NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=139945&region=7
Taxpayers’ navy bust-up

Taxpayers pay $10,000 when a female sailor wants breast enlargements, and the breast enlargements are cosmetic, News Limited newspapers says.

Defence Force officials say the surgery is justified as some women need bigger breasts to address "psychological issues".

An Australian Defence Force (ADF) spokesman confirmed the cosmetic surgery was done "at public expense" when there were "compelling psychological/psychiatric reasons", but he refused to say how many such procedures were funded by taxpayers.

Navy pays

Plastic surgeon Kourosh Tavakoli says the navy had paid for two officers to have breast enlargement surgery at his clinic.

The officers were aged 25 and 32 and claimed to have "psychological" problems.

"I've had two female navy officers who've got the navy to pay for breast augmentation for psychological reasons," he told News Ltd.

Claimed back

"I know for a fact the two patients claimed it back on the navy.

“They know it was breast augmentation and they (the navy) pay for it.

"There's no breast augmentation that I know of for medical purposes."

Disfiguration

The ADF spokesman says cosmetic surgery was provided for servicemen or women whose bodies were disfigured on the job.

"Cosmetic procedures undertaken solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a person's subjective appearance will be considered only if the underlying (psychological) problem is causing difficulties that adversely impact on the member's ability to do their job," he says.

"Operations purely for cosmetic reasons (preserving or improving a person's subjective appearance) are not allowed."

A spokesman for Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says statistics related to defence personnel who had operations for cosmetic reasons were unavailable until next week.

SOURCE: AAP

I suppose it's better than spending it on guns (he. he.), but still...you'd think I could have used those dollars more efficiently.

Anyways, this topic needs a serious premise, so your pick is anything from women's body image (of course imposed by our consumerist society (tm)) to taxation being slavery.

Why, them bewbs can be used to seduce and then suffocate them emenies!!!

Lmfao!

I expect this will add up on the mountains of stories of Australian military blunders and incompetence over the last year or so.

I thought amazons were supposed to remove a breast so they could wield weapons better ;)

I thought amazons were supposed to remove a breast so they could wield weapons better ;)
Just one? :eek:

EDIT: Two minute timewarp!

I expect this will add up on the mountains of stories of Australian military blunders and incompetence over the last year or so.
Australia just likes making mountains out of molehills.
Sorry, couldn't resist such an obvious set up.

Just one? :eek:

Yes, the right one. Or so many people believe - there is no real historical evidence to back the idea up.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. It depends on whether psychological issues, in this/these cases specifically, were actually legitimately needed for the well-being of the person in question. In the case of disfiguration from on-the-job accidents, I think the relevant cosmetic surgery would be acceptable.

Australia just likes making mountains out of molehills.
Sorry, couldn't resist such an obvious set up.

GROAN! I only got that on the second reading.

On the job accident wouldn't be fucking cosmetic! Christ! My money's going to incompetent women who can't handle their tiny tits!
If the mainstream Australian media does a piece on this Howard's gonna have a bloody revolt on his wrinkly old hands!

Australia just likes making mountains out of molehills.


Oh, clever. ;)

More seriously, though, despite the way this appears, it may well be perfectly legitimate. They're not using the money to improve women's looks; they're doing it (apparently) to correct damage and injuries to the servicewomen's breasts.

To put it another way, if a male soldier's penis was blown off on the job, I imagine (I hope) few people would object to him receiving tax-funded medical care.

More seriously, though, despite the way this appears, it may well be perfectly legitimate. They're not using the money to improve women's looks; they're doing it (apparently) to correct damage and injuries to the servicewomen's breasts.
No. They're saying that cosmetic surgery is used in case they are disfigured by an accident or if they have psychological issues that can be fixed by it.

These were not cases of women who got hurt on the job, they were cases of women who had self-esteem issues because they were self-conscious about their breasts being "too small".

These were not cases of women who got hurt on the job, they were cases of women who had self-esteem issues because they were self-conscious about their breasts being "too small".That's stupid. Put them in therapy until they accept their bodies, don't give in to their ridiculous notions of body image.

If the mainstream Australian media does a piece on this Howard's gonna have a bloody revolt on his wrinkly old hands!
Better that than having anything else in his wrinkly old hands...

Surely having bigger breasts would only impede their actions during service. And I would have thought the navy would be above silly notions about body image. Perhaps they should find a new counsellor.

Surely having bigger breasts would only impede their actions during service. And I would have thought the navy would be above silly notions about body image. Perhaps they should find a new counsellor.
Perhaps we're going about this all wrong and the Australian Navy is agreeing to bigger breasts in the service as a moral booster for the men, not the women. ;)

Ok, all joking aside, except for re-constructive surgery for women who have been injured in the line of duty, this really does say some bad things about western (and eastern) body images for women and how they react to it.

You're looking at it wrong. It's not cosmetic surgery, they're just installing some extra emergency flotation devices :p

http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=139945&region=7


I suppose it's better than spending it on guns (he. he.), but still...you'd think I could have used those dollars more efficiently.


There's good reasons for the military to have plastic surgeons -- If I needed to have major parts of me reconstructed, I'd like to know that they could do it. And there are many good reasons for them to continue practicing their craft. I'd also like to know that they didn't have to dust off some old text book before starting on me.

But wouldn't there be any number of trauma victims that might be a better source of practice material?

I remember in Japan, the deployed families would get free cosmetic surgery, just to keep the docs in practice. It seemed like abuse then, and it still does.

Anyways, this topic needs a serious premise, so your pick is anything from women's body image (of course imposed by our consumerist society (tm)) to taxation being slavery.
How 'bout improved natural buoyancy?

http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=139945&region=7


I suppose it's better than spending it on guns (he. he.), but still...you'd think I could have used those dollars more efficiently.

Anyways, this topic needs a serious premise, so your pick is anything from women's body image (of course imposed by our consumerist society (tm)) to taxation being slavery.

Not as funny as the millions spent on 'Australianising' hardware for the defence force; J series Hercules whose propellers chip easily when landing on rough terrain.

Its funny, us New Zealanders, for the first time in over 150years, have come out infront of the aussies in terms of hardware procurement.

You're looking at it wrong. It's not cosmetic surgery, they're just installing some extra emergency flotation devices :p
Along the same line of thought: Maybe the women needed additional cushioning in the even of an abrupt forward collision?

Just one? :eek:

EDIT: Two minute timewarp!

Yes, just one... the idea being that if you remove the one breast, it doesn't get in the way of your bowstring twanging by. No need to remove the other, since you only ever draw a bow one way (it is like a pencil that way).

Not as funny as the millions spent on 'Australianising' hardware for the defence force; J series Hercules whose propellers chip easily when landing on rough terrain.

Its funny, us New Zealanders, for the first time in over 150years, have come out infront of the aussies in terms of hardware procurement.

Unless the procedure went horribly wrong, I would think that this would be more like out in front software?

:p

Because they were paid for with public money does that mean they are now public breasts, which should be displayed publicly? :p