House Republicans' CHOICE Act would roll back some Obamacare protections

SFC Casey O'Mally - BTW, you can't be recalled. You were Army enlisted. Only officers or members of the Fleet Reserve can be recalled after retirement.
https://www.military.com/join-military/eligibility-requirements/can-you-really-be-recalled-active-duty-any-time.html

BTW, the military thinks what you are getting is a pension.
https://www.usa.gov/military-pensions

SPC Kevin Ford Great job attempting to conflate thing.

Just because it is funded by the government does not mean it is socialism.

But that does not mean that nothing funded by the government is.

Single payer would become socialized health care. A specific benefit plan paid by the government is not.

So you do not mean proportionally at all.

Look up US v. Dinger; Larrabee v. Braithwaite

No, it was not an "arbitrary" decision. First, I was discussing retired pay, not TriCare. Second, TriCare is part of the PROMISE made when I signed up. It's not like I retired and they pulled a number and I hit the lottery. It is not "some do and some don't." It is a very specific group of people who do. Because they earn it. Through WORK AND SCARIFICE. In service specifically to the government. People who work and sacrifice for other entities are rewarded for that sacrifice BY THAT ENTITY.

And again you are trying to shame me for getting paid by the government FOR DOING GOVERNMENT WORK when others DONT get paid by the government for doing OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT work. You COMPLETELY ignore the part where this is essentially worker's compensation. Other people who get hurt on the job are made whole BY THEIR EMPLOYER. It just so happens my employer was the federal government.

Yes, I mean other than that. Because that is their bare minimum. Paying your taxes - which I have *also* done - is not service and sacrifice.

And it also is not all my medical care. Uncle Sugar didn't pay a dime when I got shot. My employer did. Because it happened on the job - and I got worker's compensation, just like any civilian who gets hurt on the job.

Not everything I get from the government is owed to me. But almost all of it is. I was not OWED a retirement flag or a certificate for my spouse when I retired.

The rest, yeah. It is owed to me because this was what was agreed to when I signed up and KEPT signing up. It isn't owed to me because I am awesome or special, it is owed to me because I was PROMISED TO ME in return for my military service. It is FULFILLMENT OF A CONTRACT.

That is not selfishness. If I agreed to but a car from you for $50,00 and I gave you $10,000 now with a promise to pay you $2,000 a month for the next 2 years (interest), you would be OWED that $2,000 for 2 years. And you would not be selfish for wanting to be paid. Nor would you be selfish for saying I should pay you for your car, but there is no reason to pay your neighbor who gave me nothing.

I am not the only person owed things by the government. Plenty of other veterans, are owed plenty, too. Many are owed more than me. Our native Americans have been perennially screwed over and are owed far more than they are getting. Some citizens who have been wrongfully persecuted are owed reparations. The list goes on. But the average Joe blow citizen? Nope. Not owed shit other than freedom.

It is not that "the beast majority of people in this country... do not deserve the benefits [I] get." It is that they have not yet gone out and earned them.

And trust me, if we lose so many people we can no longer support the military, it will only be because the military has already failed. Your "without those people" concept is hyperbolic bluster.

P.S. You can discuss your plan to fix health care any time now.

SFC Casey O'Mally -
You stated, "Single payer would become socialized health care. A specific benefit plan paid by the government is not."
Not according to the definition you gave. We have more than a single government funded healthcare benefit. We have many for many demographics. Single payer is just the government paying for healthcare from private entities for everyone. Is there some magical point at which you believe it becomes socialism? Is it not socialism if we don't cover a single member of society but everyone else gets a "benefit"? Fifty, one hundred? What is the tipping point where the government paying for some people's healthcare but not everyone's moves from being a "benefit" to "socialism"? Lol.

You stated, "So you do not mean proportionally at all."
I don't think you know what proportionally means. "corresponding in size or amount to something else:" That's it. For example it can be the amount you pay compared to the amount the average person pays or the amount you pay compared to the overall amount paid by society.

You stated: "Look up US v. Dinger; Larrabee v. Braithwaite"
Larrabee was a member of a specific pre-retirement inactive status, the Naval Reserve. That's what nailed him. Similarly Dinger was in the Naval Reserve when the conduct occurred, even though the trial happened after. The Army has no similar program and even the Naval Reserve expires after 30 years of total service (active and inactive) before the person moves to a fully retired status. It is also important to note, officers still have their commission after retirement and are in a different situation.

You stated, "The rest, yeah. It is owed to me because this was what was agreed to when I signed up and KEPT signing up. It isn't owed to me because I am awesome or special, it is owed to me because I was PROMISED TO ME in return for my military service. It is FULFILLMENT OF A CONTRACT."
The same can be said of social security and unemployment benefits. But we pretty regularly talk about those being cut. So would it work for for you if we did single payer with a special assessment like social security or unemployment so people would be "owed" it too? How about if everyone signed a contract with the government for healthcare in exchange for taxes, then they have a contract too? The government set up the system for which you signed and if that is the hurdle for you then a similar system of contracts could easily be set up for everyone. But I suspect that really isn't the problem for you, but a justification.

You stated, "I should pay you for your car, but there is no reason to pay your neighbor who gave me nothing."
We except for the fact that it is your neighbor that is setting up the situation for you to be paid back and is the one of the ones who is paying you back. Meanwhile you refuse to allow all your neighbors who helped you to get the deal to participate in a similar deals for themselves (not everyone can serve to retirement, it is a complete economic and mathematical impossibility).

You stated, "It is that they have not yet gone out and earned them."
Sure they have, you just discount their contributions that have allowed you to live pretty much the entirety of the life you have lived.

You stated, "Your "without those people" concept is hyperbolic bluster."
Of course it is not, it is our country's entire foundation. You seem to be one of the people who recognize that our society cannot function without people flipping burgers and sweeping the floors, getting food to us, etc, etc, etc, but are OK with them being poor. The pandemic showed us who the essential people in our society are. It's mostly the poor people working low paying jobs you don't think deserve access to healthcare because they haven't "earned" it. But without them our entire society collapses.

SPC Kevin Ford
OK, stay with me here.
If the government moves to single payer they will take over the entire health care industry. They will have seized the means of production and distribution. Thus, socialism. Having a single piece of the market is not a takeover of the industry. I know understanding the difference between part and all is difficult, but I am sure you can get there.

When you say I pay a proportional part of my income, you don't mean that at all. You mean that I pay much more of my income, but what the government DOES take from me, they SPEND proportionally.

So, no, you did not mean proportional.

Donger and Braithwaite were both denied cert on the ESTABLISHED grounds that retirement pay is retainer pay. Read the actual decisions.

This may also help... https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10945
"they are entitled to receive special pay and other benefits from the military, which are viewed, at least in part, as retainer conferrals;"

Yes, Social Security and (to a lesser extent) limited unemployment are contractual debts owed. They are things people pay into and then are able to draw out of.
They are also, however, optional. If one is independently wealthy (or a rugged individualist) and survives without paying in to social security or unemployment (i.e. they never have a job), they are free to neither pay in nor draw out. Additionally, if one never pays in, one CANNOT draw out.

If single payer were to work the same - no pay, no play, sure. That would be fine. But we both know that is not how it will work.

How did my neighbors "help me get the deal" to purchase your car? And I in no way object to them buying their own car.

It is true that not everyone can serve to retirement. It is equally true that very few WANT to. VERY few people are involuntarilyoverstretch. Not allowed to re-enlist due to simply being overstrength. 99+% of service members who are qualified to continue service and WANT to continue service do so. The retirement benefits are not a secret. Yet very few people go out and earn them. So your concern about the limited availability of retirement is moot.

No, they have not earned the benefits I have earned. At least not from the government. A person employed by a private company or individual must look to that company or individual for employment benefits, including retirement benefits. My employer was the federal government, THAT is why I have earned those benefits. And plenty of people earn even better benefits from their employer. A minority, to be sure. But still plenty. Additionally, very few people sign the type of contract that the military does. Blank check up to and including your life. Unlimited work hours, no restrictions on working conditions,no ability to quit, etc.

If a person's contribution to society is via private enterprise, then their contribution b is rewarded via private enterprise.

Unless you are talking about paying taxes. In which case, their "contribution" is the bare minimum. And they get back the bare minimum - roads, the defense I provided, etc. For those who contributed MORE, they get more back from the government.

Our society ABSOLUTELY can function without people flipping burgers or sweeping floors. I am OK with people with minimal skills earning minimal pay, absolutely. If they don't like their pay, they can gain some skills. As far as the pandemic goes, I was *in* one of those jobs. Three, actually. I started at the Post Office in November of 2019, and stayed there through June 2020. At the same time, I was a part-time delivery driver. Once I quit the Post Office (I was tired of 65 hour work weeks), I went back to delivering full time. Once I got shot on delivery in January 2021, I went to work in children's social work. Every single position deemed "essential." And none of them with high pay.

I am *still* a social worker for kids, making nowhere near enough money for the work I do.

And I never said not once that they don't deserve access to health care. I said they do not deserve free TriCare.

I am done arguing. You are hopeless.

Unless, of course, you want to actually discuss your plan - which you have this far refused to do.