How ironic: within a week of honoring our veterans, we have to report an ambush on military retirees. It isn’t from a foreign army or even a crazed terrorist; the threat is from within.

As we warned last year, President Obama’s effort to take over health care—he felt like he didn’t have enough within the Constitution to keep him busy, so he decided to go extra-constitutional—would eventually lead to an assault on the military health system. TRICARE is the military system that provides medical care for military members, their dependents, and retirees. Alas, it was just too tempting to not leave this system alone!

According to military.com, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has stepped up his push to block working age retirees from using TRICARE Prime. McCain suggested to the powerful 12-member Joint Select Committee on Debt Reduction it would help avoid spending cuts that would directly impact readiness.

While McCain is a war hero and long-time champion of the military, he and others must be careful in recommending fiscal solutions that negatively impact those who have served their Nation and to whom the Nation has made promises. Learn from the medical profession: serve others and DO NO HARM.

Because of the large number of military veterans among us, we will continue to watch and let you know how this story develops. In the meantime, visit military.com’s legislative center to register your opposition to such changes.

On Sunday, America will observe Patriot Day, designated to commemorate the attacks of September 11th, 2001.  Ten years ago, madmen unleashed unprecedented terror on the US, killing over 3000 people—some trapped in doomed aircraft, more innocently at work in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and still others simply responding to help the earlier victims.  The attacks were as much symbolic blows to our democratic institutions and principles as they were to inflict human casualties.  Appropriately, America and the world responded in both real and symbolic ways borne out of the values that undergird those institutions and principles.

Americans everywhere responded literally with blood, sweat, and tears.  Citizens donated blood and money in unprecedented amounts.  A tent city of relief workers sprang up in Pentagon parking lots as churches committed to meet the rescuers’ daily needs.  Young people volunteered to enlist in the military, while others sought service through the USA Freedom Corps; veterans begged to return to uniform.  School children created posters and wrote letters which brought comfort to those returning to work at the Pentagon.

Throughout the Nation, Americans were put to the test as ordinary life became anything but ordinary.  Military retirements and discharges were put on hold.  Reserve and Guard personnel readied for activation and deployment.  Military men and women boarded aircraft for locations they had never previously heard of, clearly acting out their personal and service values as they left behind families, jobs, and security.  Many took on new roles as communities rallied to improve homeland security.  Partisanship, economic differences, and social barriers disappeared.  “God bless America” became more than a cliché, but the unified prayer of the Nation.

These responses sprang from our values.  Definitions which separate one value from another often blur in such moments.  Searchers groping through darkened corridors of the Pentagon, firemen climbing higher in the World Trade Center even as the upper floors were caving toward them, passengers rushing toward the cockpit of a doomed airliner—were those actions driven singularly by values such as “duty,” “honor,” “bravery,” or “service,” or perhaps all of these and others in a patriotic blend?  Throughout that day, thousands more demonstrated values that they never believed they would be called upon to do.  Yet, in none of these displays did anyone stop to ask, “How might I demonstrate core values here?”  Their expressions came naturally, spontaneously built upon conditioned response from earlier exercise of values in the very small matters of life.  For it’s in those smaller experiences we prepare for the greater.

Every day we have opportunity to demonstrate these values in our lives, albeit in ways not so dramatic.  Each value demonstrated prepares us for the next challenge.  While the impact of each may vary, the significance of each does not, for in every instance a value acted upon strengthens the moral and ethical fabric of our personal, civic, and national life.

So as Patriot Day approaches, may we consider its meanings.  First may we honor those patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice on September 11th, 2001, and those who on that day and following labored tirelessly to save others, restore order in the midst of chaos, and bring some measure of justice to those who would demolish not only buildings but civilization itself.   

Second may we recall that the same values that brought us through those darks days were not unique; they were the same rich values present at the founding of the Nation, that led us to weather crises throughout our history, that enabled us to act in defense of freedom at home and around the world, and that empower us to face the unseen challenges of tomorrow.  Patriot Day is a time to recall our collective commitment to maintaining the ideals of freedom, justice, and compassion at all levels of life—national, institutional, and personal.  It is a time to rededicate ourselves to those unique American values which guide our thoughts and actions.   

To be sure, the fight against terrorism and tyranny is never over.  It is not confined to foreign soil, but rages wherever liberty is threatened, even here at home.  It is not fought only on battlefields, but in town halls and legislatures and through ballots boxes across this land.  It is not limited to powerful weapons of war, but to the power of ideas expressed through the God-given rights enumerated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  It is undergirded by those values that Americans have for centuries known and lived.  These are not hollow words, not clichés, not quaint ideals of days past; they are a commitment, a lifestyle, a trust which demands us to live as patriots for the sake of future generations. 

Patriots, be thoughtful, be grateful, be proud, be vigilant! 

There were plenty of losers in this week’s debt deal, but the U.S. military might be the biggest. For three years, this administration has put its radical social policy on the backs of our servicemen and women. Now the President wants to make life even more difficult for our troops by asking our military to pay the price for his failed economy. Since 2009, it’s become a favorite strategy of this administration to use our troops as either leverage for social change or a direct channel to it. Our men and women in uniform have born the brunt of this White House’s agenda despite the unrealistic demands already placed on them. Anyone who’s followed the debt debate knows about the automatic cuts built in to Tuesday’s compromise. If Congress can’t come up with another $1.2 trillion in reductions by November 23, the Pentagon will pay the price–a steep $350 billion now, with the possibility of another half-trillion later on. “I’m sympathetic to the challenges that we face in terms of the deficit,” Secretary Robert Gates said last November. “But the truth of the matter is… the Department of Defense is not the problem.”

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped it from being treated as such. The area of government doing the most is still being punished the hardest. As Gen. Benjamin Mixon (U.S. Army-Ret.) told us earlier today, the military was already anticipating significant cuts that had been designated by Gates earlier this year. “The initial numbers… were going to cause us great difficulties in the Army in completing our duties. Now we’re faced with the potential of an additional round of budget cuts–all because of the failure of leadership to come to the hard decisions during [these] negotiations.” Once again, he said, the military is being offered up as a “sacrificial lamb,” when it’s never had more on its plate. Before he retired, Gates called the President’s budget proposal, which called for another $400 billion in cuts, “catastrophic.” His successor, Leon Panetta, agrees. At a press conference earlier this week, the new Secretary called the downsizing a “doomsday” for our troops, citing the strain already put on our soldiers by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposition in Libya, disaster relief, and national security.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) understands. “Can you imagine anything more irresponsible,” he said, “[than] for the commander-in-chief of the military to promote–not just promote, but insist–on the knowing destruction of the U.S. military as a means to threaten Congress?” Coming out of these Middle East conflicts, Gen. Mixon explains, the military has already sacrificed a lot in terms of personnel and equipment. “We also have a huge debt to repay our veterans,” he said, “especially in health care.” With the possibility of these cuts also comes anxiety about military pay. “The people I’m talking to,” he told us, “say, ‘We’re out here fighting a war, but we still have to worry about whether our families back home will have enough money to live on.’”

For the last 100 years, America has had a tendency, Mixon explained, to scale back the military after a conflict in a way that puts the nation’s security at risk. According to Mixon, the reason America won the Gulf War is because President Reagan rebuilt the military and replenished it to the point that it could effectively engage in Kuwait. Since then, he says, the reason America has had initial success in Afghanistan and Iraq is because the Pentagon was able to leverage our technology. Now, with the military so strained, we have to rely on government contractors. Washington, he said, wants our troops to do more with less. “That’s not leadership.” They take cuts from the military, a frustrated Mixon explained, so that they can use the money for “obtuse programs” like Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately for the nation, this is all part of President Obama’s plan to hollow out the military–starting with its values and ending with its substance.

The leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, once said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” And now Iran stands poised to have its finger on the trigger of a nuclear weapon, yet the Obama Administration continues to remain virtually silent on the nascent threat, all while the clouds amassing over the Iranian Peninsula are growing too dark to ignore.

On June 9th, following news that Iran plans to triple its output of higher-grade uranium, the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement calling for Iran to provide more information about its nuclear intentions and that the country’s nuclear drive is causing “deep concern” to a number of world powers.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.  Heritage’s James Phillips writes that Iran’s uranium enrichment program has increased by 84 percent since 2009, according to a new study by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, and author Greg Jones projects that Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium to fuel a nuclear weapon in about 62 days if it chose to do so.

For more of this report by The Heritage Foundation, visit their site .

Vets beware!“Modest” Tricare fee hike proposed

President Obama’s fiscal 2012 defense budget request brought a few surprises for military retirees.

First, the plan to raise TRICARE fees for working age retirees is more “modest” than retiree advocates had expected, and might be viewed favorably in light of harsher possibilities and the mounting debt crisis.

Surprise No. 2 could discourage 103,000 veterans forced by non-combat disabilities to retire on disability short of serving 20 years. After two tries, this administration no longer is asking Congress to extend “concurrent receipt” eligibility to this large group of so-called “Chapter 61” retirees.

The Obama plan had been to phase in, over five years, some retired pay based on total years served, which would be provided atop current disability pay. Congress the past two years couldn’t find dollars to fund the president’s initiative, citing the effect of pay-as-you-go budget rules.

House Republicans last month tightened those rules even more, disallowing any new entitlement fund by raising taxes. That, and removal of any mention of concurrent receipt in the new budget, appears to kill chances this year that Obama can fulfill his promise to these retirees.

Defense Secretary Robert Gate’s budget plan to control military health-care costs includes: the limited TRICARE Prime fee hike; an automatic adjustment to those fees, starting in 2013, to keep pace with medical inflation; tweaks to pharmacy co-payments; and changes to Uniformed Service Family Health Plans (USFHP) for future enrollees who reach Medicare age.

Here are more details:

TRICARE fees

The increases are small and target only retirees younger than 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. No users of TRICARE Standard, the fee-for-service option, or TRICARE for Life, the prized insurance supplement to Medicare, would see higher fees.

Retirees’ annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for family coverage and by $30, to $260, for singles.

Previous Department of Defense proposals to raise TRICARE fees would have doubled and tripled out-of-pocket costs over several years, and included retirees younger than age 65 using TRICARE Standard.

Congress rejected “much more far-reaching proposals … pretty much flat,” said Defense Comptroller Robert Hale. “We are hopeful that by starting slowly … we will get their agreement.”

Medical inflation

TRICARE Prime fees for retirees would be raised annually starting in 2013 to keep pace with health care costs.

“We likely will not use an index that is identical to the Medicare Part B index,” Defense officials explained. But it will reflect “increases in the cost of medical care” and the methodology will be “fair and transparent.”

The one-time fee adjustment and follow-on indexing to medical inflation are projected to save $434 million over the five-year defense budget program.

When savings are projected out 10 or 20 years, Hale said, “it will have a major influence” on controlling costs.

Pharmacy co-payments

Prescriptions filled on base will remain free. But to encourage greater use of mail order, now called “home delivery,” and to discourage use of far more costly retail pharmacies, drug co-payment charges are to change.

Mail order already is a bargain, providing patients with 90-day supplies of pills rather than 30 dispensed at retail outlets for the same co-payment. But officials want to widen the disparity.

They would end the $3 charge for mail order generic drugs and raise the co-payment for generics at retail outlets to $5, up from $3. Co-payments for brand-name drugs on the military formulary would stay at $9 by mail but would climb to $12 through neighborhood retail pharmacies.

For “Tier 3” or non-formulary brand drugs, the current $22 co-payment would be raised to $25 for both mail order and retail.

The new co-payments could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.

USFHP enrollment

More than 100,000 military beneficiaries are enrolled in Uniformed Service Family Health Plans in six areas of the country. These are former Public Health Service hospitals that Congress designated to be TRICARE Prime providers to enrolled military beneficiaries.

USFHP beneficiaries at age 65 don’t have to enroll now in Medicare. They can remain with the USFHP. That would change for future USFHP enrollees. They would have to go under Medicare, like other military beneficiaries who turn 65, and use TRICARE for Life as second payer.

TRICARE projects this will save $3.2 billion by fiscal 2016.

In presenting the new budget Feb. 16 to the House Armed Services Committee, Gates warned again that “health care costs are consuming an ever larger share of this department’s budget, growing from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.5 billion in this request.”

He said all six members of the Joint Chiefs, in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, “have strongly endorsed these and other cost-saving TRICARE reforms.”

Gates said any proposed change to military health fees “prompts vigorous political opposition. But let us be clear: the current TRICARE arrangement, one in which fees have not increased for 15 years, is simply unsustainable and, if allowed to continue, the Defense Department risks the fate of other corporate and government bureaucracies that were ultimately crippled by personnel costs, and in particular their retiree benefit packages.”

Gates bristled at comments by freshman Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., that raising TRICARE fees at all “was a breach of trust” to retirees who still believe recruiters years ago promised them free health care for life.

“Congress actually settled this issue, in 1995, that it wasn’t free for life,” Gates said. It did so by imposing current fees as the triple option TRICARE coverage began.

“Once you’ve acknowledged that there is going to be a fee,” Gates added, “the notion that the fee would never change is certainly nowhere in the legislation.”

Some in Congress still plan to oppose the fee increases. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., chairman of the Senate military personnel subcommittee, said he views any TRICARE increases as violating “a moral contract between our government and those who have stepped forward to serve.”

To comment, send e-mail to milupdate@aol.com or write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111.

news@timesrecord.com

Last night, nine days after U.S. military operations against Muammar Qadhafi began, President Barack Obama took to the stage at the National Defense University to finally explain his rationale for intervention in Libya’s civil war. He described the brutality of the Qadhafi regime, the United States’ interests in the conflict, the limited nature of U.S. military involvement, and the role the “international community” would undertake in finishing the job in Libya and rebuilding the country. It was a speech more appropriately delivered at the onset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, and unfortunately it’s a speech that leaves a fundamental question unanswered: what’s the way forward?

From the outset of operations in Libya, the best option was always “to minimize the commitment of the U.S. military, look after the best interests of Libya’s civilian population, and limit the spread of terrorism and instability throughout the region.”  While the president promised last night to pursue such a course—the real challenge now begins—and there are still far too few details of how the White House will deliver on these promises.

The tasks going forward that must be accomplished are clear: (1) keeping Qadhafi isolated until he is brought to justice; (2) maintaining a military presence to keep Qadhafi’s forces from going back on the offensive; and (3) identifying, supporting and sustaining a legitimate opposition that brings democracy to Libya, fights the spread of terrorism, and looks after the humanitarian needs and the human rights of the peoples under its control. We knew these before the president’s speech—it is still no clearer on how they will be accomplished other than to turn the responsibility over to the “international community.”

Though the president noted that on Wednesday NATO will assume greater responsibilities for operations in Libya, it remains that U.S. forces are still engaged in combat—and administration officials have acknowledged that will likely continue for months. The Administration has had ample time to develop its plans for the employment of U.S. forces and should be briefing leaders in Congress on them now so that a determination can be made if a resolution to employ force is now required or should be in the future.

While President Obama used last night’s speech to explain (or justify) his Libya rationale, he also used it to take a shot at President George W. Bush’s actions in Iraq, likely in an effort to assure his liberal allies that he is not his predecessor. “Regime change [in Iraq] took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya,” Obama said. This dig on President Bush was gratuitous, unnecessary, and could well be a statement the president comes to regret as much as the “Mission Accomplished” banner draped on the carrier deck after the invasion of Iraq. The president has promised that the “international community” will do all the dirty work from here on out. Before the President takes a bow, he ought to be pretty confident he can deliver on this tall order.

There are some who are likening President Obama’s actions in Libya to President George W. Bush’s foreign policy—the Bush Doctrine. But unlike his predecessor, President Obama has not consulted Congress, has generally failed to communicate his mission, and has demonstrated a willingness to bow to the will of the “international community,” rather than act in the best interests of the United States. The president last night bent over backwards to describe his strong leadership on Libya, but the commander in chief protests too much and has promised a great deal. It will be no small task to build a coalition that can keep Qadhafi isolated until he is brought to justice, prevent his forces from going on the offensive, and bring stability and democracy to Libya while preventing the spread of terrorism. That will take more than a speech and rhetorical reliance on the “international community.” It will take real leadership to deliver on those promises.