It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by jimmyx
It seems that states do better work than the Federal government after all, that is the way is supposed to be, no the other way around.
I apologize for my posts, "grammar" before somebody else bash me for my language, my spell check is playing games with me, but is fun anyway.
reply to post by jimmyx
Too bad the VA has been run by Federal Employees that are for the most part Dems & Progressives.
But, you go ahead and blame the Reps on their piss poor service, terrible management and everything else on not having a certain amount of funding.
Like every Dems/Progressive, the issue has to be the lack of Money going to the Govt agency not performing well.
i'll run with your logic.....let's see... hundreds of thousands more vets, cost of livng going up....yeah...we need to cut back on all that VA money because there is just too much wasteful spending.
reply to post by guohua
You just made my day, I am laughing at that post and yes I have noticed, but sometimes I forget that I should do better with all the years I have here and that darn status under my name that actually was given to me for participating on research along with two other very good members a long, long time ago.
Sorry for stepping out of the subject.
Here's a feature of Obamacare you probably don't know about: A transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars in liabilities to retired public employees from state and local governments to federal taxpayers.
Here's how it's going to work.
States and localities have enormous liabilities in the form of health benefits they have promised to provide to retired workers. (Finance professionals call these benefits OPEB, or "other post-employment benefits.") Most public sector retirees get health plans until they turn 65, and then supplemental coverage on top of Medicare after that.
In most cases, state and local governments haven't prefunded these liabilities at all. As Americans age and health care costs rise, this is becoming a major drain on state and local finances, arguably more important than more-widely-discussed problems with public employee pensions.
Detroit, as part of its bankruptcy plan, wants to stop providing health care to retirees and instead give them each a $125 monthly stipend to buy insurance in the exchange. Currently, Detroit spends $721 per month per retiree on health benefits, so this move will allow Detroit to cut its OPEB liability by 80%.
But it won't just be bankrupt cities like Detroit making the move. Chicago and Rhode Island — governments facing tight fiscal situations but not on the brink of bankruptcy — are considering similar shifts.
Unlike pensions, retiree health benefits are usually not legally guaranteed. Stressed cities and states will see kicking OPEB costs up to the federal government as a politically appealing option because of that legal flexibility.
Even in places where finances are flush, the shift will be tempting. Public employee unions that work together with state and local governments to switch to federal coverage will be playing a positive sum game: Existing benefits can be replaced with a combination of Obamacare coverage and cash that leaves retirees with more income and local governments with lower costs. Only federal taxpayers will get left holding the bag.
Obama to Force Military Families Away From Tricare ...By Tripling Their Fees.
Obama simply insists on tripling their fees on the military health insurance program called Tricare.
What is the administration’s reasoning on this? Well, they actually admit that Obama would rather the troops partake in ‘alternatives’ that were established in the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare). In a report from the FreeBeacon.com, Bill Gertz states:
Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.”
I was paying 582.00 per month. Now thanks to the ACA am paying 116.00 per month beginning Jan 2014.
My situation may be different than some, but bottom line is I'm saving money and getting somewhat better coverage.
I think most of the criticism is coming from people who have no idea what they are talking about.Please do some research before you ramble on with the same old unproven statements.
reply to post by jimmyx
So, now it is the fault of the Republicans.
Hmmmm, where did I see this excuse???? www.realclearpolitics.com...
At least we all know where you get your talking points from.
I guess your next retort will be something like "well, you don't have a solution".
The Republicans didn't vote for it. It is all on Dems and 0bama.
reply to post by marg6043
I'm not sure who warned you about increase because of the ACA but suspect political entity's.
Unless your husband is a retired commissioned officer, I feel very confident that the two of you would qualify for a subsidy. You can check this out on the website healthcare.gov without committing to anything.