Mag. Gen. (Ret.) Kevin J Sullivan
Standard-Examiner
Monday, March 21, 2012

My comments respond to the "Thumbs up, thumbs down" editorial of March 19, which gave a thumbs down to "some military retirees who are upset that TRICARE fees and co-pays may be raised." It went on to say that "...the facts are that if TRICARE fees are not raised, the consequences will include a severe cut in active duty personnel in the military."

The reality is that portions of the recent Department of Defense budget proposal for TRICARE are actually opposed by a consortium of over 30 nationally prominent uniformed services and veteran's organizations representing 5.5 million current and former military members and their families. Included in this group are the Air Force Association, Association of the United States Army, Association of the United States Navy, Gold Star Wives of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Wounded Warrior Project (A full listing has been provided to the Standard-Examiner Editorial Board).

The budget proposal in question would phase in significant fee hikes for nearly every segment of the military population, and would affect retirees of all ages, drilling Guard and Reserve members as well as currently serving family members. In total, $13 billion in health care costs would be shifted to military retirees over the next five years. These dramatic fee hikes constitute a serious breach of faith with currently serving troops and families by cutting their future health care benefits as well as imposing a major "bait and switch" change on those who have already completed 20- to 30-year careers, induced by promises of benefits no longer there.

The TRICARE budget proposal would also introduce "means testing" into the TRICARE fee structure, aligning some TRICARE fees to retirement income. This would not only penalize longer and more successful service by the progressive reduction of health care benefits, it would make military health care benefits the only federal employee retirement program to be so structured.

Should this proposal be enacted, TRICARE fee increases after FY16 would be indexed to "medical inflation," which has averaged 6.2 percent annually over the past 20 years. This percentage is well above increases in retired pay over the same period, virtually ensuring that military retiree health care costs will continue to outpace pay increases for the foreseeable future.

Finally, and most importantly, the idea that raising TRICARE fees is necessary to protect active duty force levels, simply because both are funded by DoD, defies logic.

This implies that the only way to cut the cost of national defense is on the backs of those who have already served their country for 20 or more years.

The reality of the current budget proposal for TRICARE is that it unfairly targets the military population, both active and retired, in order to meet arbitrary DoD budget reduction targets. While I believe most military retirees would agree there is a need for some proportional increase in their fair share of healthcare benefits over time, that's not what's on the table now.

Further, insinuating that military retirees who oppose portions of this unfair proposal are putting active duty strength levels at risk is not only wrong; it's offensive to men and women who have already demonstrated their commitment to our national defense through long careers in military service.

Sullivan is a retired AF Major General who served at Hill AFB in the Ogden Air Logistics Center on two occasions; as Chief of the Munitions Division and Director of the Aircraft Directorate in the early 90s and as the Commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center from July 2003 until June 2007. He currently resides in Ogden.