Washington, D.C., March 17, 2006
In 1995, various federal budgeteers advanced the novel idea that government-sponsored health care for service retirees was nothing more than a “contingent benefit”—in other words, it was a privilege, and not a right. We remember their words today mostly as an example of shocking ignorance.
Ninety percent of military retirees insisted they had been promised these benefits, and they papered Capitol Hill with their complaints. Chastened officials repudiated the budgeteers and accepted “the promise” as valid. Elderly retirees were by law given access to the Pentagon’s Tricare medical system and related benefits. The system itself was expanded.
Yet questions persisted. Was this care supposed to be “free,” “low-cost,” or what? Should the country’s liability be limited? Eleven years on, some officials still argue about this.
In a Feb. 6 statement, William Winkenwerder Jr., the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, raised alarms about rising cost. In 1995, health care consumed five percent of DOD’s budget; now, it’s eight percent, and, unless something is done, the figure in 2015 could top 12 percent. Winkenwerder called this “unsustainable growth.”
A senior official who is always ready to deliver a jab is David S.C. Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, who famously declared of retiree and veteran benefits, “They are taking away from the nation’s ability to defend itself.”
Pentagon chief Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress retiree care must change “because it’s an enormous amount of money.” That prompted a riposte from Stephen P. Condon, AFA’s Chairman of the Board. “We appreciate that the Administration is attempting to make the best out of a tough fiscal situation,” he said on Feb. 22, “but the budget must not be balanced on the backs of veterans.”
That shouldn’t happen—but it might. The Bush Administration’s approach to fixing these problems, as laid out in the Fiscal 2007 budget, paints the bull’s-eye on retirees. DOD would sharply raise Tricare enrollment fees—doubling or tripling some—as well as co-payments for retirees under age 65. This is supposed to yield savings of $32 billion over 10 years, but it could anger a great many of the three million affected retirees and dependents.
“You’re about to take your best recruiters and turn them into your worst nightmare,” Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) warned senior defense officials at a recent House Armed Services Committee session.
Indeed, it was not that long ago that the Pentagon’s penchant for bean-counting and sharp practice nearly destroyed the faith which military people had always placed in the nation they served. Much good has happened in recent years, but the strong bond of trust that retired service members thought they had regained is in danger of unraveling.
There are some 2.1 million military retirees and survivor benefit recipients and another six to eight million dependents. If the fee increases are imposed, and many retirees revolt, it will be because Washington lost sight of some important truths. Here are some friendly reminders:
Let us stipulate that Rumsfeld has a very tough job to do. However, it does no one any good to pit retired military personnel who served honorably against those who now wear the uniform.
In the past, lawmakers have rejected similar efforts. They should do so again. Killing the pet projects of senior Pentagon leaders is difficult business. Congress should get on with it.
Read the day's top news on the US Air Force, airpower, and national security issues.
Daily Report: Read the day's top news on the US Air Force, airpower, and national security issues.
Tweets by @AirForceMag