Military Death Benefit Increases

[BC-Tracik]

What does everyone think about this... Personally, I think it is long over due however agree that it should be extended to all personnel actively serving in the military. The way this is being proposed if soldiers in a training exercise in preparation to go to Iraq die they will not be eligible for the greater benefits. My old employers Death benefit if I had died while on the job or traveling for work was $250,000 (industry standard at high tech companies). I paid nothing into the plan it was the companies commitment to me for being a hard working employee. I feel our military, all of them, deserve the same... and should receive decent benefits. If my SIL, in military intelligence and not in a war zone, should die while on duty her DH would be in serious trouble since she is the major bread winner (he is ex-military and is now working as civilian in a recruiting office) and a mere 12k wouldn't help him much.

It just bother's me that the increase is only for those in Afghanistan and Iraq... how about those serving in other hot spots that are not technically war zones? or those who die in training accidents? or just plan serving their country in Germany or some other base in the US? It should go to all of them.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...death_benefits


Dems Propose Extending Military Death Pay

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrats argued Tuesday that President Bush (news - web sites)'s proposal to boost government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and future war zones should extend to all military personnel who die on active duty.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said that while he agreed with Bush's plan to give those families an extra $250,000, the money should also "apply to all service members on active duty" who die and not just those who die in Pentagon (news - web sites)-designated combat zones.

Officials with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines told the committee that the Defense Department should not give benefits to surviving spouses and children based simply on the geography of where a death occurs.

"They can't make a distinction. I don't think we should either," said Adm. John B. Nathman, vice chief of naval operations for the Navy. Added Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the Air Force's vice chief of staff: "I believe a death is a death and I believe this should be treated that way."

Under questioning from Levin, David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the administration would work with Congress to determine the exact objective of the increased benefits. Right now, he said: "our premiere objective is to those fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The proposal, the subject of the panel's hearing, includes retroactive payments to the spouses or surviving relatives of the more than 1,500 who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001. It will be in the fiscal 2006 budget proposal that Bush submits to Congress next week, a Pentagon official said.

A tax-free "death gratuity," now $12,420, would grow to $100,000. The government would also pay for $150,000 in life insurance for troops. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.

"We think the nation ought to make a larger one-time payment, quite apart from insurance, should you be killed in a combat area of operations," Chu told The Associated Press in an interview in his office.

"We can never in any program give someone back their loved one," he added. "There is nothing we can do about the hurt, to make it go away. But we can make your circumstances reasonable, in terms of finances."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., who is sponsoring a bill with the same provisions, said in an interview Monday that the first-year cost of the increased benefits would be $459 million, including more than $280 million in retroactive payments of the higher gratuity and the extra life insurance payouts.

"The American people want to be generous to the families of service people who give their lives for their country. It's not a nickel-and-dime issue," he said.

In addition to the higher gratuity, the Pentagon would substantially increase life insurance benefits, Chu said. The current $250,000 coverage offered to all service members at a subsidized rate under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program would be raised to $400,000, and for troops in a combat zone the government would pay the premiums on the extra $150,000 coverage.

Even in the case of a service member who did not participate in the basic life insurance program, the surviving spouse would receive a $150,000 settlement if the death happened in a designated combat zone, since the Pentagon is proposing to pay the premiums on that amount of coverage for everyone in a war zone. The spouse or other surviving family member also would get the $100,000 gratuity.

Chu said the extra $150,000 in life insurance and the higher death gratuity would be retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001, the date the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Some bills in Congress would make the higher gratuity retroactive but not the extra life insurance.

Under the administration's proposal, the 53 military members who were killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon would not get the higher gratuity, a spokeswoman said.

As of Monday, 1,415 Americans had died in the Iraq war, according to the Pentagon's count, and 156 had died in Afghanistan and other locations deemed part of the war on terrorism.

The death gratuity is a one-time payment intended to be given to the family immediately after a service member's death; it is in addition to an array of other survivor benefits such as housing aid.

The $100,000 would apply only in cases where the service member died in a war zone as designated by the secretary of defense. Thus, a soldier killed in a training accident in the United States would get the current $12,420, Chu said. Some in Congress have proposed paying an increased gratuity for all deaths.

In 2003 the military gratuity was doubled, from $6,000, where it had stood since 1991, to $12,000, with subsequent increases to account for inflation, bringing it to $12,420 on Jan. 1, 2005. The 2003 legislation also made the payment fully tax-free. Before that, half was taxable.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the current death payments for troops killed in battle has looked less generous compared to government settlements paid to Sept. 11 families. The government paid an average $2.1 million to the families of those killed in those attacks.

[Cheryllynn]

First, I'm glad that they are increasing the money. I have a very hard time calling it a death benefit.

I can understand the difference between war-zone and non-war-zone, although I would think those in non-war-zones would have lower life insurance premiums and therefore be cheaper.

Not sure about the life insurance. that would be paid on all soldiers and may end up costing more than if the government self-insured.

I think it's the personal responsibility of every spouse and of every parent to carry term life insurance, so Tracik, you're SIL should be participating in any offering of job-related life insurance plus if that is not enough, she should be searching for additional term insurance and there are plenty of companies out there willing to sell it.

The current $250,000 coverage offered to all service members at a subsidized rate under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program would be raised to $400,000,

...

Even in the case of a service member who did not participate in the basic life insurance program,

Insurance is already offered to the service personnel - they should ALL be participating if they are married and/or have children.

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by Cheryllynn
Insurance is already offered to the service personnel - they should ALL be participating if they are married and/or have children.

Yes, but the max we can elect to purchase is $250,000. I pay $20 per month even as a reservist for that coverage. And, my family gets that whether I die in a war zone or not, on active duty or not. I don't have the option of purchasing more through SGLI. It would be nice if we could.

It is the tax free death gratuity that is linked to dying in a combat zone. Personally, I don't think $12K is enough. I don't have any problems with them increasing this to $100K. But I do also hope they increase the ceiling for the SGLI so those that want to purchase more than $250,000 can do so.

Between my military insurance and my civilian employer insurance, my dh stands to inherit around $500K. I keep telling him I'm worth more to him deceased than alive but he says there no amount of money worth raising our two little opinionated women all by his lonesome.

[BC-Tracik]

you're SIL should be participating in any offering of job-related life insurance plus if that is not enough, she should be searching for additional term insurance and there are plenty of companies out there willing to sell it.

She does participate in her military plan, to the max I believe, but that isn't much and outside insurance for her is expensive because she is in what is considered a high risk job (due to where she is occasionally sent for her intelligence work) so her premiums for $500k private insurance are more then mine (and I have health issues and pay extra for that) set at $1 million.

I do worry that the proposal will cost more then in payouts then the Government is planning on. The longer we stay in war zones, and the more we go into, will cause that cost to increase significantly.

[BC-DixieMom]

$12,000 is barely enough to provide a proper funeral for a soldier killed in combat...much less to assist the family in lost income. My brother (the JAG officer) said when he briefs soldiers for deployment, he tries his best to convince them to obtain the additional coverage and if they do not, he makes them sign a waiver. He said he doesn't want someone leaving him without a will and the additional insurance.

______________________________

As Angela previously stated, the maximum life insurance benefit a soldier can purchase is $250,000. My brother just checked and he pays $16.25 per month for the additional coverage. From my understanding, there are approximately 1.6 million service people.

$16.25 x 12 = $195 per year (for cost of insurance per active soldier)

$195 x 1.6 million (approx. # of service people) = $312,000,000 (total cost to insure all service people)

$312,000,000 divided by the maximum pay out of $250,000=1248


total number of service people who could die each year at no cost to the government ----- 1,248. Of course, this is assuming NO INTEREST. I would hope the administration would invest the money in an interest bearing account.

We've had approximately 1400 killed so far in this war. Note...not a year, but total. Therefore, SOMEONE is making a profit off this insurance at the expense of our service people.

What really irks me is to think of the amount of money we are spending to rebuild Iraq vs. the minimal amount we pay to a soldier for the loss of his/her life. I'm sure the marble alone that we've replaced in the palaces cost more than the amount we paid total to the soldier's families.

[BC-DixieMom]

I personally think our soldier's lives are worth more than $250,000. Most private policies have an exclusion for "acts of war." So if Traci's SIL had a private policy, it wouldn't help her in the event she was killed in the line of her service duty.

I keep thinking of all the military wives who are SAHMs (like my SIL). If something happened to my brother, it would be hard for them to survive without his pay. The $250,000 would go quick. It is hard to buy a father/husband for a mere $250,000 much less $12,420.

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by Rebecca
okay...no more snarking from me...

Thanks. It does nothing to encourage debate. And, noone here has suggested those things.

Originally posted by Cheryllyn
I can understand the difference between war-zone and non-war-zone, although I would think those in non-war-zones would have lower life insurance premiums and therefore be cheaper.

No such luck. You pay the same year round. I pay year round even though I'm a part time reservist (until I am recalled to duty but I still pay the same). I pay the same amount as active duty people on duty 365 days a year even if when I'm not on duty at all. Part-time coverage is available under certain conditions for those who don't qualify for full SGLI coverage. And, it would be a nightmare adjusting coverage based on whether in a combat zone or not. Even during peacetime, soldiers deploy to hotspots around the world where life is at risk. And, as the other posters already pointed out, most privately owned insurers won't cover military personnel killed in a combat zone without some special, overpriced rider to their insurance policy.

Spouses can also get coverage up to $100,000 under SGLI as well at an additional cost. That may be why my cost is a little more than Rebecca's brother...because I also pay to insure my dh. And, dependents also get free coverage.

"Coverage amounts for spouses range from $10,000 up to a maximum of $100,000 of coverage depending upon the amount of coverage in place on the service member (the spouse coverage amount may not exceed the amount of the service member's coverage). Rates are based on the age of the spouse and increase according to five year age brackets. Each dependent child is covered automatically for $10,000. Coverage for children is free."

For more information see the handbook at http://www.insurance.va.gov/

[BC-DixieMom]

Originally posted by AngelaM
Spouses can also get coverage up to $100,000 under SGLI as well at an additional cost. That may be why my cost is a little more than Rebecca's brother...because I also pay to insure my dh. And, dependents also get free coverage.

My brother includes his spouse at $10 per month and his son has $50k as well. I was only quoting his individual cost. I never said he didn't cover his family too.

[Cheryllynn]

Hi Angela - My comment regarding differences between war zones and not is regarding the extra $150k that the government would pay and would not be included in the premiums that you pay. I suppose I could go either way, but IMO, there's some extra something when a soldier is going to a war zone.

And I'm 100% behind having the limits increased from $250k to $500k.

Rebecca - good calculations, however that assumes 100% participation at the max.

When I was single I did not purchase any life insurance. I had enough $$ to have me buried without being a burden to my family plus extra. If I died as a single person, no one was relying on my income, so why pay for the life insurance? Once married or with children, the picture changes and life insurance should be purchased.

[rae]

Have you seen that New Mexico has become the first state to provide life insurance benefits for its New Mexico National Guard members?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6902084/