tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post5062202369606236261..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: GuttedGeorge Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-58487826041721645712014-02-27T13:36:15.552-05:002014-02-27T13:36:15.552-05:00John: The conditions you describe are a legacy of...John: The conditions you describe are a legacy of the shift from on-base healthcare to Tricare, and subsequent cuts in services. <br /><br />More than a decade ago, a former Surgeon General of the Air Force observed that Tricare only came into begin because Bill Clinton gutted military health care in the mid-90s, and spent that money on other programs. This was during the infamous A-76 initiative, which promised huge savings if the military could "civilian-ize" and outsource many functions, including dependent and retiree healthcare. <br /><br />As the former SG observed, a military hospital could perform an appendectomy for about $300--the cost of the surgical pack. The hospital, in most cases, was paid for decades earlier, and the salaries for military surgeons, nurses, med techs, etc., was far below the costs for their civilian counterparts. In fact, the SG estimated that the same simple operation, paid for under Tricare, would cost the taxpayers something like $7000. <br /><br />To keep Tricare funded, military healthcare has been systemically down-sized, with the closing of many facilities, limits on operating hours, etc. But wasn't Tricare supposed to be more cost efficient? What happened to all the promised savings? Instead, we're told that dependents and retirees are bankrupting DoD, due to rising health care costs.<br /><br />To be fair, health care costs have risen across the board for years. And there are limits on military medical care; I began my career as a medic, and can share some real horror stories about incompetent doctors. But in terms of costs, there is no doubt that on-base treatment is cheaper (in most cases) than an off-post civilian provider. The military should have kept its system intact for primary care and simple surgeries, using off-base referrals for more complex cases. <br /><br />Tricare has been little more than a boondoggle for various health care contractors, nothing more. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-6535718419457056212014-02-26T22:52:16.218-05:002014-02-26T22:52:16.218-05:00most bases have clinics with little to no services...most bases have clinics with little to no services, not hospitals. Many have no emergency room or operationing rooms and are woefully understaffed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569467904776637679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-35770805232865802342014-02-26T09:30:00.576-05:002014-02-26T09:30:00.576-05:00Aslamtu, guess you've been over at Think Progr...Aslamtu, guess you've been over at Think Progress, sipping some of the Kool-Aid that claims the Hagel plan "really isn't that bad." <br /><br />In fact, "gutted" is the right word, for a number of reasons. First, the current round of cuts come on top of roughly $1 trillion in reductions that were previously made. Over a five-year period (2010-2015), defense budget authority will drop from $721 billion a year, to around $520 billion. Supplemental funding for overseas contingency ops is also being phased out, so that source of additional funding is also evaporating. There isn't another portion of the federal budget that has been cut that much, and that quickly. <br /><br />But it goes beyond dollars; we're eliminating almost 25% of our combat brigades in the Army; retiring over 300 Air Force aircraft that provide direct support to our ground forces, and idling half of our cruiser fleet. And for good measure, we'll kick another 200,000 trained service members to the curb. Most are departing with 8-14 years of experience, which will create a huge leadership vacuum among those who remain--a gap that will linger for years. After all, today's SPCs and Lts are supposed to be Sergeants and Captains in five years, and reach the grades of E-6 and E-7 (enlisted) and O-4/O-5 (officer) another 5-7 years after that. Filling that experience gap will be difficult; it's one reason we had a hollow military at the start of the Korean War and after Vietnam; many of our best people voted with their feet.<br /><br />And I haven't even touched on other issues, such as our aging aircraft fleet; the Army's inability to develop a new generation of ground combat vehicles, and other impacts of the procurement holiday that began roughly 20 years ago. <br /><br />Gutted is the right word. $600 billion looks very impressive, but the budget isn't that high--and it's shrinking. Moreover, half of the budget goes to personnel costs, including that fiscal black hole/contractor's delight known as TriCare. So, the amount available for the tools of war--and funding operations--is somewhere between $200-$300 billion a year. That is supposedly many times the budget of our most worrisome rival (China), but even that logic is flawed. The PRC doesn't have an open defense budget; the most recent official total $106 billion is roughly half of what Beijing is actually spending, and they've been increasing their budget by double-digit margins in recent years. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-13380840414847806232014-02-26T06:55:43.025-05:002014-02-26T06:55:43.025-05:00I fail to see why a future war with a major power ...I fail to see why a future war with a major power would be short-lived, even if it went nuclear. High-technology, highly-trained militaries would be quickly attrited away, but they would be replaced by low-technology conscript armies. Then, the outcome depends on sheer endurance, and I think Russia, China and Iran are better able to endure than are we.sykes.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10954672321945289871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-80967927643350460182014-02-26T01:25:18.533-05:002014-02-26T01:25:18.533-05:00more than 600 billion dollars a year. gutted? wa...more than 600 billion dollars a year. gutted? wake up.aslamtuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15338300417263100267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-51399316026147142992014-02-25T21:05:26.707-05:002014-02-25T21:05:26.707-05:00Obama and the administration doesn't dislike t...Obama and the administration doesn't dislike those in uniform. Obama and his minions "hate" those who serve. There is no other explanation. There is no other reason. face it folks, we have a man in the presidents office who hates you.OldSarghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08391054336563427915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-59126377942334953582014-02-25T15:18:32.643-05:002014-02-25T15:18:32.643-05:00In an age of military weapons proliferation, the r...In an age of military weapons proliferation, the rise of the PRC, re-emergence of Russia, and proposed unilateral cuts to the U.S. military, sensible people may not believe the administration's rationale is entirely economic.<br /><br />The next war will not be another WW2. It might be over in weeks or months). How could the U.S. ever recover in an age in which an enemy might fight assymetrically? Were China able to leverage the PLA's manpower advantage in a manner catching the U.S. globally short of able-bodied fighters, this footdragging (lawyer stereotype intended) administration would invoke a draft, which by the time trained troops could materialize would be much too little and far too late.<br /><br />As far as Chuck Hagel being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that, he's a great military man, I want you to know that. (adapted from words of the late Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf).<br /><br />POTUS, on the other hand, is a great political tactician. There is no question that active military duty has been a significant source of opposition voters and 2nd amendment folks that administration figures have termed potential terrorists. As suggested in the preceeding paragraph, SECDEF Hagel's proposal is tantamount to irreversable.<br /><br />Remember, such troop cuts also decimate a major source of people who traditionally support our U.S. libertiesVigilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05051789616490005367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-17968637001955121742014-02-25T13:11:36.100-05:002014-02-25T13:11:36.100-05:00Alternate Title:
"Reducing American Exception...Alternate Title:<br />"Reducing American Exceptionalism"Steve in TNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990498448942991511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-71064649321819711512014-02-25T11:29:31.762-05:002014-02-25T11:29:31.762-05:00I would like to present a reasoned response, measu...I would like to present a reasoned response, measured and calculated.<br />Instead, all I can come up with is visceral invective against the scum that occupies this administration and it's lackies (Hagel topping the list).Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.com