TOPICS
TOPICS
Chairman removes health care provision from defense measure
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has employed a rarely used authority to strike a provision in the committee-passed $441.6 billion defense authorization bill that would have opened the military's Tricare health care system to all National Guard members and reservists.
The provision, one of only a handful of Democrat victories during the 14-hour markup last week, would push the military's mandatory spending levels beyond those allowed under the fiscal 2006 budget resolution. The bill is scheduled for floor consideration Wednesday.
"I have consulted the chairman of the Budget Committee on this matter, and he informs me that if the bill is brought forward to the floor in violation of the Budget Act, he will exercise his prerogative to raise the applicable point of order and thus prevent its consideration on the floor," Hunter wrote in a Friday memo to the committee.
After the committee's markup, Hunter asked and received unanimous consent to alter the bill if mandatory spending limits exceeded allowed limits. The vote is routine for the committee, but the authority has not been used in at least the last five years, said a House aide.
Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., sponsored the Tricare amendment, which passed Wednesday night on a 32-30 vote despite opposition from Hunter and other leading committee Republicans. The next day, Hunter asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the price tag for Taylor's amendment.
In a Friday memo to Hunter, CBO said the amendment would cost the military roughly $230 million in FY06, and $4.6 billion through 2010. It also would skew average costs for the Federal Employees Health Benefits program because many of the 120,000 Guardsmen and reservists who work for the federal government would shift to the less expensive Tricare system.
The shift would cause a spike in FEHB premiums, forcing the government to increase its per capita costs. Costs for employees enrolled in FEHB would decrease by $340 million through 2010, while the cost of retiree benefits would grow by $94 million over the same period, according to CBO.
In a statement Monday, Taylor said many of the problems with the amendment could be solved by prohibiting federally employed reservists from dropping FEHB for Tricare coverage. Taylor plans to submit a revised amendment to the Rules Committee that would include that prohibition, his spokeswoman said.
"The bottom line is that this is a technicality that could easily be resolved if the chairman wanted to get it resolved," Taylor said in a statement.
Several military organizations are backing the Taylor amendment and mobilizing their members. The National Guard Association of the United States plans to issue a legislative alert to its members later today, urging them to contact their representatives. The organization also is drafting letters to Hunter and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., said Michele Trafficante, who works in legislative affairs at the Guard association.
An estimated 80 percent of Guardsmen and reservists already have access to non-military healthcare programs. During the markup, Hunter said the measure would lead to a "gaming" of the Tricare system, giving employers a way to drop these so-called weekend warriors from their healthcare rolls and stick the government with the bill.
COMMENTS
- Once again Guard and Reserves get the short end. Mr. Hunter has no clue what it takes to maintain a "part-time" career in the reserve component. Nor does he realize the sacrifice it takes for a reservist or guardsman to mobilize and deploy. If he did, he would help find a budgetary way to provide the measure rather than simply defeating it. He appears to be taking the easy way out. Just defeat the measure rather than do some work to allow it. Mr. Hunter also incorrectly assumes that there will be a large influx of traditional reserve component personnel that will take the leap to Tri-Care. I do not think this will happen. Although the premiums will be much cheaper, and will be cause for many to switch, there will still be a large number of people who remain with their current plans because they are established and the quality and availability of care is much greater. I think he is largely over-estimating the cost and the numbers who will make the switch. California needs to vote him out of office if he can not do better than that. Doug Dimond Posted November 29, 2005 9:37 AM
- How is this deserting the troops in a time of need? Pay increases and job coverage I understand, but all year round medical? Guard and Reserves are fully covered by TriCare when they are on active duty. To do otherwise would further decrease the effectiveness of the health care system, which is overloaded as is for active duty regular military. Based on personnel numbers, giving full medical benefits to Guard and Reserves (and all their families) even when not on active duty would effectively double to triple the number of personnel the system would need to support and the already large health care costs of the military. It doesn't make sense from a mission support, fiscal or logical stand point. GovExec.com reader Posted June 1, 2005 2:29 PM
- I wonder whom the legislator that led the opposition to this bill is/was! One could only come to the conclusion that he/she evidently never served on Active Duty in the military. One who is using the money issue – cost too much as an excuse. One who has special projects (pork barrel spending) in his/her district that the funds allocated for this project would reduce and/or even cause this legislator to cancel their favorite project. Is this fair to those who at a ‘drop of the dime’ left their families, their jobs, and their future plans up in the air to serve this GREAT COUNTRY in the DEFENSE OF FREEDOM? Is this fair to those who put on the military uniform for sixteen hours plus one weekend a month - Better yet for a total of 38 days a year? Now this individual or group of individuals are hiding behind the guise of it cost too much money. How much money does the reservists and guardsman save this nation in the defense budget? Former President Clinton was quick to ‘down size’ the military by converting Active Duty Units to Reserve Units. Where would this country be without the RESERVISTS AND THE GUARDSMAN? This country has NEVER won a war or conflict without the reserves and the guard. The Minutemen – the beginning of the reserve program, won this country’s freedom. So, why do we deny this group of loyal individuals some benefits especially in health benefits? If this legislator feels that it will cost too much, than I have a suggestion for him/her. Why don’t he/she and his/her colleagues give up their federal health benefits and purchase health insurance in the private sector? This would result is a cost saving. Did anybody inform these individuals that FREEDOM IS NOT FREE? The cost of FREEDOM has/is being paid in some cases with the ultimate sacrifice of one’s life. Since the above comment was written, I have discovered that it is the Congressman from that Great State of California who so rightously objects to affording health benefits to those individuals who so proudly serve this country without question. Walter R. Bozek, SFC USA (RET) Posted June 1, 2005 4:37 PM
