Is it time to cut military health and pension benefits?

<p>The problem is not the cost of military healthcare. It is the cost of healthcare in America. This country needs to&nbsp;perform some serious self evaluation of how we practice healthcare, and who benefits from how we practice healthcare (it's not the end user to the extent that&nbsp;it should be; it's the provider to a degree that boggles the mind when you see how much money changes hands). There are other western democracies with much better healthcare systems which operate with greater efficiency and effectiveness.....most often driven by the desire to improve the quality of life of its society; not make a select group wealthy.</p><p><br></p><p>Secondly, the military is such a small percentage of the total population (less than 1%), does anybody truly believe that slashing the hard earned benefits our nation's veterans/service members is going to significantly improve our country's fiscal situation? Any cursory examination of the numbers will prove otherwise to anybody with a brain in their head, and no political agenda to push. Reducing benefits to veterans/ service members, a group that totals less than the number of people who receive some form of public assistance, will not solve our budget problems.</p><p><br></p><p>Pension benefits for a 20 year or even 30 year career are modest by comparison to the some options available to civilian workers who have opportunities for company sponsored deferred compensation plans where companies match employee contributions, or tie payouts to stock market gains, or enormous company profits. How many service members retire in such comfort that a follow on career is not a necessity? </p><p><br></p><p>Finally, when congress gets serious about balancing the budget and reclaiming our financial stability and independence, it will begin by cutting the ridiculous incentives it provides itself, and reducing the entitlements collected by those who have learned helplessness resulting&nbsp;from government give away programs. Premium healthcare plans and lifetime pensions for members who serve as little as four years in congress coupled with federal money funneled to personal companies/investments which make them rich in very short time spans, and hand outs to people who never develop the skills or desire to work cost this country far more than the benefits collected by a select few who of their own accord volunteer to serve often giving their last full measure for the greater good. When congress cuts its benefits and entitlements across the board, I will support a proportional reduction in military healthcare/pension benefits. Until then, it's just political pandering. </p><p><br></p><p>Master chief rant complete. Out.</p>

I feel that this is touchy topic for everyone.  Retirees feel betrayed, those already enlisted feel like they were sold a bill of goods.  I have served for 8 and assumed that retirements would be available at 20 years.  Should I be told that it would be available at a later age would upset me greatly.  Not because I would not be able to succeed as I believe that many veterans can, but because it is not what was told us when we signed on the dotted line.  However, we are the military force of a democratic and free nation drawing down from multiple engagements.  History has shown that a habit is to radically reduce military power to save money.  Thus this is not the actions of American politicians attacking the military, a concept that seems to have created a very divisive and partisan relationship between the military and congress as well as between the parties, but instead it is just a fact.  This is what free nations do after wars.  Happens every time, at least with manpower.  My concern is that a cut in benefits is easier to remove than implement and should the United States need men and women to fight wars again once the economy is strong again, what incentives will many have to enter service at a time of great personal risk and sacrifice?  With reduced benefits (health and retirement) and the example that those benefits are not held sacred by those that make the rules, promises of benefits and compensation would hold significantly less influence.  A broad reduction in benefits is a short-sighted solution to a problem with consequences that are much more long term.