Michael Chenoweth

 

The MOAA article is at: 

 

My purpose in writing today is to state as clearly as possible that if we accept the implication of that article and reneg on our promises to our veterans, we, and the members of Congress who purport to represent us, are lying scum not worthy of existence. 

 

After reading Col. Strobridge's article, I did a quick google search for "veterans unfunded liability" and came up with the following 2010 article on an anti-war website by Kelly B. Vlahos:

 

 

Interestingly, I agree with both Col. Strobridge and Ms. Vlahos. 

 

Both of their articles seem to me to state the obvious. We, as Americans, make commitments to many people for actions that are to be carried out in the future by others. To veterans, we promise, in exchange for them risking their lives and physical well-being in service to their country, the honor of wearing the uniform. 

 

But we also promise other things. We promise to pay them. 

 

In fact, the amount we pay to the lower enlisted grades who are most at risk in this modern IED war is far too little. So little, in fact, that married soldiers often have to sign up for food stamps, in order to be able to feed their families. That is a national disgrace.

 

But the biggest thing we promise them is health care, in a nation where health care is frighteningly expensive and has historically been unavailable to the poor or to those with pre-existing medical conditions (such as combat-acquired trauma injuries). 

 

So the first thing this pair of articles brings out is our failure to provide a decent health care system for everyone, including our wounded warriors.  If we had such a system in place and operational, getting appropriate medical care for our veterans would no longer be some special benefit that they would have to earn by risking their lives for their country.

 

The second thing these articles bring to mind is the degree to which our leaders in Washington have been conveniently telling us only those things that they think we want to hear.  

 

Democrats promise not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $200,000 or $250,000 for a family. That probably doesn't have us paying enough taxes. Republicans consistently push for tax cuts for the very wealthiest taxpayers, arguing unconvincingly that those cuts are necessary so that the tax savings can "trickle down" to create jobs. We've watched that argument and have observed that it is false, after 30+ years of tax cuts for the rich. 

 

The truth is that we, as Americans, DO have many unfunded liabilities. We have taken in Social Security payments from generations of working people and spent those revenues on pork projects all over the country, replacing the money with government IOUs.  Paying back those IOUs will require increased taxes on us today and tomorrow.  We have made policy decisions, over many decades, that provide government benefits to many citizens and non-citizens. The US Tax Code is an 80,000 page list of special exceptions to benefit special interests. 

 

If our elected leaders were really speaking the truth, they would all acknowledge that every tax break written into the tax code should be re-examined and eliminated if it isn't really needed today. It is at least a possibility that removing all the unneeded special tax breaks from the Tax Code would raise enough taxes to put the budget into a surplus position, and produce sufficient revenues to meet the collective totals of all the "unfunded liabilities." We need to make responsible changes to all of our expenditures and taxes to insure that America is  sustainable, both economically and militarily, and insure that we have provided revenues sufficient to keep our commitments to our military personnel.

 

One way or another, we need to commit, as Americans, to provide our veterans the benefits we promised them when they agreed to wear the uniform of our nation. I say this as a retired veteran myself, having seen the health care benefits I was promised eroded into unrecognizability. What I was promised was simple enough. If I served until retirement, I would get my health care, and my spouse's, paid for. No qualifications. What has in fact happened is that the military retirees' health care has been hit with fee after fee, and has become a target for those who would cut the federal budget, on more than one occasion.

 

There are two main health care elements for me as a military retiree. The first is the health insurance coverage associated with my retirement.

 

To my surprise, it is no longer my primary health insurance. When I turned 65, that role was eplaced by Social Security Part B. I didn't have any voice in that change. That one costs me $100 per month. Alright, it is only $99.90, but you get the point.  My wife's Social Security Part B is another $99.90 per month. Times 24 equals a cost to me for my "free" military health care of $2,397.60 per year. 

 

On top of the increased cost for medical insurance is the increased cost for prescriptions. My retirement benefit was sold to me as including "free" prescription medicine. That too has gone out the window. I don't kick too much at the relatively modest $3.00 copay for most of the medications my wife and I require, but it is curious that Tricare, the military healthcare system, has unilaterally and arbitrarily removed some of my meds from their "formulary," the list of medications that my prescription benefit covers. So I have to pay extra to get at least some of the meds I require, even though my doctor tells me that there is no generic substitute for at least one of those that has been removed.  

 

Also, the government seems to think that my medical condition doesn't include the condition of my mouth. In order to have dental coverage, I have to buy another insurance policy, which runs over $1,000 a year. So much for the free health care I was promised for making a career of the military. 

 

The other part of my retirement is my military pension, whick isn't enough to live on, but helps with the bills. The increases in my health care costs are, in effect, a reduction in my pension. This is not what I signed up for when I dedicated over 30 years to the military. 

 

So when you hear some politician speak in the future, about "unfunded liabilities" and veterans' benefits in the same breath, think about what kind of person you are, what kind of American you want to be, and whether "support our troops" is something that has real meaning to you, or is only a convenient catch-phrase to justify another war.