Military budget eaten by health, benefit costs

Charles Lane: Military budget eaten by health, benefit costs
Read more: http://www.lenconnect.com/article/20140907/Opinion/140909269#ixzz3CjoxukAr
" The CBO reported in January that the Defense Department’s health-care costs will rise from $49 billion in 2014 to $70 billion in 2028 (in inflation-adjusted dollars). That is an increase of about 40 percent in real terms; as a result, health care will account for 11 percent of the defense budget in 2028, up from an already astounding 9 percent today.
The mainspring of this spending growth, the CBO found, is the increasingly generous benefits Congress has bestowed on military retirees — not the cost of taking care of active-duty servicemembers and their families."

Read more: http://www.lenconnect.com/article/20140907/Opinion/140909269#ixzz3Cjp63x8F

No votes yet

What's the problem, Mr-Not-So-Independent? You wanted a grossly huge welfare state. That means a huge welfare class in each socio-economic sector. Lots of welfare collectors in the ghettos. Lots of welfare collectors in the corporations. Lots of welfare collectors in the military. Welfare collectors EVERYWHERE. Why is this annoying to you? It's what you wanted.

It's the COST of health care in America which is the issue. As a percent of GDP, the U.S. spends an outrageous 17.6% on health care. The next highest developed nation is the Netherlands at 12.1%, which is 31.25% LESS than the United States spends. AND, life expectancy is longer in the Netherlands than in the United States.
In other words, the United States does NOT have the best health care in the world. But we DO have the most expensive health care in the world BY FAR. The more we spend on health care, the less we have to spend on productive innovation, infrastructure, education, research and development, I could go on...

Cost is an issue. And I never claimed the USA has the best care system in the world... since it doesn't, it's far from that. But the legions of fully-covered workers of our government are bleeding us dry. A sensible system would have dropped these people off of the health-care rolls when costs got too high. Across the board. But that's not what our government is, 'sensible'. Our government has become a 'safe harbor' for legions of people who want something for nothing. Paycheck collectors who park themselves at desks, counting the days until they can collect another check called "retirement" and then don't even need to show up at that desk.

I was in the military, please remember. I know there's a lot of slack built into that system. This is what happens when you allow a huge (i.e. Liberal) government to arise. So these massive expenditures are a natural and inevitable consequence. A blind man can see this. A child can see it coming when you tell him the basic facts. I warn you Liberals about this all the time, but you refuse to admit it. That makes Liberals less capable than cripples and kids.

So please confirm for us that you are including your fellow Republicans Reagan and Bush Jr. in with "LLLLiberals", since they just loved them some huge military budgets, and Dubya also expanded Medicare (Part D).

Firstly they aren't my fellows. Libertarians are.

Secondly here's how it works: Republicans say not to cut the military, Social Security and industrial credits. Democrats say not to cut all the other stuff. So they're in the same room, and the "compromise" is that nothing really gets cut, and the federal budget expands in the long term by an average of 8.5% per year, beating the heck out of the long-term inflation and population growth rate of 3.5%. The "compromise" is to borrow the difference and stick the future generations with the bill.

This is a true bipartisan problem. But the problem at its root is that the two parties act as one party, which should be named the Heavily-borrowing Welfare-Warfare Party (HWWP*). And that one party is killing us. And you refuse to fix it.

* Pronounced like you're making a vomiting sound, and that's no coincidence.

Pardon me, Mr. Voted-Republican-In-The-Primary-Thus-Becoming-A-Republican, but I'm already on record on here and before on TT on how to reform the election system MULTIPLE TIMES, and yet all you have is bitching about LLLiberals. Regime change starts at home, stop blaming LLLLiberals for everything and stop voting GOP if you truly believe what you spew here.

I reform the election system by voting consciously, unlike you. You're just one of the 95% or more who vote either a mainline party, or "against" the other guy, which only means you vote a mainline party.

Regime change starts with yourself, each person's self, by obliterating either-or political choices. You refuse to change that yourself. Ironically you're the problem here, not myself.

In other words, I vote for candidates by their professed goals. I even voted for Nader (twice) even though his ideas about guns are total horseshit. You vote for an ideology or against an ideology. So that means you either vote for Corporate Candidate #1 or Corporate Candidate #2.

And you run your mouth on Internet forums as if that will change anything, since all you really hate are Republicans. That makes you just another partisan. Part of the problem. Not the solution.

1990s. But, and this is a BIG but, Clinton's last 4 budgets were balanced. And he, in fact, had significant surpluses his last 3 years as POTUS! If your indictment of compromise, and your contention that Democrats and Republicans ALL support bigger deficits would be correct, the budget surpluses amassed under Clinton would have been impossible!

Furthermore, budget projections during the Clinton years had the U.S. PAYING OFF the national by 2014 -- THIS YEAR! It was the blind ideology and partisanship of W and the conservative majority in Congress which changed federal taxing and spending policies dramatically in 2001, quickly turning surpluses into ever-growing deficits, and plunging us into the Great Recession

Well then, I expect you to vote for a candidate in 2016 who will aim for a budget surplus. However, that candidate won't have a "D" or "R" after their name on the ballot. That's a guarantee. So it becomes a bit of a curiosity for me who exactly you'll be voting for... as well as who you voted for in 2012.

the budget 4 TIMES! In 1964, I supported a "D" who also balanced the federal budget.
[I could not cast a vote in an election until 1968, when I turned 21. That was the minimum age for voting in most states in the 1960s. Hence the line in the 1965 song "Eve of Destruction: " You're old enough to kill, but not for votin.'"]
No "R" has balanced the federal budget since 1960!

I have no idea at this point for whom I will cast my vote in 2016. BTW -- in 1992, I was more of a Paul Tsongas supporter. But, like many, I thought that Bush #41 could not be beaten that year, no matter who got the Democratic nomination. Wrong again, Dale!

More doom and gloom. For anyone who wondered why I have labeled him Mr. Empty Glass, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass gives us all a fresh example.

The military healthcare system is a single payer system.

Just thought I should point that out to you.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.