Admiral Mike Mullen: Cost of military health care is 'not sustainable'

[unhappycamper]

U.S. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, at a Monitor breakfast with reporters Sept. 29.


Admiral Mike Mullen: Cost of military health care is 'not sustainable'
By Francine Kiefer / September 29, 2010

Like business and government in America, the US military is also burdened with the soaring cost of health care. "It's just not sustainable," said Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, at a Monitor breakfast with reporters today.

He ticked off the rocketing rise in the Pentagon's health spending: about $19 billion in 2000-2001, over $50 billion now, an estimated $64 billion in four or five years. One of his answers to the challenge is higher co-payments that apply to military retirees and their families (active-duty personnel don't pay health fees). The co-pays haven't been raised since 1995.

Admiral Mullen, prepare for a tough fight.

While Americans may be in a heightened state of alert about national deficits and debt, Congress has consistently resisted attempts to raise out-of-pocket health costs for the military. Yet "everybody knows that we're being eaten alive by health care," said Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, last month. He plans to include higher premiums in next year's proposed defense budget. Premiums, like co-pays, have not been touched for 15 years.

Personnel costs, including health and retirement benefits, are by far the largest part of the Pentagon's budget. At the breakfast, Mullen said he was "extremely concerned" about rising personnel costs. In August, an independent, high-level panel called for an overhaul of military pay and benefits. But the subject is so explosive, the panel suggested another bipartisan, high-level commission to study the issue and take recommendations to Congress.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Higher copays shift the cost of health care, but they do not control it

This is a pass the buck solution.

If you want to reduce the cost of military health care, have fewer war related injuries.

Better yet, have fewer wars.

[pinboy3niner]

3. +100

The time to think about the costs of war--human and economic--is before you decide to start one.

[nightgaunt]

27. Wish the corporatists and their lackeys did that

Republicans have already shown (with DINOS)that the troops are only supported when they go to fight the corporate based wars. After that they are dumped by the wayside unless mainly Democrats (not the DINOs) fight for their economic and health coverage protection.

The ones who plan and set the wars into motion do not count human lives, on any side, as any psychopath and near psychopath would. The bottom line isn't human life or a good peace.

[The Uncola]

17. Perfect answer!

Just stop sending our troops into meat grinders for the benefit of the Corporate Elite. Problem solved.

[n2doc]

19. and fewer troops, bases, etc. n/t

[area51]

21. +1

The military is being used as a jobs program in this country.

[mcollins]

23. That does nothing to stem the cost of retirement or

old age health care costs.

[Xipe Totec]

26. I'll gladly listen to your solution

if you have one to offer.

The way I see it, a smaller army means fewer retirees, which means lower total costs.

[mcollins]

28. My solution to rising military retirement costs?

No more military.

[liberal N proud]

2. What a bunch of bullshit

Maybe if we would have had single payer reform, it would not be a problem General!

[Solly Mack]

4. Uh...wow.

[madokie]

5. And the reason for this is

the big tax cuts enacted by the assholes who brought us these last two unnecessary wars. My war was unnecessary too come to think of it.

Generals, Admirals you go lead your men into battle and maybe the outcome will be different, Different in that we wouldn't be so quick to war if they had to lead the charge.

[malaise]

6. Then reduce the size of the military

and stop the fucking wars. You break it you bought it.

[Supersedeas]

29. Bullets (and all the accessories) or Butter

[ladjf]

7. If we can't afford to take care of the health of military personel, then

our military is too large. nt

[lldu]

8. So it is Ok to send our folks to war....

you just don't want to take care of them when they get hurt or when they retire.
They are FOOLS! Taking care of the wounded IS A COST OF THAT WAR!!!

We still have WWII costs because we are taking care of wounded WWII vets. ....and rightly so! We send them to war, we take care of the wounded.

GOD! GATES IS LIKE ALL THE REST, cut costs by moving the expense to the military personnel. Did they get hurt? Hell, let them pay for their own medical. That way it costs less.

WHAT ASSHOLES!

Next thing you know, they will have personnel sign contracts saying that if they get hurt, they will cover their own costs.

Sorry for the rambling. It just makes me mad to see these folks try to balance the budgets on the backs of wounded and retired veterans.

Nuf said.

[Gaedel]

13. What per cent of military health costs for wounded?

I would imagine that the greatest percentage of WWII vet health costs (VA budget not DOD budget) go to health problems of aging vets and not to care of wounded vets. Admiral Mullen is not concerned with the costs of those wounded now, he is concerned with the costs of the aging retirees (which does come out of the DOD budget) and he is proposing a co-pay for them.

Dependent and retiree health care are the expensive things for the military health system.

Disclosure: My wife and I are over 65 and have Medicare backed by TriCare for Life. I haven't paid anything except for dental care since I turned 65.

[lldu]

20. Good for you.

I am retired, but have a ways to go before either Medicare or tricare for life.
My first wife had both as she was on dialysis (god bless her soul).
If she hadn't of had it, her last hospital vist, where she died, would have cost me over 250,000 dollars.

God Bless you for your service!

[TwilightGardener]

24. I agree--retiree and dependent health care are probably bigger costs

than war-wounded. And to this I say: tough shit. Either figure out a way to deliver decent affordable care while controlling costs, or cut other things out of the budget to pay for it. Many career military were/are IN the military for promised health and retirement bennies, exclusively--and they upheld THEIR end of the bargain. I'm not weeping for the DoD.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Maybe if so many weren't getting maimed for life in war!!!

:mad: :mad:

[librechik]

25. ++1000++

[Ganja Ninja]

10. "Mullen said he was "extremely concerned" about rising personnel costs."

So what's next, terminators?

[glitch]

15. Probably. More drones, eventually run fully by drones. Only generals will get medical and pensions.

I always thought the Matrix movie should have had a tiny sniffy dessicated atrophied elite cabal behind the machines. Modeled on the Koch brothers, or the Cheneys and the Bushes, and their friends.

[Supersedeas]

11. who do the rich want to squeeze--from laborer to soldier--they owe us all and want lower taxes too

[Jeffersons Ghost]

12. K&R

[Toucano]

14. Send hundreds of thousands of men and women to be maimed and mutilated in battle

since 2001 and then cry that their healthcare is unsustainable.

Fuckers should have thought of that before hand.

[driver8]

18. Exactly! How about less money wasted on weapons we don't need...

and more money spent on the people who sacrifice so much to serve?

Typical government bullshit.

[Octafish]

16. Hey, Mikey! End the illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars and you'll find the money.

Same for the rest of us, if your "bosses" nationalize the healthcare system.

[JackRiddler]

22. Now all he has to do is cut out "health care" and he speaks the truth.