6
Health costs eat into Defense's budget
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrives to speak during an exposition in Maryland.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Defense Secretary Robert Gates found himself in Abilene, Kan., this weekend for a speech marking 65 years since the end of World War II in Europe. The United States has been a superpower all the time since. We spend more on our military than any other country does and probably will for a while, too. But Gates said this weekend the Pentagon is going to have to start living at least closer to its means.
Brett Neely has more.
BRETT NEELY: Pentagon budget analysts have long said the cost of new weapons systems is out of control. In his speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library, Gates said there's another threat.
ROBERT GATES: Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America's wounded warriors, health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive.
The Pentagon spends $50 billion a year on health care -- more than double what it did 10 years ago. Even retired service members who could be insured by their employer get cheap government-subsidized insurance.
Todd Harrison at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says those costs are adding up.
TODD HARRISON: So if you let that continue out into the future, eventually we have a military that's full of soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors, but we don't have any trucks or planes or ships for them to use.
Harrison says the Pentagon is a lot like General Motors was before that company declared bankruptcy.
GM made expensive promises to its workers that it eventually couldn't afford.
HARRISON: We're trading, you know, taking care of today's retirees, as opposed to taking care of tomorrow's front line soldiers.
Winslow Wheeler at the Center for Defense Information blames Congress. With two wars underway, he says voting to increase troop pay and benefits is always popular.
WINSLOW WHEELER: Congress has layered on additional unrequested benefits for survivors, for retirees, and it's all coming home to roost.
In his speech, Secretary Gates said Congress's generosity is admirable.
But now that budgets are tight, he said it may be time for troops to pick up more of their own health care tab.
In Washington, I'm Brett Neely for Marketplace.
I agree with the prior comments totally. How many times thru all these years since retirement of 20 years from the military have I written comments trying to save our benefits that were promised us for healthare for we and our spouses for life. Retirees are always the first to want to cut or increase cost when the government needs money. We are always the first to be thought of, never the big shots and they seem to forget how they become so high up in life, from the scarfices of the veterans and retirees. If it wasn't for these group of people, this country wouldn't even be free but under the dictatorship of another country. If a fraction of the money was saved from pure waste, the deparment of Defense would have all the money they need. Mr Gates and some of the Generals that have suggested this could stand up for military like they are suppose to and not pushing things that would hurt us. Guess they make to much money to care. One more thing, we retirees over 65 are sure not getting free healthcare now. We contribute to Social Security all our lives and we shell out right at 2400 dollars a year and Tricare just picks up what Medicare doesn't pay, which is just 20%. That isn't free in my books. Hope that Congress rejects all of these recommendations
So, we elected--twice--the first MBA owner into office, and his Vice President and SecDef hire the Rendon Group to cheerlead us into two wars we can't afford. The SecDef tries to strangle Pentagon spending, tries to do war on the cheap with 600 SpecFor troops in Afganistan, and they accomplish before the invasion of Iraq...what?
Who makes the money from all these expensive weapons systems that get taken out by old Soviet RPG's stolen from unprotected ammo dumps? Is it the companies that have parts made in every state, so politicians vote for these systems in order to get votes? Is it the Pentagon officials who retire and then go to work for the companies as petitioners? Why do we sell these high tech systems to our allies--supposedly to lower the cost by increasing the production--who turn out to not really be allies (Iran before 1979, mujahadeen in Afganistan after that year, I could go on) and then it requires us to create better tech responses, just in case our ally loses a democractic election to our enemies?
In other words, there are many facets to this problem. Requiring different solutions. Is it worth it? Well, if America wants to either afford its problem, or stop causing it altogether...
I appreciate the comments of the veterans posted here, and as a civilian who appreciates that these men and women have volunteered to put their lives on the line for their country, I think Sec. Gates' comments are beyond absurd. I found it reprehensible that this country decided to throw its soldiers into a meaningless war in Iraq, and then then I found it unforgivable that they did so without providing them with adequate body armor or armor on their vehicles. To make matters worse, our government then decided to "outsource" part of the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan to shady types like Blackwater, who got paid on average three to four times what the average volunteer army soldier was paid, AND they made Iraq and Afghanistan MORE dangerous for our volunteers! How about stop paying mercenaries to do our dirtywork, giving adequate armor to troops so they suffer less injuries, and get them the hell out of these places for a change! Really, a vet who has suffered through war is not expected to pay for his or her own healthcare?! Thank goodness Sec. Gates isn't a comedian, because this is just a bad joke.
Why am I not surprised that when the budgets get tight the first place members of our government look to cut is from those who have already sacrificed the most, military, active and retired. I served 20 years and yes I take advantage of my healthcare "benefit". Of course the disability pay I receive from the VA is subtracted from my retirement. Retired military members are the only ones required to make their own disability payments. Remove those from the government programs who have never done anything to earn it. Now look at the government civilians and their pay and benefits, including Mr. Gates, cut those. Now look at all the money spent on all those ear marks and foreign aid. Look at congress and their extensive benefits package which is earned after only a single term of service. I'm not saying that veterans/retirees shouldn't eventually be considered if necessary, but for once put them at the bottom of the list instead of the top. I could go on endlessly since we all know how congress waste money daily. I hope everyone will join me during the upcoming elections to remove every incumbent and replace them with someone who has a little common sense and the interest of the American people above their own.
It's about time Congress and the DoD woke up and appreciated that reckless adventurism and intervention everywhere is not without consequences. *WE* as Veterans — Disabled and healthy — are part of those consequences.
So before the President and Congress decide to deploy troops to fight anywhere in the world, they accept the fact that Disabled Veterans and Retired Veterans are part of the costs of war.
If because Congress has to fund Veterans of previous wars, it can't afford to send troops to yet another pointless war where we end up with more enemies than we started with, it is all for the better. It's about time Congress and the President woke up to the fact that wars and pointless adventurism are not without their long-term consequences to those who fight them, and should not be without their long-term consequences to the federal government and its treasury as well. It must stop "dumping" us on the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) with poverty-level Disability Benefits. (That as well is not the fault of the DVA, but entirely that of Congress for not funding it appropriately.)
Then perhaps it can amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to eliminate the problem Justice Jackson found with it in the infamous FERES decision in 1950.
Meanwhile, it's "millions for trucks, not one cent for Veterans"! It seems idiotic in retrospect for me to have volunteered to fight for a government that won't volunteer to fight for *ME*.
Frank Fisher, M.D.
LTCOL USAFR MC FS (Ret.)
========================
Back in the '60s, recruiters told us that, if we retired, we'd get free health care for ourselves and our spouses for the rest of our lives. Promise #1 broken!
Those who do serve for 20 or more years pay into Social Security the entire time. But nowadays, the amount they receive from SS is reduced from that which everyone else gets. And military retirees' retirement PAY is half to three quarters of their basic military pay upon retirement. Their housing, food and any other allowances are not included. Federal civilian workers get a percentage of their FULL pay. Nice way to treat those who put their lives on the line for our country!
But DoD contractors can overrun their low-ball bids for contracts at will -- and get away with it!
Retired war veterans should be exempt from ALL taxes at ALL levels. If they're military retirees. they should receive retirement pay based on both their military pay and all allowances being paid them at tim
YOU go to war, see what it's like, and THEN tell me I'm wrong!
