Battle of the Bilge

Must Be Election Time

No need to go into deep detail in the introduction for this viral email targeting President Obama for the veterans audience. Battle of the Bilge will be back soon as MOAA once again proves it is a great place to work for and this author will be returning from Paternity leave.

The Email

Wounded Warriors Face New Tax This Independence Day
From John Kartch and Ryan Ellis on Friday, July 2, 2010 12:51 PM

As the nation prepares to celebrate Independence Day with parades and barbecues, America’s veterans face a new tax on prosthetic limbs and other vital medical devices.

The health care overhaul passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama earlier this year contains a new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and wheelchairs. This tax, which its proponents claim will raise $20 billion over the next ten years, contains no exemption for the nation’s 22 million veterans. In fact, Senate Democrats specifically refused to exempt veterans from the tax.

On March 24 2010, Senate Democrats rejected an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to the healthcare bill. This amendment (SA 3644) would have prevented the medical device tax from hitting veterans covered by the Veterans Healthcare Program or TRICARE for Life. This amendment was rejected by a vote of 44-54. All but five Democrat senators voted in favor of retaining the tax for veterans.

The medical device tax was one of over twenty new or higher taxes in President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul. This permanent new tax is being collected now.

“On March 24, Senate Democrats had the opportunity to exempt our veterans from Obamacare’s new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs. But 54 Democrats voted against the measure. They chose to side with the tax-and-spend crowd in Washington over our wounded warriors,”said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “This is one of the many reasons Harry Reid and the Democrats did not want Americans to read the 2,500 page health care bill before it was passed.”

In addition to those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Veterans Affairs reports the following number of veterans from America’s wars:

World War II: 2,079,000

Korean War: 2,507,000

Vietnam War: 7,569,000

Desert Shield/Storm: 2,254,000

No, Just No

First of all, the tax that was approved will be levied against the companies that provide the equipment and prosthetics, not against veterans.

For the beneficiaries, the devices are provided without charge through the VA and are not taxed under TRICARE.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

New Email Regarding Health Care Changes

A new viral email has hit the streets that discusses new taxes on health care provided by private and public employers. While it is rooted in fact, the email leaves out an incredible number of pertinent items, most of all the fact that it won’t go into effect until 2018 and that the actual tax only applies to so called ‘Cadillac’ health insurance plans – those that cost more than $10,500 for individual plans and $27,500 for family coverage. And the tax would only be applicable to anything that exceeds the $27,500 threshold. It also contains a very clear misstatement that the cost of health care will be added to your gross income next year. A response from our Government Relations team follows the viral email.

The Email

You really need to read this……starts nextext year …This is part of the new Health Care Bill.
Contacted my Congressman about House bill HR3590 the health care bill just passed. I asked for a summary of changes.
The aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov ; enter HR3590 in the search Box and look for summaries.
Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of what ever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that’s a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you’re retired, so what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.
You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.
Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That’s what you’ll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it’s even worse.
This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15 % that don’t have insurance and it’s only part of the tax increases.
Not believing this I researched the summaries and here’s what I’m reading:
On page 25 of 29:
TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002. “requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income.”
Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about.
Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November.

MOAA’s Response

This is a classic case of someone taking a fact and twisting it into something else.

Yes, the new law requires an entry on the W-2 showing the cost of employer-provided care.

But that doesn’t mean the employee will be taxed on it. the purpose of including it on the W-2 is mainly to show the employee what the value of the benefit is. As for the tax aspect:

First off, there isn’t any tax on health benefits value before 2018.

Second, there won’t be any taxes imposed on plans that aren’t deemed “Cadillac” plans (which are defined as those costing more than $10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for a family plan)

Third, it’s not the employees, but the insurance companies that provide those plans that will be taxed on part of such value – starting in 2018.

Fourth, the tax won’t be on the total value of the plan. Insurers will be assessed a tax equal to 40% of whatever share of the value exceeds the $27,500 threshold. i.e., if the value of a plan is $30,000, the insurer will be taxed 40% of $2,500 = $1,000.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

“Television to brainwash us all and Internet to eliminate any last resistance.”
- Paul Carvel

The ‘Obama is anti-military’ talking point

You see it in your emails, hear it on the radio and watch it on TV. A concentrated effort to portray President Obama as anti-military. Using terms regarding the president’s actions that range from indifference to the traitorous, opponents of the administration pull out all the stops to make the powerful voting community of military veterans and service personnel and their families and friends firmly believe this.

We’ve seen little reduction in the number of emails circulating and pundits spewing misinformation. Yet each new allegation or poorly supported op-ed piece gets people riled up and helps to confirm the narrative the opposition has been attempting to write. But what has been the reality of how the president has conducted affairs of state since he took office as compared to his campaign promises?

Luckily, the folks over at PolitiFact have had a running ‘Obameter’ to track campaign promises and what has happened since the election. They have a specific subsection of the Obameter dealing directly with military issues.

The Obameter

The system used by PolitiFact is best described from their site:

PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

We rate their status as Not Yet Rated, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

The Obameter collected 33 campaign promises made by then-Senator Obama in his run for the office of the president that were specifically about the military. All 33 promises have been acted on to varying degrees and so far there hasn’t been a single one broken. Many have stalled, some have been kept, there has been one compromise and most are ‘in the works’. Here’s how those promises and ratings break down:

Promises Kept

• Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
• Strengthen and expand military exchange programs with other countries
• Make greater investment in advanced military air technology
• Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
• Appoint a White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
• Bolster the military’s ability to speak different languages

Compromise

• Ensure the Guard and Reserves can meet their homeland security missions

In the Works

• Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq
• Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps
• Increase special operations forces and civil affairs
• Make military deployments predictable for troops and families
• Limit Guard and Reserve deployments to one year for every six years
• End the “Stop-Loss” program of forcing troops to stay in service beyond their expected commitments
• Fully and properly equip troops
• Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
• Review weapons programs
• Modernize ships and invest more in small vessels
• Set standards for when the government should hire defense contractors
• End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war
• Create a system of incentives and penalties for defense contracts
• Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan
• Train and equip the Afghan army
• Better integrate efforts of federal agencies with the military through new Mobile Development Teams
• Spend $5 billion over three years on cooperative programs with foreign intelligence agencies
• Expand federal bioforensics program for tracking biological weapons
• Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy

Stalled

• Create a specialized military advisers corps
• Create a military families advisory board
• Restore 24-month limit on cumulative Guard and Reserve deployment time
• Make National Guard leader a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Establish transparency standards for military contractors
• Clarify legal status for defense contractor personnel
• Call for a consultative group of congressional leaders on national security

I strongly recommend that you visit the site here for more details on each individual issue above.

PolitiFact – Checking the source

While PolitiFact has proven extremely reliable over the years, there are always forces at work behind the scenes that are almost always partisan. So the source of ratings and information must be examined. From their site:

PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.

Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

We also rate the consistency of public officials on our Flip-O-Meter using three ratings: No Flip, Half Flip and Full Flop.

So who is behind the St. Petersburg Times? We follow the rabbit hole down by taking the red pill, mixing analogies, and bring up Google, which leads us to wikipedia (sadly quickly becoming the most fact based source on the internet):

The Times traces its origins to the West Hillsborough Times, a weekly newspaper started in Dunedin, Florida in 1884. By 1912, the paper had been sold six times, had been relocated to St. Petersburg, and was published six days a week. Publisher Paul Poynter bought the paper in September 1912 and published it seven days a week. Paul’s son Nelson Poynter took majority control of the paper in 1947. Nelson Poynter died in 1974, having willed the paper to the Poynter Institute. In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a “usually liberal” newspaper

Another brief stopover in Googleland takes us to a website curiously focused on Russian politics for a Florida newspaper. We kick ourselves for not noticing the .ru extension and click on ‘back’ (ok we checked out that one story first).

With an adjusted search term we find a reliable dictionary that confirms the belief that they are left leaning. Via NationMaster.com:

Encyclopedia > St. Petersburg Times
The St. Petersburg Times is a daily newspaper based in St. Petersburg, Florida, that serves the larger Tampa Bay area. The Times sells 334,742 papers per day Monday through Saturday, making it the largest paper in Florida and the 23rd largest in the United States. On Sunday it sells 420,251 papers, and the Times estimates about 755,000 people read the daily edition, while on Sundays it is approximately one million.

It traces its origins a newspaper that started in Dunedin, Florida, in 1884. Its editorial leanings are generally considered to be liberal, in contrast to its more conservative-leaning competitor, the Tampa Tribune.

The Times is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism school in St. Petersburg directly adjecent to the University of South Florida campus in St. Petersburg. The Poynter Institute is a school and resource for journalism, located in St. Petersuburg. The University of South Florida (USF) is a public university located in Tampa, Florida, USA, with branch campuses in Saint Petersburg.

In comparison to the rest of the pundit and pundit watch universe, PolitiFact is center of the road, especially in this partisan atmosphere. What’s more important however is their track record. And the information they have put out over the past two years especially has been solid, fair and analytical. Watching several sites constantly gives you a good feel for who to trust and who to visit to look for material. PolitiFact is certainly in the former category.

Conclusion/Editorial

So what does this mean to us? That depends on who you are and how you feel about President Obama. There are facts and there are lies, on both sides of the spectrum. But if people believe that President Obama is actively working to harm the military family they probably have not consulted the proper evidence available to them. That information likely came from sources of opposition to the president, and there has been no shortage of misinformation from those sources. By all evidence available and cross checked with other sources, President Obama has been pro-military and pro-military families in his first year and 4 months. The trust level seems to be rising slowly and subtly, but it is on an upward track. Facts have a way of making it out, and are pretty resistant to attempts to destroy them. Even if it takes a long time and usually, unfortunately, it is too long to make a difference and we all give ourselves a collective facepalm. History is full of examples.

(My pre-emptive apologies for offending anyone as well as the usual disclaimer that this is not necessarily an opinion of MOAA in this editorial is by now a tacit understanding, right? If not or you are new to the site, there you go.)

Our political and social leanings determine our level of enjoyment of sources, and we naturally trust those sources to provide correct information. We associate debunking and counter-propaganda with the ‘other side’. It is the nature of Americans to be as competitive as possible at all times. We don’t have a realistically existential threat to the nation right now, so as usual we become more competitive with each other and protective of the borders, and as we have seen recently we sometimes combine them for an extra level of strife. Let’s just keep the fringes on the fringe and make sure rhetoric doesn’t lead to violence and going places we won’t be able to come back from as a nation. So question everything, all the time. Post your counter evidence and speak your mind, or do like most people have and leave it all behind and speak from your gut with the assumption that the other person is lying. But at the end of the night, everyone turn off their computer and get some rest. We all need it.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

Good News Out of Congress

It is rare that I get a chance to say that. But this is definitely good news. I’ll share with you the information provided by our director of Government Relations:

Military Care Exempt from Health Care Reform

Colonel Strogridge provided a Congressional Quarterly article and highlighted the important parts. Reprinted here and is available to CQRollCall subscribers, which can you can sign up for here:

__________________________________________________
Senate Sends President Bill Affirming Military Health Insurance Plans As ‘Minimum Coverage’

By Niels Lesniewski, CQ Staff

The Senate cleared a measure Monday designed to reaffirm that military health benefits programs qualify as minimum coverage under the recently enacted health care overhaul legislation.

The health care overhaul law (PL 111-148) sets up a new definition of “minimum essential coverage.” The law requires all individuals to obtain this minimum level of health insurance or be subject to a penalty tax.

The legislation (HR 4887), which cleared by voice vote, would ensure that certain Defense Department health programs, including Tricare coverage for military families, fit the definition.

In an April 2 message to colleagues, Charles L. Rice, acting director of Tricare, reiterated the Obama administration’s interpretation that the Tricare program already met the essential coverage definition.

“Some unfortunate misinformation began to spread that somehow Tricare benefits would be lost. I continue to work with our public affairs office and beneficiary organizations to squelch those rumors, and I think we are succeeding,” the letter stated. “But, I ask that you and your staffs remain vigilant and respond quickly to basic errors of fact, or misunderstandings.”

Senate budget rules prevented the Tricare protection from being added to the reconciliation law (PL 111-152) that changed provisions of the original health care overhaul.

Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from Missouri, said that although he voted against the health care overhaul legislation, he felt it was his duty as chairman of the Armed Services Committee to protect servicemembers and their families. The House passed the bill, 403-0, on March 20.

Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat representing Virginia and the sponsor of the Senate companion measure (S 3148), wanted to clear the House measure before the two-week spring recess, but senators left Washington without taking up the bill.
__________________________________________________
Note: emphasis added

An End to the Email Saga?

We hope so. But reality being what it is, the battle will probably now shift to private armies, gun control and other hot button issues.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

Health Care Bill Q&A

In response to rumors and a flood of inquiries, MOAA put their legislative and communications teams together to provide answers to some of the most prevalent questions we’ve received this week. The Questions & Answers given below were transmitted to all subscribers of MOAA’s bi-weekly e-newsletter News Exchange. Anyone wishing to stay on top of important issues such as these are encouraged to subscribe to News Exchange or our weekly Legislative Update by visiting here. And if you’ve held a commission in the military and aren’t a member yet, see the ‘Join MOAA’ link at the top of this page.

General Effects on TRICARE and VA care

Q: I heard the new legislation will roll TRICARE into a massive government health care program. Is this true?
A: Definitely not.

Q: I’ve seen message traffic saying the new legislation poses a “sneak attack on TRICARE.” Is that true?
A: The Senate bill language has been public for months, and we don’t believe there was any intent to disadvantage TRICARE beneficiaries, though it didn’t explicitly state that TRICARE is “qualifying coverage.” Just to make it clear, the House unanimously passed separate legislation on March 20, deeming TRICARE as “qualifying coverage” under the new law. The Senate is expected to pass the same legislation shortly. Defense Secretary Gates has issued a statement asserting that health reform “won’t have a negative effect on TRICARE.” Everyone in the Administration and in the House and Senate, of both parties, agrees TRICARE and VA coverage must be held harmless. But there’s been inevitable debate among legislators about who cares most and who’s doing what to protect troops and vets.

MOAA doesn’t care who gets the credit for making sure TRICARE is protected, and we take political hyperbole on both sides with an appropriate grain of salt.

Q: What does deeming TRICARE as “qualifying coverage” mean?
A: Under the new legislation, people who don’t have qualifying coverage will have to pay a financial penalty. Since TRICARE and VA coverage will be qualifying coverage, those beneficiaries won’t be subject to the penalty.

Q: How about VA care?
A: The new legislation states that care rendered under title 38 of the US Code (VA care) is also qualifying coverage.

Q: I’ve seen message traffic saying that the new law will end TRICARE as of 2014, and that TRICARE beneficiaries will then have to buy other coverage. Is that true?
A: That’s definitely NOT true. There’s nothing like that in the new law.

Q: Can I expect my TRICARE enrollment fee, premiums, deductibles or co-pays to go up because of this legislation?
A: No, there’s nothing in the legislation that would change any TRICARE fees. That said, it’s unrealistic to think that TRICARE fees will never go up, even if retired pay doubles or triples over a retiree’s lifetime. But it will be deficit concerns and DoD budget problems, not national health reform, that drive any future changes in TRICARE fees.

Q: What’s MOAA doing to make sure beneficiaries aren’t negatively affected by the national health reform legislation?
A: MOAA has pushed House and Senate leaders for much of the past year to make sure that language was included in any health care debate to protect the unique nature of military and VA health benefits and prevent taxation of those benefits. We’ve generated more than 100,000 messages to Congress on that topic so far – more than any other association. That strong membership support has gotten results, as the combination of legislation already passed and legislation about to be finished by the Senate substantially accomplishes those objectives.

Effects on TRICARE For Life and Medicare

Q: Is TFL also “qualifying coverage” under the new law?
A: Yes. Both Medicare and TFL are expressly deemed as such under the legislation already passed by both the House and Senate.

Q: I understand Medicare is cut $500 billion under the new law. Won’t that have to cut payments to doctors and threaten TFL?
A: It’s true that the new law reduces Medicare spending by about that much, but most of those changes are relatively less painful ones that probably won’t affect TRICARE or TFL beneficiaries much. They include $118 billion from eliminating the extra subsidy to the Medicare Advantage HMO program (which was sold to Congress as a cost-saver, but actually costs 14% more per person than Standard Medicare), cutting about $150 billion from non-rural hospitals (which the hospital associations say they can handle because expanding insurance coverage to most Americans will mean they won’t have to eat the cost of serving the uninsured), and cutting back abuses in medical equipment (under current systems, Medicare will buy you a wheelchair you may only need a few months, or allow a company to rent you one for life for a permanent condition). These are things most of us would probably push to consider if it were our own money paying for them (which it actually is).

Q: Are you saying that the funding cut won’t affect Medicare beneficiaries at all?
A: No. But the implications are probably longer-term ones than shorter-term ones. The real issue under national health reform is that the money from these Medicare savings will be used to fund expansion of health insurance coverage to those who don’t have it now instead of being used to pay for needed fixes to Medicare. It’s hard to argue that reducing the number of uninsured would be a bad thing. But using the relatively “easy” Medicare savings initiatives to fund that means that when the baby boomers start swamping Medicare and Social Security in the next few years, Congress will be forced to look at more painful ways to fund that need. And that’s something that will be considered by the debt commission that is supposed to make recommendations by Dec. 1 on how to reduce the national debt. It’s that coming commission that we think will really create some tough options for all Americans, and the military is unlikely to escape unscathed. We’ll be keeping an eye on that and keeping our members informed.

Medicare/TRICARE Payments to Doctors

Q: Is it true that the new legislation cuts payments to doctors by 21%?
A: No, that’s NOT true. In fact, it’s PREVIOUS law that calls for a 21% cut in Medicare and TRICARE payments to doctors as of April 1. Congress is working on separate legislation to prevent that from happening.

Q: What’s the status of legislation to reverse the 21% cut in Medicare/TRICARE payments to doctors?
A: The Senate has passed legislation putting off the date of the cut from April 1 until October 1. The House has passed legislation putting it off only until May 1. Our sources tell us the Senate will pass the May 1 legislation. One problem is that Congress is scheduled to take a two-week recess, and the April 1 deadline will occur right in the middle of the recess. So the short-term solution likely will be to “kick the can” for a month and take it up again when Congress returns after recess. Getting a longer-term fix for the doctor payment problem remains MOAA’s #1 health care priority.

Q: Are there any changes in the new law that will affect payments to providers?
A: Yes, there are some changes to periodic “market basket” and other assumptions that affect annual adjustments. These would generally tend to dampen annual increases over time, based on the assumption that productivity will improve over time. This is probably a weak assumption, given past experience with such things. If the expected productivity increases don’t materialize, Congress may have to revisit these assumptions in the future. On the other hand, the new legislation sustains a 5% increase in payments to mental health providers.

Physical, Speech, and Occupational Therapy

Q: Does the new legislation do anything to fix the current $1,860 cap on annual Medicare payments for outpatient physical, speech, and occupational therapy?
A: Yes, the new legislation allows an exception to the cap (until Dec. 31, 2010) for medically necessary therapy. That’s a big relief for accident and stroke victims who can run up big therapy bills quickly. But it means we’ll have to get another extension before the end of the year.

Coverage for Children until Age 26

Q: I understand the new health care bill allows adult children to stay on their parent’s healthcare plan until age 26 if their employers don’t offer insurance. Will TRICARE adopt this policy?
A: Yes, we expect TRICARE will do that.

Q: When would I be able to take advantage of that new TRICARE option?
A: It’s hard to say at this point. In all likelihood, it will take a law change, and the vehicle would be the FY2011 Defense Authorization Act, which probably won’t become law until at least October, if not later. Then, the Pentagon would have to negotiate a change to the TRICARE contract and issue new regulations, and get computers and finance systems changed. For past changes, that has taken anywhere from 12 to 24 months. So it could be 12 to 24 months or more before the change takes effect for TRICARE.

Q: Is there anything I can do now to cover a child who is about to “age out” of TRICARE?
A: Yes. TRICARE already offers coverage for people who lose TRICARE eligibility because of separation or children who lose eligibility because of age. It’s called the Continued Health Care Benefit Program (CHCBP). CHCBP is renewable in quarterly increments and costs about $933 a quarter for an individual – but you have to sign up for it within a pretty short time after losing eligibility. If you have a child who’s now age 25, that child doesn’t qualify for CHCBP.

MOAA’s MEDIPLUS® TRICARE Supplement

Q: Will the new legislation affect my MEDIPLUS® TRICARE supplement in any way?
A: At this point it’s too early to know for sure. We don’t think there will be any negative impact, but we’re working to verify this with our insurance provider.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.