Ron Paul: Obama's proposed cuts to veteran health care 'unjust and immoral' (So let's surrender)

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul blasted President Obama's budget-reduction proposal Tuesday, saying that the suggestion to raise co-pays for military veterans is "unjust and immoral."

"Failing to meet the promises we have made to our troops would be unjust and immoral," Paul said in an open letter to Obama. "Our military men and women have fought bravely. In exchange, our country made a promise to them, and we must honor it."

The Obama plan proposes a $200 annual fee for retired military families who want to continue coverage under a Tricare-for-Life program that supplements Medicare coverage for veterans over 65. The proposal would save the government $6.7 billion over 10 years, according to the White House.

The president's proposal would also eliminate co-pays for mail-order drugs and institute a percentage co-pay rather than a flat-fee for in-pharmacy purchases. The White House says the move will encourage military families to use less expensive prescriptions, and save $20 billion over 20 years.

The Pentagon has also said that current retirees would be grandfathered in to the program, and would not face proposed cuts to military pension programs.

But veterans groups have opposed the move, and Paul seized on the issue to hammer the president.

The candidate used the proposal as a jumping off point to reiterate his call for the United States to withdraw from wars in the Middle East.

"Cutting the benefits of our Veterans benefits while we subsidize the security of other wealthy nations like Germany and Japan and play World Policeman makes no sense," Paul said. "The money we would save extracting our fighting men and women and our equipment from overseas conflicts and regions will more than offset the savings you seek by upending the manner in which veterans receive care."

I don’t understand “(So let’s surrender)” comment.

But the recent ideas being floated that military retirement and medical care can be whittled down as if we are just dealing with some over-compensated greedy public employees union is insanity.

A hitch in the military is not like filling a staff position in congress or teaching kindergarten.

People without the guts to cut back on bloated bureaucracies and to push back against corrupt labor unions are only too ready to talk about cutting back on the military.

“The Pentagon has also said that current retirees would be grandfathered in to the program, and would not face proposed cuts to military pension programs.”

In other words, the program changes do not violate promises to veterans who have already retired, who have already been using and relying on the programs as they are today. Their “cost” will be as they were told it would be when THEY retired.

Additionally, if a veteran is also a person of “low income” they are as eligible as all other low-income Americans to all the other programs of income and health care assistance supported by the Federal and state governments. Why the entire tax-payer support burden for such individuals should be presumed to be the sole financial obligation of the Pentagon does not make sense. (If Pentagon changes raise a particular retiree’s out-of-pocket cost for health care but their income level makes them eligible for other programs outside the purview of the Pentagon.)

The retired veterans who will come under the program changes are veterans who on active duty have earned more than their peers in past generations as well. The operational adoption of more and more technology by the military has also made more career active duty personnel today more equipped than their peers of earlier generations to assume productive lives in the private economy.

The military should honor promises made and legitimate obligations to its retired vets. That concept does not presume we cannot change our promises to future retired veterans.

One hundred percent of those promises and obligations should not be required to completely ignore the incomes and the level of need of those eligible for veterans programs. Such considerations can make the benefit dollars go further and help insure that funding levels are most supportive where the need is the greatest.

This is already true for veterans who do not have Tri Care coverage because they were not “lifers”. They can be eligible for health care from the veterans administration, if they need it, but their co-pays for specific benefits can be different, depending on their income. The “promise” of eligibility is not denied. The level of benefit is not different. But the level of financial need is considered when it comes to some co-pays. I have no problem with this policy. I would have no problem with similar considerations for future retired veterans in the Tri-Care program.

All someone needs to do is look at the ballooning portion of the Pentagons budget being consumed by health care benefits.

The link below is not current, but the trend it reported then has not changed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/military_health_care/index.htm

I understand Mr Paul reaching for veterans support after trashing all the missions recent veterans have put their lives on the line to support.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.