| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Military Plans Not Protected Under Obamacare? |
| 2010-03-20 |
| Background: On March 18, 2010, just days before the House votes on the Democrats' government takeover of health care, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) announced he would introduce legislation to preemptively state that TRICARE and the Department of Defense non-appropriated fund (NAF) health plans meet all of the health care requirements currently under consideration by Congress for individual health insurance. TRICARE and the NAF health plans programs provide health coverage to members of the military and their families, military retirees and their families, and employees of U.S. military post/base exchanges. Chairman Skelton even stated he would also insert this legislative language into the national defense authorization bill, reiterating the threat the health care bill currently poses to military health plans. This is an explicit admission that the final Democrat health care bill does not protect these plans. Military Protections Scrapped: The Senate-passed health care bill, which the House is expected to “deem' passed on March 21, 2010, omitted protections for military health plans that were included in the House bill. Specifically, the Senate language does not appear to give the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) health care system specific protection from interference by other government agencies administering the various authorities contained in the massive bill, as it pertains to “minimum essential coverage.' The minimum essential coverage language in the Senate bill does cover “the veterans health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code,' but it is unclear whether that covers veterans' survivors and dependents. The final bill would leave it up to a bureaucrat at the Department of the Treasury to determine whether TRICARE meets the minimum standards under the Democrats' individual health insurance mandate. If that bureaucrat decides against TRICARE, service members and their families would have to buy some other health coverage or pay a penalty. In an effort to bolster support for the House health care takeover back in August 2009, the White House advertised that bill's exemption for 9.2 million military personnel, families, and retirees covered under TRICARE and the military health plan. In August, the White House website stated that: Health reform legislation that is being considered would enable those who are covered by TRICARE to meet the shared responsibility requirement for individuals to have insurance, thereby exempting such members of the uniformed services and dependants from being assessed penalties. If enacted, the President will ensure that this exemption is implemented aggressively. Of course, the final health care bill does not include this promised exemption for military plans. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #11 "You guys are scared of a FYFY, lex. No charge. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-03-20 23:19 |
| #10 Hope you're right Lex. But Glenmore looks to me to be very right too. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2010-03-20 23:13 |
| #9 1979 was only partly energy-driven. We also had structural inflation @ IIRC 13%. It was deeply embedded in every part of the economy, and it took three wrenching years of Volckerite root-canal policies to uproot these structural factors from the economy. You may be right on the bank/finance damage-- it really does seem as if the bankers and their cronies have captured the regulatory apparat, and are just arbitraging the state to the tune of hundreds of billions-- but I'd still say the real economy is much stronger in many crucial ways than it was in 1979. At that time it was not at all clear that American business would ever be competitive again. over the next two decades American managers retooled, refocused, got MUCH more efficient, got a lot smarter, and attained extraordinary advances in productivity. Our firms are without question better off than they were in 1979. Even Ford and GM will come out of this better off than they were a few brief years ago. Ford's already a better company for it. Also, related to the above, at our backs we've got the wind provided by a very sharp increase in immigration by brilliant engineers and scientists from around the world since 1979. Most of them into new high tech companies like Intel Cisco Genentech MSFT Oracle Google etc which, if you look closely, are going from strength to strength. They're loaded with cash, unrivalled in their fields, and even (in Google and Genentech's case) on a hiring spree. Old saying: in good times, be cautious. In bad times, be confident. We've seen worse. The pendulum will swing back. Barry simply doesn't have the numbers. His coalition's finished. You guys are scared of a mouse. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-20 19:51 |
| #8 lotp - aren't you supposed to be doing something else besides ranting today? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-20 19:49 |
| #7 As is Nancy D'Alessandro Pelosi, whose father and brother were mayors of Baltimore and whose father was later elected to the House. Our esteemed host Fred can probably contribute some choice observations about the way business is done in that city. And - agreed re: how Obama got to his position. On both counts. |
| Posted by: lotp 2010-03-20 19:47 |
| #6 I disagree, lex. 1968 was worse from a public posturing position, but it was all 'fake' - driven by selfish/cowardly spoiled kids. The civil rights progress was real and worthwhile, though later abused and corrupted. 1979 was energy supply driven. This is too, though we haven't yet seen the full impact. When we do, assuming China doesn't collapse, the impact will be greater. And we have nowhere near the underlying economic strength to recover that we had then. The bank/finance damage is worse than anything since 1929, and quite possibly even including then. We face a long, painful recovery. Initially I thought Obama was a mixed bag - that the positives might mostly offset the negatives - but he has ignored the potential positives (eg. race model) and accentuated the negatives (victicratization), and he seems much less intelligent than his nominal credentials would have suggested (see Prof. Gates discussion re affirmative action elsewhere). He has however shown just how he got where he is - he is a superb political machine operator out of the LBJ mold. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-20 19:38 |
| #5 Not me. You guys really need to chill. I come here to rant as much as anyone else, and I've despised the Barry phenom since I first became acquainted with it in '04, but really, we'll get through this. 1968 was worse. 1979 was a LOT worse. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-20 19:24 |
| #4 Anyone else starting to see the need for the cartridge box? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-03-20 19:10 |
| #3 TRICARE was good enough for the soldier and veteran but falls short of the coverage enlightened objectives of OBAMACARE? I believe I am beginning to get the picture. I have a feeling TRICARE will soon be history. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-20 16:22 |
| #2 ...Don't expect DOD or DVA to utter so much as a whisper against this - DOD in particular has been quietly looking for a way out of dependent and retired medical care for 15 years now, and they're not going to argue with this. Bastards. Mike |
| Posted by: MikeKozlowski 2010-03-20 16:16 |
| #1 The old battle cry "Take the hill!" is now "Take the Hill!" |
|
Posted by: |