2014 military budget proposals...holy cow are they nuts?

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by bobski, Dec 2, 2013.

  1. bobski

    bobski Active Member Sponsor

    6,342
    21
    38
    local va news here....
    pentagon is considering closing all military hospitals.
    making all retirees wait until age 60 to draw their pensions.

    man o man. do i feel a storm brewing or what?:eek:
     
  2. JW357

    JW357 New Member

    6,716
    1
    0
    Yeah those things realistically won't happen. If every politician wants to lose his seat come his re-election time, maybe they'd do it...

    And the Pentagon isn't the ones who makes those decisions. Well maybe the hospitals. I dunno. But Congress would definitely have to change a law regarding the military retirements.
     

  3. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    There is going to be a storm. I didn't know the Pentagon had the power to make law. Well, Obama signed a treaty that wasn't approved by congress. The pentagon is going to make laws now. All of this is an incredibly slippery slope. Frank Zappa called our democracy a candy coated dictatorship. Maybe Frank Zappa is smarter than I ever imagined.
     
  4. bobski

    bobski Active Member Sponsor

    6,342
    21
    38
    no, the proposal goes to the pentagon brass, to be dished out and presented to congress for consideration.
     
  5. bobski

    bobski Active Member Sponsor

    6,342
    21
    38
    thanks obama for my whooping 30.00 monthly cola increase this year. i'll think of you when i use it pay for my 100.00 increase in monthly groceries.
     
  6. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    224
    63
    Voting for any og those things would be political suicide for any member ofthe congress.

    Aint gonna happen, pholks!
     
  7. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,232
    37
    48
    Do not forget to minus the dollar amount for inflation and the tax man! :mad:
     
  8. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,232
    37
    48
    Do you have the link to the article?
     
  9. chuckusaret

    chuckusaret Member

    509
    0
    16
    We can thank Paul Ryan for the reduction in future cola benefits for our military retired personnel.
     
  10. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    Funny how a Democrat can only blame Paul Ryan. This was a joint legislation with Paul Ryan {R} and Patty Murray {D}. Right or wrong this can not be blamed on one party. America has a history of "Cheating" veterans beginning with Geo. Washington's Presidency. The veterans of the American Revolution were deprived of land grants and pensions all the way up to 1838. Civil War vets were cheated. The Vets of WWI were beat and arrested by a young Capt. Geo. Patton in Washington DC protest.
    The Nation has a habit of forgetting the military when the threat is gone. :(
     
  11. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    And Patty Murray (co-author of the bill and senator (D) from Washington State). Oh, and every other rep on both sides of the isle in the House who voted to approve it. Then those in both sides in the Senate who sent it to the Presidents desk.

    So, bobski if you are still under 62 that COLA next year will be even smaller because it will be adjusted to be 1% smaller. The 1% annual cut will likely cost me just under $80,000 in total retirement benefit, before I reach 62.

    Goal of the cut? To save 6 billion over 10 years. While we spend 22 billion in the same period of time for free phones to people who never had to volunteer to di anything and contractually obligate themselves for 20 to actually doing a job.
    A difference between entitlement, and earned benefit.

    As far as medical facilities, it looks like the next couple if years will see a shrinking of military medical facilities instead of closing them. Emergency rooms, ICUs and some surgical services will be getting phased out or reduced at the "small hospitals". They are looking at partnering with local civilian hospitals to cover some of those services. The navy is shrinking and possibly phasing out its family practice residency program.

    They are also exploring partnering of military and VA medical facilities to handle the enrollment numbers.

    Generals and Admirals on the "line side" of things look at the DoD budget and see how much is being spent on healthcare and seeing that it affects their ability to fund weapons and equipment development, procurement, training budgets, and the fighting force, they are looking at ways to cut that cost.

    If we want to look at the national budget as a whole and what the federal government should really fund and what should be funded by states, local, communities, and private sector, it is going to piss people off somewhere.

    No politician wants to ask the big question of "What is the financial responsibility of the federal government, and what is just extra". The government has grown its subsidizing of unnecessary programs to such s point that no politician would get reelected due to the number of people they would alienate when shrinking programs. (A strong argument for term limits, so they could jus do their jobs, get out if office and go back to the hopefully real job they had before).
     
  12. DrFootball

    DrFootball disappointed & disgusted, But DETERMINED... Lifetime Supporter

    8,039
    0
    0
    He's movin to Montana soooon....gonna be a dental floss Tycoon.....
     
  13. bigjim

    bigjim New Member

    560
    0
    0
    I am not trying to start a fight, but what would be the downside of military personnel being treated at commercial not-for-profit hospitals? I was unaware that there is an over abundance of military doctors.Yes, some medical professions (X-ray, Lab, EKG, etc..) will be lost and personnel will have to go back to combat jobs. It would also free up personnel to work in field hospital which I think would be more important in saving lives.

    I think I would rather see the money spent not for old rundown facilities, but being spent for the troops than rebuilding facilities that are duplicates of what is available for the general public. Can you say your children would be better off being born in a military hospital or one that delivers 100 times more children each year. Do you want a doctor sitting on base handing out pills, or one in the field that can stitch up wounds and put you back together.

    Not saying it should be done, but which would make more sense?
    Jim
     
  14. woody63m

    woody63m New Member

    721
    0
    0
    How about the military just stop contracting everything under the sun out to civilian companies and make the freaking soldiers do it like in the days of old that will save money
     
  15. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,127
    113
    63
    Bingo:
    Slacker Paul Ryan teemed up with Chuck Hagel and Patty Murray to reduce military retirement pay. Now that the deal has come to light the scumbags are backtracking. They even reduced the value of retirement pay for combat wounded who were awarded disability retirement: The scumbags say they are sorry for doing that. Yeah, right!!!!


    http://www.military.com/benefits/2013/12/26/hagel-ryan-defend-retiree-cola-caps.html
     
  16. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    In 1994 I suffered a severe spinal cord accident at Laurel, MD. The VA at Baltimore didn't have the facility to treat me. They flew me to Quantico to the on base hospital. They have slowly been moving trauma units from the VA to on base hospitals for a while. Try to find a VA burn unit...

    The VA has been assigning veterans to civilian primary care doctors for quite a while. I see a civilian family Dr. The VA reimburses the Dr similar to medicare. Most of the time I can't drive to Richmond for the cost of the copay if there is a copay.
     
  17. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    Military medicine gets a bit more complicated than just closing some hospitals and sending folks to combat roles. The fact of the mattter is that with the draw dows in tropop placements in Afghanistan and Iraq, there isn't as much "field" or combat to send folks to.

    It's not that we have an over abundance of doctors per se. The problem with military medicine in the mind of a field general of a fleet admiral, is that they are like emergency gear. You never want to use them, but you never wan tto be without them when you do need them. In the first Desert Storm, there was a gross shortage of ready military medical personnel. It smacked a lot of high ranking brass right in the face at the time, when we were trying to rapidly deploy troops, and have enough medical coverage for them in the field. The place for Medics, Hospital Corpsmen, Nurses and Doctors to train for combat or field medicine is not in the field. they get their experience from working and training on every medical condition that they can possibly see while in a hospital.

    Personnel move around, from deployable units to shore units, to prevent burnout of personnel with the combat units, and to allow the combat folks to come back and train their future replacements in what they have been seeing.

    the personnel who have been training ashore for the last few years get to bring the latest knowledge of the latest technology to the battlefield and ships at sea. This creates a rotating ready force, improves combat care, and home based training.

    There really is no big problem with having shome based/ shore based personnel getting seen in a civilian hospital in some of the smaller locations from the standpoint of the medical care that they get. One of the problems that we frequently run into though with personnel getting seen by civilian providers is the fact taht the civilian providers don't understand the operational commitments, the physical requirements, duty limitations and timelines that can complicate care of military personnel. They don't understand that simply prescribing a medication to a Sailor on a nuclear submarine to help him quit smoking can remove him from duty for 6 months. They can't be told operational timelines of ships movement, or unit deployment for security reasons, and tehy may perform a proceedure, or develop a treatment plan that removes a Soldier, or Sailor from a deployable status, and then weakens a units combat effectiveness.

    The big issues congress looks at as far a military medical expense goes, is in the redundant services, abused services, and growing population of veterans/retiree care that is also conducted in these active military hospitals. Is child birth, pediatric care, geriatric care really needed in a military hospital? The combat population is more fit, active, and not composed of children and the aged. But even that isn't so simple. Active duty women do get pregnant. Who is going to perform those child births overseas in Japan, Spain, Crete, etc.? There are state department issues with overseas births. What about military families who rotate overseas, and their kids? Some active duty members have dependent, parents, who may require healthcare.

    That's the tip of the iceburg that is medicine within the military. It's not an easy onion to peel.
     
  18. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,988
    40
    48
    Are there a lot of 59 year old NCOs on the battle field? I would think they would way past their prime.:eek:
     
  19. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,988
    40
    48
    Maybe we could issue cane guns!!!:eek:
     
  20. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    The Pentagon always talks about things like this. They are told by congress that they need to plan for a 50% reduction in spending or something crazy, then the Pentagon spends a lot of time and effort finding the absolute worst things they could cut to make it happen, then they tell the public "in order to meet spending cuts we will no longer provide troops with weapons". Then the public outcry starts and the spending cuts are reduced to 10% which is actually in increase in the annual budget but a reduction in the proposed annual budget which was never real to begin with.