Obama Cuts Military Healthcare: Austerity or Insult?
Fef
2012/02/27 21:58:04
|
|
|||||
|
30 votes
|
|
11% | |||
|
244 votes
|
|
89% | |||
President Obama's promise of less expensive has failed to deliver. Private insurance rates have skyrocketed to comply with the requirements of "free" services and benefits like free contraceptives for nuns. Now Obama wants to raise the cost of healthcare costs to the military, but only uniformed soldiers and not the unionized civilians. The Washington Free Beacon reports:
The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.A congressional aide described the cuts as far-reaching and unbalanced with the national budget. “We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity... But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”
If Obama wanted real austerity (policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided), he would apply the higher costs to the unionized civilians. Obama's targeting of the fighting force and his disproportionately high targeting of the military insults the men and women who defend America's freedoms.
Read More: http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/
Top Opinion
-
Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/02/27 22:12:00Insult
+18That's our leader....give to those that will kill their babies but won't to those that fight to save lives.
Oh , and for those that think certain people hate being in the military ,... it's because we are the only ones drafted .
Remember all the songs : war pigs ; I ain't no senators' son ; etc. = the false con$ervatives are NOT the ones that actually go out and die for our country ,... which WW II was the last war NOT sending us , for the financial gain of the false con$ervatives .
Liberals think the can be diplomatic towards evil people. They never learn. They can't understand that someone is or has made sacrifices so they can sit in the cafe and drink their latte !
This has to be approved by Congress yet so may not happen.
I agree that we do not need to police the world. I favor less conflicts. we should not have been involved in Libya as it is up to them to resolve what is going on there. I don't think we should be involved in Syria. these are areas we don't understand. we get involved and then the muslim brotherhood takes over and then we have a radical anti-western state on our hands worse than what we started with.
at the same token Iran having nuclear weapons is not good. I like it that we are in the straight of Hormuz. I recognize that there is evil in the world. too many people put their heads in the sand. I would prefer a diplomatc solution for sure.
there has to be a balance somewhere. China has a growing military and Russia is getting strong again. having nukes makes a nice balance. going down to 300 nukes might not be a good idea. as soon as someone thinks they have an advantage there could be trouble.
how about this....peace through strength !!!!
(that gesture was certainly a factor in the Grits' 1984 loss).
“These proposals are a result of last August’s Budget Control Act,” said Joint Staff Director VADM William Gortney (USN) at a briefing for association leaders.
According to DoD officials, the Budget Control Act created a requirement to cut the defense budget by $259 billion over 5 years and $487 billion over 10 years – a requirement MOAA understands all too well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(For reference only)
The agreement, entitled the Budget Control Act,[1] passed the House on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161; 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.
The Senate passed the agreement on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26; seven Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it
Only Obama's fault huh, alot of people seem ignorant when it comes to this.
Congress approved it, it was a spending Bill from the House.. Ok,
Damn SH, Its raining Lansing Mi.
Why doesn't F just say where he thinks its from?
Instead its Blah, Blalh,blah blay ......
Except for home prices, and the rise of gas because of Iran and rest of the Middle East, things are getting better.
Add to that the poll yesterday that says Obama leads both Romney and Santorum by double digits...
Obama will be re-elected in November...no problem.
Been to the grocery store lately?
Like 50% less?
40% less?
30% less?
More like 5 - 10%, and while not good, certainly isn't "drastic."
As for getting to the polls...I'm sure conservatives and Republicans will pinch and save all their pennies to buy gas in November...not that it'll do them any good.
If they're smart, they take the scenic route...they'll always be able to say they had a nice drive to the polls on that Tuesday, but not much came of it in regards to their candidate being elected.
LOL with the prices of every single thing you buy increasing because of policy from the 0WEbama administration he is toast. By election day gas will be $6.50 a gallon at the cheap gas stations.
Everyone knows gas pricing, for the most part, is set globally, and not by the US. And certainly not by the President.
If you don't know that, I suggest you study up on it a bit, and come back better prepared next time.
I filled my tank every 3 weeks and was shocked Bush had to fight with the DEMOCRATS on expanding oil drilling.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2...
Why do you clowns always try to change history?