GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Chairman removes health care provision from defense measure

• 13604
  

  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
• 10052
  

  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
• 10049
  

  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
• 10032
  

  Don't get your hopes up, Ive been fighting Tri-Care to pay the bills for four years. It is just another way to jerk you around. In the long run CHAMPUS was more responsive....

  Jack Rose Posted June 1, 2005 12:19 AM
• 9954
  

  This is yet again proof that the republican Party, with all of its talk about supporting the troops, deserts them at the time our troops need them most. Democrats added this help for soldiers and their families, it was 'one of their rare victories', the story says.

  I guess the health of soldiers and their families isn't as important as the Paris Hilton Tax Cut...or Halliburton bonuses that Dick Cheney could have refused...or the sixty-city tour in support of gutting Social Security.

  Republicans should be ashamed.

  Jeff Pulice Posted May 25, 2005 1:06 PM
• 9918
  

  While I understand the cost issues involved in Congressman Hunter's action, this action nonetheless sends one more message about the military value of the Guard and Reserve, particularly in light of the recent BRAC announcements impacting 80% of the Air National Guard flying units.

  Congressman Taylor seems to think many of us want to drop FEHB for TriCare, which for me and family has not been all that beneficial during my year of extended activation.

  When many activated Federal workers are placed in Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status, we automatically lose FEHB after 18 months in that status. For those activated Fed workers who do elect to drop FEHB, the logic behind that means the Government does not have to pay its share of the premiums.

  Concerning the private employers, Mr. Hunter's expressed concerns about them "gaming" the TriCare system may impact the private employers' commitment to support the Guard and Reserve, and in turn impact the future employability of our Guard and Reserve members.

  Make that three more nails in the coffin for the Guard and Reserve.

  Fred Hall Posted May 24, 2005 7:23 AM