mrgrg-ms-talk - Last part of this article MRs under 65

Since 02-11-06

From: MRGRG-MS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MRGRG-MS@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Floyd Sears
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:26 AM
To: !CAG/MRGRG e-mail network
Subject: [MRGRG-MS] [Fwd: [mrgrg-ms-talk] Last part of this article MRs under 65]

A pass-along from Jean Beard. Things are heating up, and we need to continue applying the heat. Goto http://mrgrg-ms.org/fax-it.html and follow the schedule.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     [mrgrg-ms-talk] Last part of this article MRs under 65
Date:     Fri, 10 Feb 2006 05:57:46 -0500
From:     Jean D. Beard <dale98@tampabay.rr.com>

 

The Ledger - Lakeland,FL,USA

Excerpt: Their bosses, added staff members, were already receiving tens of thousands of e-mails and letters from their military constituents. Dr. Rumsfeld and Dr. Bush need to develop better bedside manners.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/NEWS/602090348/1036

Published Thursday, February 9, 2006

Cartoons and Veterans

This is the last part of the article MRs under 65:

Which brings us to another bit of displaced news -- which also relates to the battle-scarred soldier being given more harsh news by the Pentagon brass.

President George W. Bush's proposed $2.8 trillion budget calls for raising insurance costs for military retirees and their families. The increases, which would be applied to retirees under age 65, could more than triple insurance costs to as much as $1,200 more by 2009. After that, the rate hikes would match inflation.

"This is wrong on so many levels," Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, told Army Times. "In the middle of a war, with troops and families vastly overstressed, recruiting already in the toilet, and retention at risk, the Defense Department wants to pay for weapons by cutting manpower and trying to cut career military benefits by

$1,000?

"That's just flat unconscionable," said Strobridge. "Not only is it grossly unfair to the people, but it poses terrible risks for long-term retention and readiness." He added that the administration "is willing to accept 400 to 500 percent cost-growth in weapons systems, then people are not less important."

The increase is meant to steer retirees away from the military medical system and instead use the insurance of a private employer. But at the same time the Defense Department has started that approach, private employers are encouraging workers who are military retirees to use that coverage instead -- sometimes by offering cash incentives.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives sent a letter to the White House saying, in part, "We must demonstrate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when their service ends."

At a recent meeting of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, staff members told defense officials that members of Congress have made it clear that there must be other alternatives than to raise fees for military retirees.

Their bosses, added staff members, were already receiving tens of thousands of e-mails and letters from their military constituents.

Dr. Rumsfeld and Dr. Bush need to develop better bedside manners.

"If It Weren't For The United States Military"
"There Would Be NO United States of America"