 for non-formulary medications (vs. $22).

The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) was pleased to see the proposal they previously endorsed to eliminate mail-order copays for most medications as an incentive to use that venue, which offers significant savings for members and the government alike. But most of the other recommendations still violate what MOAA believes should be fair principles for military health care fees. They do not accept that, unlike almost all other employer health programs, military retirees' Tricare benefits should be subject to means-testing. They also reject the idea that military beneficiaries should have to pay any set share of DoD costs, when those costs are driven up by unique military readiness requirements, documented inefficiencies, and ineffective accounting systems that have been deemed un-auditable by the Government Accountability Office and DoD's own Inspector General. And they certainly will oppose any effort to get Congress to buy a "pig in a poke" by giving DoD additional authority to impose unspecified fee hikes in the future.

The obvious question is, "What's likely to happen with these recommendations?" The only fair answer is that we can't be sure. But a few observations are in order. First, they were prepared under the purview of the previous administration, so there's no telling how they'll be viewed by the new political leaders. Second, they're considerably more vague than previous recommendations, and the more vague the recommendations, the harder it may be for them to gain traction. The people who did the study acknowledged the possibility that the new administration may want to take a year to study the issues for themselves before taking a position, but that, too, is pure speculation. The first true indicator we're likely to have is what's in the first Obama administration budget submission to Congress. And we probably won't see that until April. [Source: MOAA L:eg Up 20 Feb 09 ++]

===============================

TRICARE USER FEE Update 33: Following is a letter sent by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman to a member of FRA Branch 20 in Groton CT in response to his query on the rumored Tricare For Life budget cuts. It is self explanatory and should be widely disseminated in the military community:

February 19, 2009
Dear Mr. Serabian:
Thank you for contacting me regarding rumored cuts in benefit programs for military retirees, including TRICARE for Life. Currently, a wealth of false and misleading information is being distributed on this matter; and I welcome the opportunity to explain the source of the confusion.

I am aware of several chain emails, online discussion boards, blogs, and even articles in well-intentioned veterans' publications that imply that President Obama and Congress plan on eliminating TRICARE for Life. The insinuations put forth by these sources are false.

The source of these stories is a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), entitled Budget Options Volume 1: Heath Care, released in December 2008. Before jumping to conclusions about the report itself, however, it is important to know exactly what the CBO is. CBO is a nonpartisan federal agency, tasked with providing Congress with cost estimates for the many legislative proposals considered each year. It also periodically offers Congress suggestions for adjusting federal spending. CBO is an information gathering body for Members of Congress. Its recommendations about the budget are completely non binding; and its officers do not draft actual policy, legislation, or law.

The Budget Options report in question offers a total of 115 options for reducing (or, in some cases, increasing) federal spending on health care, only three of which relate to TRICARE. These options are merely suggestions, not policy statements or actual legislation. Reports such as this one are routine, and very few options or recommendations made by CBO are typically acted upon. President Obama has not indicated support for the three recommendations in this report related to TRICARE, nor has any Member of Congress, to the best of my knowledge. Any suggestion that the Administration is affiliated with this report ignores the fact that it was drafted by the CBO - which, again, is an advisory body of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

You may also be interested to know that both the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) and the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) have issued statements condemning the aforementioned rumors that are being perpetuated through these chain emails.

I hope that you have found this letter informative, and I encourage you to share this information with members of your community who are concerned about issues relating to military retirees. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, please be assured of my continued commitment to protecting the various interests of all those who have fought tirelessly to protect our cherished freedoms.

Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my website at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
JIL:bjm

[Source: Paul Serabian msg, received 21 Feb 09 ++]

===============================

Now, I didn't find the reference to 90% of recipients of VA payments are going to get re-assessed, but I find that claim to be just fantastical. According to the Census bureau figures, there are six million of us receiving some form of compensation.

The VA is backlogged now just trying to do the assessment of the current crop of veterans who leave active duty each year. I can just imagine where they're going to find the resources to re-vet 6 million
of us.

Of course, the process there will be to snatch the low-hanging fruit - the guys who are highly rated, like me, at 70% and those higher. It's a smaller number, and would yield greater savings, but only if
they make substantial changes to the rating schemas. Those of us with high ratings went through a lot of scrutiny to get them, it's not like the VA was handing 'em out as we went down the hallway.

Except... that's not what's in the VA budget.
 

VA BUDGET 2010: President Obama's first proposed budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) expands eligibility for health care to an additional 500,000 deserving Veterans over the next five years, meets the need for continued growth in programs for the combat Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, and provides the resources to deliver quality health care for the Nation's 5.5 million Veteran patients. The 2010 budget request is a significant step toward realizing a vision shared by the President and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki to transform VA into an organization that is people-centric, results-driven and forward-looking. If accepted by Congress, the President's budget proposal would increase VA's budget from $97.7 billion this fiscal year to $112.8 billion for the fiscal year beginning 1 OCT 09. This is in addition to the $1.4 billion provided for VA projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The 2010 budget:

• Represents the first step toward increasing discretionary funding for VA efforts by $25 billion over the next five years. The gradual expansion in health care enrollment that this would support will open hospital and clinic doors to more than 500,000 Veterans by 2013 who have been regrettably excluded from VA medical care benefits since 2003.

• Provides the resources to achieve this level of service while maintaining high quality and timely care for lower-income and service-disabled Veterans who currently rely on VA medical care.

• Provides greater benefits for Veterans who are medically retired from active duty, allowing for the first time all military retirees to keep their full VA disability compensation along with their retired pay.

• Provides the resources for effective implementation of the post-9/11 GI Bill – providing unprecedented levels of educational support to the men and women who have served our country through active military duty.

• Supports additional specialty care in such areas as prosthetics, vision and spinal cord injury, aging, and women's health. New VA Centers of Excellence will focus on improving these critical services.

• Addresses the tragic fact of homelessness among Veterans. It expands VA's current services through a collaborative pilot program with non-profit organizations that is aimed at maintaining stable housing for vulnerable Veterans at risk of homelessness, while providing them with supportive services to help them get back on their feet through job training, preventive care, and other critical services.
• Provides the necessary investments to carry VA services to rural communities that are too often unable to access VA care.

• Expands VA mental health screening and treatment with a focus on reaching Veterans in rural areas in part through an increase in Vet Centers and mobile health clinics. New outreach funding will help rural Veterans and their families stay informed of these resources and encourage them to pursue needed care.
[Source: VA News Release 26 Feb 09 ++]

Yes, we need to keep our eyes on the ball. Yes, we need to make ourselves heard.

But we also need to be clear-eyed realists, and if we're going to engage our representatives, we need to be at least as well armed with information as they are (which, depending on their committee assignments, actually isn't hard) and engage them in knowledgeable ways.

We've got lots of reasons to attack many of this President's policy choices, but we need to also understand that *every* President since about forever, has been about screwing with the dollars allocated to veterans. Republican or Democrat. President Bush was forced by Congress to repeal the offset that had me essentially funding my disability payment out of my retired pay. He didn't want to do it. Nor did Clinton, or Bush senior. Or Reagan, or Carter, ad infinitum.

Truth is, on things like this, the veteran's organizations and Congress are our natural ally, and where we can apply the lever.  Not the President. We veterans are concentrated in localities, we can affect things like House and Senate races, our influence is diluted on the national level where Presidential elections are decided. It's in the Congress where these battles get fought and won. 

The reality is, on issues like this, Presidents are generally only our friends when they want to fight a war.

As soon as they don't, we fall off the radar and into the "dammit they're expensive" box.