NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite the locking of the last thread, I think most of us can agree that this is an issue worthy of serious political debate, and that it is one where even many Obama supporters may express their criticism of this particular policy.

Here is the CNN link, for those who want details from a relatively credible source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html

Again, this is fucking ridiculous.

Obama is basically in an unenviable position where he has to try and clean up the aftermath of Dear Leader's 8 Year Frat Party, part of which means trying to bring in as much government revenue as possible.

Again, it's only being considered, as in it's not final and with enough pressure to convince Obama it's a bad idea he'll likely rescind it. Then again if veteran benefits actually do get better then it might be a fair trade.

Honestly, I do think that if he does implement this, he'd be screwing over the Veterans, which is a bad thing both humanitarian wise, and political wise.

It's a bad idea.

Yes. Besides the ethical issues, I have a feeling that even if this disappears tomorrow, we'll hear of it again in 2012.

He's crossing a thin line. He's basically done everything in his power to alienate veterans, and trust me the military HATES him.

WTF?

How is charging private insurance for veteran's care an attack on veterans in any way? If a veteran has private insurance, how does it hurt him or her to have their insurance contribute to their health care?

Honestly, I do think that if he does implement this, he'd be screwing over the Veterans, which is a bad thing both humanitarian wise, and political wise.

Not to sound insensitive, but this is similar to the dilemma that the Big Three had been facing with the accumulation of retiring or retired workforce that drew on full benefits from the companies. Except for the part where they dumbfuckingly refused to modernize their automobile lines of course, but otherwise it's the same. Nobody in their right mind wants to shortjob the vets, but they are costing the government money which is desperately needed in the current economic climate. If the economy ever picked up though, this consideration would evaporate like a bad dream or a bad case of gas.

Yes. Besides the ethical issues, I have a feeling that even if this disappears tomorrow, we'll hear of it again in 2012.

Granting that we're still hearing about a train from 'Disneyland to Las Vegas' that never existed, I'm going to say yeah, you're probably right.

I'd say, from patterns so far, that given how poorly received this consideration has been across the board I'd be surprised (and pretty disappointed) if this is even still being considered much less implemented.

He's crossing a thin line. He's basically done everything in his power to alienate veterans, and trust me the military HATES him.

I do not trust you.

I do not trust you.

:tongue:


I'll give you credit man, that one actually made me laugh out loud

He's crossing a thin line. He's basically done everything in his power to alienate veterans, and trust me the military HATES him.

Cause you totally know a guy in the military, right? A guy who just so happens to be the mouthpiece for the military hive-mind that we know definitely exists?

You do not know what the military does and does not think, because the military is composed of multiple people with varying political views. So, no, I don't think I'll "trust" you. In fact, I think I'll continue to call you out as a liar and a fool every time you try to speak for the entire military.

WTF?

How is charging private insurance for veteran's care an attack on veterans in any way? If a veteran has private insurance, how does it hurt him or her to have their insurance contribute to their health care?

Because there is the perception that, since the government sends the soldiers off to get these injuries, the government owes it to them to provide unlimited free medical care.

He's crossing a thin line. He's basically done everything in his power to alienate veterans, and trust me the military HATES him.

Do you have anything besides gut feelings or cliches to base that on?

I hope you are not assuming that the military hates him because he wants to pull out of Iraq. The argument that support the troops=support the war was tired and stupid a long time ago. I mean, its not like they all want to be their.

Not to sound insensitive, but this is similar to the dilemma that the Big Three had been facing with the accumulation of retiring or retired workforce that drew on full benefits from the companies. Except for the part where they dumbfuckingly refused to modernize their automobile lines of course, but otherwise it's the same. Nobody in their right mind wants to shortjob the vets, but they are costing the government money which is desperately needed in the current economic climate. If the economy ever picked up though, this consideration would evaporate like a bad dream or a bad case of gas.

Wait....government has just spent BILLIONS (if not Trillions) of dollars, that we already don't have, and now we're worried about our financial situation? Sorry, but that sounds more like government incompetent than anything else. If they want to save money, then why don't Congressmen and women cut out some of the perks? Why don't people in government sacrifice somethings? Oh that's right, because like AIG, and the Big Three, the guys at top won't suffer, no it's the people at the bottom that get screwed over long before the guys at the top get it.

Cause you totally know a guy in the military, right? A guy who just so happens to be the mouthpiece for the military hive-mind that we know definitely exists?

You do not know what the military does and does not think, because the military is composed of multiple people with varying political views. So, no, I don't think I'll "trust" you. In fact, I think I'll continue to call you out as a liar and a fool every time you try to speak for the entire military.

Maybe its because I'm in the military and every officer, enlisted, and in general person I know happens to talk down him at every turn? I knew one Seal Team One chief petty officer who liked him. Other than that, noone. They all universally say some exceptionally unpleasent things about him.

Do you have anything besides gut feelings or cliches to base that on?

I hope you are not assuming that the military hates him because he wants to pull out of Iraq. The argument that support the troops=support the war was tired and stupid a long time ago. I mean, its not like they all want to be their.


No absolutely not. I don't know any guys who actually want to be in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different story altogether though.

Maybe its because I'm in the military and every officer, enlisted, and in general person I know happens to talk down him at every turn? I knew one Seal Team One chief petty officer who liked him. Other than that, noone. They all universally say some exceptionally unpleasent things about him.

I'm in the military too and every single officer and enlisted man I've spoken to loves the man and want to fellate him. See how easy it is to make up total crap on the internet?

WTF?

How is charging private insurance for veteran's care an attack on veterans in any way? If a veteran has private insurance, how does it hurt him or her to have their insurance contribute to their health care?

The article suggests (and honestly, I haven't researched this in any way) that service related injuries are costly and could end up maxing out their private insurance (which is still billed by the VA for non-service related health care) making them as vulnerable as if they had no insurance and presumably putting them on the hook for deductibles that they would not be responsible for otherwise. Finally, this would no doubt include an increase in the cost of private coverage or difficulty in obtaining it for veterans with service related injuries. And as Sdj-however it's spelled, symbolically - if we're going to ask these people to put themselves in harms way it's only right that we cover the cost of the harm caused.

I'm in the military too and every single officer and enlisted man I've spoken to loves the man and want to fellate him. See how easy it is to make up total crap on the internet?

Problem is I'm not making it up. I really can't PROVE it in anyway, just offering my two cents. What I CAN do is tell you what I'm doing roughly:

I'm presently a college student. I started off in the Marine Corps with the Platoon Leader Class program, then my friend Captain Mike Howard (USN. ret) talked to me about joining the SEAL Teams. Since I didn't have any obligation to the Marine Corps, I did, refused the Marine Corps commission, and went into the BDCP (Baccalureate Degree Completion Program) which is a program for College Students for direct commissioning. Contractually speaking I'm a Petty Officer 3 (equivalent of a Corporal in the Army or Marine Corps) in the US Navy, and after college I go directly to BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/Sea Air Land school). I have two years left.

Hopefully that clears my name up. :)

No absolutely not. I don't know any guys who actually want to be in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different story altogether though.

Well, Obama's staying their, so if they want to remain in Afghanistan, why shouldn't they like him?

Unless you're claiming that the military as a whole also wants out of Afghanistan?

Problem is I'm not making it up. I really can't PROVE it in anyway, just offering my two cents.

Well, in reality I know two people in the military, and they both voted for Obama. That means 100% of the military supports Obama.

QED, according to you.

I'm in the military too and every single officer and enlisted man I've spoken to loves the man and want to fellate him. See how easy it is to make up total crap on the internet?

Dude, you're sounding like the Anti-Kimchi. That scares me.

Dude, you're sounding like the Anti-Kimchi. That scares me.

What is the anti-Kimchi?

What is the anti-Kimchi?

The Anti-Hotwife, Anti-SierraBTHP, Anti-WhisperingLegs, etc etc...

What is the anti-Kimchi?

The exact opposite to DK/Hotwife/Whispering Legs/whoever.

The Anti-Hotwife, Anti-SierraBTHP, Anti-WhisperingLegs, etc etc...

I know who you were referring to; I wanted you to elaborate on what you meant by it.

Honestly, I do think that if he does implement this, he'd be screwing over the Veterans, which is a bad thing both humanitarian wise, and political wise.

Again, what is the problem with this maneuver? That private healthcare fucking sucks? Or that veteran healthcare doesn't make any damn sense?

The only reason people are up in arms is because private healthcare is shit and already poorly paid veterans wouldn't be able to afford the increase in premiums much less the majority of the costs that their insurance wouldn't cover.

Problem is I'm not making it up. I really can't PROVE it in anyway, just offering my two cents.

Even if we grant that your experience is true (and I don't know why a military guy would have the Blackwater logo as their avatar, it does lead me to believe that when you say "in the military" you mean 'in the JROTC at my high school' and have a very limited interaction with the military as a whole), but even if we take it at face value, what you are really capable of saying, at best (and again granting that your characterization of everyone's attitude and not in fact projecting a simplistic attitude to a complex set of opinions) you can say that, essentially, the people in your office do not like the President at the moment. There are certainly more than a few that are fond of pay raises or a change of focus on big money contracts to spending on the soldiers themselves. The military is a large and complex entity and whether or not the people in your office like him does not make a reliable sample size to make a statement like "Trust me, the military HATES him."

And so, again, for the above reasons, I do not trust you.

I know who you were referring to; I wanted you to elaborate on what you meant by it.

The way you flippantly referred to being in the military and knew friends in the military who fellate Obama in that post. It's a sharp 180 to Kimchi's typical "I'm in the military and know friends in the military who fellated Dubya and think Obama is the Anti-Christ who'll destroy the U.S. military," blah blah blah blah.

The article suggests (and honestly, I haven't researched this in any way) that service related injuries are costly and could end up maxing out their private insurance (which is still billed by the VA for non-service related health care) making them as vulnerable as if they had no insurance and presumably putting them on the hook for deductibles that they would not be responsible for otherwise. Finally, this would no doubt include an increase in the cost of private coverage or difficulty in obtaining it for veterans with service related injuries. And as Sdj-however it's spelled, symbolically - if we're going to ask these people to put themselves in harms way it's only right that we cover the cost of the harm caused.

Not really related to the specific question on how much it could cost the vets themselves, but some interesting reads on the hidden costs of the Iraq War:

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/linda-bilmes-the-hidden-cost-of-iraq-veterans-medical-care/

http://www.neurologyreviews.com/08dec/VetNeuro.html

Veterans’ medical and disability costs, among the budgetary costs contributing to the $3 trillion estimate, may eventually total $700 billion

The way you flippantly referred to being in the military and knew friends in the military who fellate Obama in that post. It's a sharp 180 to Kimchi's typical "I'm in the military and know friends in the military who fellated Dubya and think Obama is the Anti-Christ who'll destroy the U.S. military," blah blah blah blah.

Kimchi tried to pass it off as truth, though. I identified it as hyperbole (lying really) in the very same post.

Not really related to the specific question on how much it could cost the vets themselves, but some interesting reads on the hidden costs of the Iraq War:

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/linda-bilmes-the-hidden-cost-of-iraq-veterans-medical-care/

http://www.neurologyreviews.com/08dec/VetNeuro.html

I recognize it is a concern and growing problem, but I view it as the milk already being on the table, so to speak. It's part of the wide tapestry of why the war was a bad idea in the first place. But these aren't people that got to make the decision (one could argue that they enlisted, the war is long enough that a great deal of the people volunteered for service knowing that it would involve this war I'll grant, however they were still the policy decision was not theirs and it seems misdirected to punish them for it). There are a lot of hidden costs of the war that will continue to come due long after the last troop walks out of Iraq, I just don't think that this is a leak that we should plug, at least not in this way. I don't really believe in lionizing those in the military, I don't think of them as 'heroes,' I just believe if you put people in a position like that as a primary factor of their job you owe it to them to cover the harm that is resulting from it, and if the cost is too high then that should be considered before you put those people in harms way and not after the fact where you balk and hand them the bill.

Sorry for the lack of paragraphs.

You know that the world has turned upside down when conservative types are arguing in favour of a public healthcare system.:tongue:

Problem is I'm not making it up. I really can't PROVE it in anyway, just offering my two cents.

Okay, that's it. I didn't wanna do this, but...

I asked Belldandy, the goddess I'm currently banging, and she told me your estimate is incorrect.

I really can't PROVE it in anyway, just offering my two cents.

See?

So Obama wants to expand government health care, but leave the veterans to pay for their own service related injuries ?!??!!?
This guy is making less sense then Bush.

I recognize it is a concern and growing problem, but I view it as the milk already being on the table, so to speak. It's part of the wide tapestry of why the war was a bad idea in the first place. But these aren't people that got to make the decision (one could argue that they enlisted, the war is long enough that a great deal of the people volunteered for service knowing that it would involve this war I'll grant, however they were still the policy decision was not theirs and it seems misdirected to punish them for it). There are a lot of hidden costs of the war that will continue to come due long after the last troop walks out of Iraq, I just don't think that this is a leak that we should plug, at least not in this way. I don't really believe in lionizing those in the military, I don't think of them as 'heroes,' I just believe if you put people in a position like that as a primary factor of their job you owe it to them to cover the harm that is resulting from it, and if the cost is too high then that should be considered before you put those people in harms way and not after the fact where you balk and hand them the bill.

Sorry for the lack of paragraphs.

I agree that we should not just leave them holding the bag, but the Administration is right when they say "if you have a better plan, let's hear it." The current system is unsustainable. Yes, it might be unfair to pass some of the expense off to these soldiers' private insurers, but if the VA runs out of money completely because no one could find a way to fund it adequately, then everyone is going to end up paying every dime of their medical bills. It's an unsustainable system, and sticking your head in the sand and yelling that you'll block any bill that seeks to fix it isn't helping.

You know that the world has turned upside down when conservative types are arguing in favour of a public healthcare system.:tongue:

There is a vast difference between "getting rid of existing social systems" and "making up new ones." Getting rid of old ones get you kicked out of office. Making up new ones gets you kicked out of office by retarded hicks that are your constituency.

I agree that we should not just leave them holding the bag, but the Administration is right when they say "if you have a better plan, let's hear it." The current system is unsustainable. Yes, it might be unfair to pass some of the expense off to these soldiers' private insurers, but if the VA runs out of money completely because no one could find a way to fund it adequately, then everyone is going to end up paying every dime of their medical bills. It's an unsustainable system, and sticking your head in the sand and yelling that you'll block any bill that seeks to fix it isn't helping.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but at the same time I'm not in a policy making position. It is not my job, nor my expertise. That doesn't preclude me from being able to say I'm against this plan. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, and while it might be trite to say, "Keep looking," but honestly, that's what they're paid for. "Something has to be done" is not an excuse for "anything one does."

You know that the world has turned upside down when conservative types are arguing in favour of a public healthcare system.:tongue:

I get VA health care. If the plan were government financed private insurance I would be all for it. Be a bit of a waste of the VA hospitals but still i would be down with it.
AS I read it, it says:

a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Making veterans pay for their service related injuries is just fucked up.
Especially, since some of these injuries make the veterans unable to work, and hence pay for their treatment.

Making veterans pay for their service related injuries is just fucked up.
Especially, since some of these injuries make the veterans unable to work, and hence pay for their treatment.

You highlighted the wrong part. The relevant part is "insurance." Insurance will be paying the bill, not the individual.

I do not understand why this thread was locked or why Obama is trying to do this. I think I am going to move to Confused Country and set up residence.

I do not understand why this thread was locked or why Obama is trying to do this. I think I am going to move to Confused Country and set up residence.

Maybe it's a backdoor way to get a whole bunch of people to suddenly start supporting a universal healthcare system. You know, that thing that all the other westernised countries have but the US doesn't.

I get VA health care. If the plan were government financed private insurance I would be all for it. Be a bit of a waste of the VA hospitals but still i would be down with it.
AS I read it, it says:


Making veterans pay for their service related injuries is just fucked up.
Especially, since some of these injuries make the veterans unable to work, and hence pay for their treatment.

To be fair, those without insurance would still receive their full benefits. It would only be that if the veteran got private insurance through work or a spouses or some on their own, then it would be billed through their private insurance instead of the VA. However, if the veteran does not have private insurance they're still covered. It's just looking for other, private entities to help with the bill. This isn't really leaving the holding the bag entirely, but it does add more indirect undo burdens.

I do not understand why this thread was locked or why Obama is trying to do this. I think I am going to move to Confused Country and set up residence.
The previous thread was locked because of the tone of the OP.

You highlighted the wrong part. The relevant part is "insurance." Insurance will be paying the bill, not the individual.

then the veterans private insurance premiums go up, and then veterans gets screwed.
Right now veterans get private insurance to cover stuff that's not service related aka like treatment for the flu.
For an injured veteran the vast majority of his health care is for the service related injury.

One way or another this cost comes back to the injured veteran.

There is a vast difference between "getting rid of existing social systems" and "making up new ones." Getting rid of old ones get you kicked out of office. Making up new ones gets you kicked out of office by retarded hicks that are your constituency.
I understand that, I just felt it ironic enough to mention.

I get VA health care. If the plan were government financed private insurance I would be all for it. Be a bit of a waste of the VA hospitals but still i would be down with it.
AS I read it, it says:


Making veterans pay for their service related injuries is just fucked up.
Especially, since some of these injuries make the veterans unable to work, and hence pay for their treatment.
There is a difference between making veterans pay and making vererans' insurers pay.

There is a difference between making veterans pay and making vererans' insurers pay.

yeah because then Obama can call the insurance companies evil when they raise the Veterans premiums because now the insurance companies are paying for 3 X as much care.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but at the same time I'm not in a policy making position. It is not my job, nor my expertise. That doesn't preclude me from being able to say I'm against this plan. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, and while it might be trite to say, "Keep looking," but honestly, that's what they're paid for. "Something has to be done" is not an excuse for "anything one does."

You know, I thought to myself, "maybe I should clarify that the 'you' doesn't refer specifically to him," but then I figured you'd figure my meaning. I thought the "block the bill" would give away that I meant the congressional opposition, not Cannot think of a name.

They came up with a feasible plan to shift some of the responsibility for treatment off of the cash-strapped VA and onto the private insurance companies of some of these soldiers. It is not a great plan, but it is a plan, and it's better than fiddling while Rome burns. Ignoring the problem while we wait for a miraculous plan to materialize does no one any service.

Right now these soldiers are getting ripped off by private insurers who do not pay a dime for their medical costs the vast majority of the time.

yeah because then Obama can call the insurance companies evil when they raise the Veterans premiums because now the insurance companies are paying for 3 X as much care.
Yeah, how dare they cover veterans just like they "cover" everyone else.

Veterans served their country, their medical bills should be paid for by our country. Also police, fire, and everyone else.



Healthcare for all!

Yeah, how dare they cover veterans just like they "cover" everyone else.

look a disabled veterans gets private insurance he/she explains he/she has service related injuries but the VA covers them.

It would be like taking someone on Medicare who has a private insurance company just for the things medicare wont cover, then making their private insurance company pay for everything.

look a disabled veterans gets private insurance he/she explains he/she has service related injuries but the VA covers them.

It would be like taking someone on Medicare who has a private insurance company just for the things medicare wont cover, then making their private insurance company pay for everything.

People do that all the damn time.

People do that all the damn time.

a reason a retire has medicare and then has a medicare add on is he cant afford full private insurance. but wants slightly better care then medicare alone.
People on VA care with private add on insurance on in the same boat.

The second you force the add on insurance to become full coverage it becomes unaffordable for both groups.

a reason a retire has medicare and then has a medicare add on is he cant afford full private insurance. but wants slightly better care then medicare alone.
People on VA care with private add on insurance on in the same boat.

The second you force the add on insurance to become full coverage it becomes unaffordable for both groups.

If a person is over 65 but still working, and they have private insurance either on their own or through their employer, the private insurance is the primary insurer and pays first on all claims. There exist countless examples of people on Medicare as their secondary payer.

yeah because then Obama can call the insurance companies evil when they raise the Veterans premiums because now the insurance companies are paying for 3 X as much care.
That may be, but suggesting that veterans are suddenly going to be charged when they get injured is disengenuous. Unfortunately, under a system where some people have private healthcare, some have private healthcare and some have both is going to raise questions as to the extent that who should cover who.

it would be much easier just to cover everyone.

If a person is over 65 but still working, and they have private insurance either on their own or through their employer, the private insurance is the primary insurer and pays first on all claims. There exist countless examples of people on Medicare as their secondary payer.

read up on medicare supplement insurance also called medigap.
thats what i am talking about.

read up on medicare supplement insurance also called medigap.
thats what i am talking about.

Disabled veterans aren't on a VA supplement plan in addition to their VA benefits. They are on a full, complete, entire secondary insurance plan. The secondary insurance that these vets have is not remotely comparable to Medicare supplement plans. Your equivocation fails.

That may be, but suggesting that veterans are suddenly going to be charged when they get injured is disengenuous. Unfortunately, under a system where some people have private healthcare, some have private healthcare and some have both is going to raise questions as to the extent that who should cover who.

it would be much easier just to cover everyone.

You bill my insurance, you are billing me just indirectly, you force private insurance to cover more and this forces them to raise premiums.
It is pretty easy to tell the difference between service related injury and non service related injury. that failing they have a appeals process.

You know, I thought to myself, "maybe I should clarify that the 'you' doesn't refer specifically to him," but then I figured you'd figure my meaning. I thought the "block the bill" would give away that I meant the congressional opposition, not Cannot think of a name.

They came up with a feasible plan to shift some of the responsibility for treatment off of the cash-strapped VA and onto the private insurance companies of some of these soldiers. It is not a great plan, but it is a plan, and it's better than fiddling while Rome burns. Ignoring the problem while we wait for a miraculous plan to materialize does no one any service.

Right now these soldiers are getting ripped off by private insurers who do not pay a dime for their medical costs the vast majority of the time.
It think there are separate issues in here.

First of all, when I say, "Keep looking," that applies to people with the plan and people against it. Again, I recognize it's a problem, this is not the solution. I'm not saying, "Do nothing," I'm saying "Do something else." (I keep thinking of as scene from The Simpsons with Homer as a trucker heading towards an oncoming disaster and Bart yells, "Do something!" Homer fastens his seat belt and Bart yells, "Something better!")

I don't think that the plan even really achieves the goal rather than discourage or make unavailable private insurance for veterans. I think the fact that in an entirely separate policy plan Obama campaigned on, that our health care costs in general are too high, means that at least part of the solution can come from fixing the larger problem.

The separate issue is your last sentence, which I don't really get. Private insurance doesn't pay a dime (currently) for service related injuries because the VA does. Private insurance pays for non-service related health care. I'm not sure where the rip off is, you'll have to clarify.

That may be, but suggesting that veterans are suddenly going to be charged when they get injured is disengenuous.

That depends. Is the VA going to cover their deductibles? If not, there would be some charge to the veteran.

And I'd worry about what would happen when a veteran lost his private insurance. If things ran perfectly, he'd immediately transfer over to full VA benefits. But, in the real world, these things take time and paperwork. They're already having problems transitioning soldiers who leave active duty into the VA system, often with a period in between where they have trouble getting adequate care. I would guess that the same thing would happen in this sort of situation.

It just seems like a bad idea to me.

Disabled veterans aren't on a VA supplement plan in addition to their VA benefits. They are on a full, complete, entire secondary insurance plan. The secondary insurance that these vets have is not remotely comparable to Medicare supplement plans. Your equivocation fails.

Actually that's how its Defacto set up right now. Both in terms of the insurance contracts and how the VA bills it. Otherwise there would not be a need to try and change the law now would there ??

Obama is basically in an unenviable position where he has to try and clean up the aftermath of Dear Leader's 8 Year Frat Party, part of which means trying to bring in as much government revenue as possible.

Again, it's only being considered, as in it's not final and with enough pressure to convince Obama it's a bad idea he'll likely rescind it. Then again if veteran benefits actually do get better then it might be a fair trade.

Fair trade? One can only wonder what can make that seem possible. All this is just a precursor to national, single payer health care. That's the only way it would work.

Although, when I see Senators like Patty Murray objecting to the plans, I'm pretty sure this proposal is dead.

The separate issue is your last sentence, which I don't really get. Private insurance doesn't pay a dime (currently) for service related injuries because the VA does. Private insurance pays for non-service related health care. I'm not sure where the rip off is, you'll have to clarify.

Active and retired military personnel and their dependents are eligible for TRICARE through the US Department of Defense. TRICARE is a low-cost, comprehensive, single-payer civilian medical insurance plan (meaning it is coverage for non-service related injuries). Since it's such cheap and relatively good coverage, most active and retired military take it.

If they have another insurance, either privately or through an employer, TRICARE is always the primary payer and other insurances line up behind it (unless the person is on Medicare, in which case Medicare is first, TRICARE second, etc.). What this means is that the vast majority of military personnel's civilian medical care is covered through a government sponsored program anyway, and only a fraction of total expenses are even seen by private insurance, much less paid. Military folks throw hundreds of dollars of premiums a month down the toilet paying for private insurance that almost exclusively refuses to pay a dime for the soldier's medical care.

You highlighted the wrong part. The relevant part is "insurance." Insurance will be paying the bill, not the individual.
No free lunch, pal. Someone pays for insurance. Traditionally, (and you'd know this if you had a job) the employer pays the large part and the employee pays the small part, plus deductibles.

Like I said, the only way this scheme would work would be if we adopt a single-payer, NHS. Then the taxpayers pay for everything.

Actually that's how its Defacto set up right now. Both in terms of the insurance contracts and how the VA bills it. Otherwise there would not be a need to try and change the law now would there ??

That's how it's defacto set up right now? What are you even talking about? Medigap plans are specifically designed to bridge the gap between total cost and what Medicare covers. Medigap plans only cover Medicare eligible expenses, and they only cover the remaining costs after Medicare has paid its portion of the bill. They are entirely designed to revolve around only paying a small percentage of a Medicare-covered expense.

Private insurance that a veteran takes through a private insurer is not a VAgap plan or whatever it might be called. It is an entire, complete, stand-alone plan designed to be a primary insurance for a person. As such, it costs what you would expect an entire, complete, stand-alone plan to cost. It is not designed to bridge the gap between what the VA pays and what a procedure costs.

If the government designed VAgap plans, then you might be making some sense. But what these vets are paying for is not a supplement to their VA benefits. They are paying for primary insurance and then using it as secondary insurance.

Active and retired military personnel and their dependents are eligible for TRICARE through the US Department of Defense. TRICARE is a low-cost, comprehensive, single-payer civilian medical insurance plan (meaning it is coverage for non-service related injuries). Since it's such cheap and relatively good coverage, most active and retired military take it.

If they have another insurance, either privately or through an employer, TRICARE is always the primary payer and other insurances line up behind it (unless the person is on Medicare, in which case Medicare is first, TRICARE second, etc.). What this means is that the vast majority of military personnel's civilian medical care is covered through a government sponsored program anyway, and only a fraction of total expenses are even seen by private insurance, much less paid. Military folks throw hundreds of dollars of premiums a month down the toilet paying for private insurance that almost exclusively refuses to pay a dime for the soldier's medical care.
The catch is that you must be either retired or active. Someone that leaves after only their obligated service is neither. There are many, many more in that category. The other exception is retired from reserves. I don't get my benefits until I turn 60. So I do need to buy company health insurance because I can't get TRICARE.

The catch is that you must be either retired or active. Someone that leaves after only their obligated service is neither. There are many, many more in that category. The other exception is retired from reserves. I don't get my benefits until I turn 60. So I do need to buy company health insurance because I can't get TRICARE.

As a retired reserve, shouldn't you be eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select? I realize it's not on the same level as Prime, but it is still cheap, relatively decent medical coverage.

Active and retired military personnel and their dependents are eligible for TRICARE through the US Department of Defense. TRICARE is a low-cost, comprehensive, single-payer civilian medical insurance plan (meaning it is coverage for non-service related injuries). Since it's such cheap and relatively good coverage, most active and retired military take it.

If they have another insurance, either privately or through an employer, TRICARE is always the primary payer and other insurances line up behind it (unless the person is on Medicare, in which case Medicare is first, TRICARE second, etc.). What this means is that the vast majority of military personnel's civilian medical care is covered through a government sponsored program anyway, and only a fraction of total expenses are even seen by private insurance, much less paid. Military folks throw hundreds of dollars of premiums a month down the toilet paying for private insurance that almost exclusively refuses to pay a dime for the soldier's medical care.

Tricare is for retirees not for veterans who are injured and get out before they are 20. Tricare is total coverage. Tricare is administered by the department of defense military health system which is totally different from veterans affairs.


Do you even know whats being discussed ???

Tricare is for retirees not for veterans who are injured and get out before they are 20. Tricare is total coverage. Tricare is administered by the department of defense military health system which is totally different from veterans affairs.


Do you even know whats being discussed ???

Yes, it was an aside to CtoaN that has nothing to do with your conversation with me.

As a retired reserve, shouldn't you be eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select? I realize it's not on the same level as Prime, but it is still cheap, relatively decent medical coverage.
The short answer is that I don't get anything medical until 60. I think Select is for active reserves and guard. I wasn't offered anything like that when I retired and I haven't seen anything similar in the mail.

But, you never know... I'll probably call out of curiosity, now. I do like my BC/BS health care plan, so it probably wouldn't pay to enroll, anyway.

You highlighted the wrong part. The relevant part is "insurance." Insurance will be paying the bill, not the individual.
This is the kind of thinking that made the medical care so insanely expensive.

"Hey, we bill the insurance anyway, not the guy - so why not bill $1,000 per hour?"

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but from where I sit Obama's absolutely dead wrong on this one.

When someone puts on that uniform, they're in the service of the USA not the insurance company. All their medical costs, and most especially medical costs incured in service, should be covered by the taxpayers.

WTF else are taxes for?

This is the kind of thinking that made the medical care so insanely expensive.

"Hey, we bill the insurance anyway, not the guy - so why not bill $1,000 per hour?"

Lolno, that doesn't make sense.

The cheapest way would for the government to stop subsidizing old age and let nature take its course.

Night night, baby boomers...

The cheapest way would for the government to stop subsidizing old age and let nature take its course.

Night night, baby boomers...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

He's crossing a thin line. He's basically done everything in his power to alienate veterans, and trust me the military HATES him.
Uh-huh. Sure.

I'm presently a college student. I started off in the Marine Corps with the Platoon Leader Class program, then my friend Captain Mike Howard (USN. ret) talked to me about joining the SEAL Teams. Since I didn't have any obligation to the Marine Corps, I did, refused the Marine Corps commission, and went into the BDCP (Baccalureate Degree Completion Program) which is a program for College Students for direct commissioning. Contractually speaking I'm a Petty Officer 3 (equivalent of a Corporal in the Army or Marine Corps) in the US Navy, and after college I go directly to BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/Sea Air Land school). I have two years left.

So really, a bunch of right leaning ROTC college students hate him.


That is not "the military". Besides, I have a hard time imaging officers openly voicing their dislike of the CoC. Because thats not very military like.

So, Im gonna call you a liar.

Uh-huh. Sure.

So really, a bunch of right leaning ROTC college students hate him.



Ahahahaha, I hadn't seen the edit until you quoted it! I was damn close, pretty awesome.

Lolno, that doesn't make sense.
No surprise, there. Just re-read the exchange and think a little.

How does "Insurance" get the money to pay for things?

You know, I have always kind of wondered.

Why should people in the military get special treatment for doing a job they chose to do?

You know, I have always kind of wondered.

Why should people in the military get special treatment for doing a job they chose to do?

Indeed. The Right moans whenever the "eeeevil spectre" of health-care is raised, but it goes downright furious when people who killed people for a living don't get free treatment.

I, the translator? Kat, the teacher? Neo, the lawyer? Joe, the Plumber ( :D )? They couldn't care less.

Lolno, that doesn't make sense.
That's how it actually works.

If I billed the guy directly, he would refuse whatever he considers too expensive, and in non-emergency cases (i.e. most cases), go to the hospital which offers lower prices. There would always be one.

But since I bill the insurance company, the guy doesn't feel my prices with his wallet right away. So why not charge as much as I can? It's not like he's going to even know how much I charge, it's "free" for him, much less refuse. Yes, his insurance premiums might go up, but what business is this of mine? I got my money.

Besides, I have a hard time imaging officers openly voicing their dislike of the CoC [the President]. Because thats not very military like.
You redefine naïveté.

You redefine naïveté.

Watching a libertarian call someone else naive is real cute.

The military goes on and on about how it always supports their commander in chief.


Are they liars? Because Id be willing to believe that.

The military goes on and on about how it always supports their commander in chief.

The military as a whole does, individuals within the military may disagree.

The military as a whole does, individuals within the military may disagree.

Which just reinforces the claim that Mr. Blackwater knows what the whole military is thinking is bull.

And for more reasons then hes not military, just ROTC.

Which just reinforces the claim that Mr. Blackwater knows what the whole military is thinking is bull.

And for more reasons then hes not military, just ROTC.

Indeed

Update: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/vets.insurance/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration is abandoning a controversial plan to charge private insurers for treatment of veterans' service-connected ailments, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with veterans' groups on Wednesday.

Pelosi made the announcement while meeting with a group of veterans on Capitol Hill.

Veterans' representatives and members of Congress have angrily opposed the proposal, which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said was never finalized.

Leaders from 11 veterans groups discussed their position in a meeting Wednesday afternoon with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

On Monday, the groups met with President Obama, Emanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, director in charge of defense spending for the Office of Management and Budget.

The administration saw the plan as a way of raising more than $500 million in revenue for the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, veterans groups saw it is a violation of what they said is the government's moral obligation to treat veterans injured during service to their country.

In addition, they believed it would lead to veterans and their families losing their private insurance or premiums rising because of the high costs of treating many service-related injuries.

The head of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said Tuesday his committee would "not advance any such legislation."

His counterpart in the House, Bob Filner, D-California, said his committee wouldn't take up the proposal either. In a statement released by his office, Filner said the idea is "DOA" and said the budget "cannot be balanced on the backs (or legs, or kidneys, or hearts) of our nation's combat-wounded heroes."

The president pushed back during the meeting on Monday, telling the groups the private insurance companies were getting a free ride. He challenged the veterans to come up with an alternative way to raise revenues.

One of the groups -- AMVETS -- planned to propose that billings be pursued more aggressively for injuries that are not service-related.

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that about $1.7 billion in treatment that could have been charged to private insurance never was, nor was it collected by the VA.

So much for Obama's "war on veterans" that NM and his NeoCon cabal were qqing about.

That's how it actually works.

Except it's not. That is in fact the opposite of how it works.

Again, it's only being considered, as in it's not final and with enough pressure to convince Obama it's a bad idea he'll likely rescind it. Then again if veteran benefits actually do get better then it might be a fair trade.

Update: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/vets.insurance/

So much for Obama's "war on veterans" that NM and his NeoCon cabal were qqing about.

Clearly this was all a devious plot by the Evil Flaming Red Eye in Washington to psyche out Real Americans.

*Nod Nod*

I'd say, from patterns so far, that given how poorly received this consideration has been across the board I'd be surprised (and pretty disappointed) if this is even still being considered much less implemented.

Update: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/vets.insurance/


So much for Obama's "war on veterans" that NM and his NeoCon cabal were qqing about.

Go me. Also-
The president pushed back during the meeting on Monday, telling the groups the private insurance companies were getting a free ride. He challenged the veterans to come up with an alternative way to raise revenues.

One of the groups -- AMVETS -- planned to propose that billings be pursued more aggressively for injuries that are not service-related.

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that about $1.7 billion in treatment that could have been charged to private insurance never was, nor was it collected by the VA.
Go AMVETS for finding 3Xs as much with an alternate proposal.

Except it's not. That is in fact the opposite of how it works.
Except you haven't actually provided any argument, just went into denial.


Watching a libertarian call someone else naive is real cute.
If you have your own reality-detached ideas about what the term "libertarian" means, yes.


The military goes on and on about how it always supports their commander in chief.
Are they liars? Because Id be willing to believe that.
Everybody lies.
But for public persons, it's the job description.

Do you believe people become puppets that switch parties at an instant just because they don a fancy insignia? Must be one hell of a mind control device.

For individual low-rank officers, however, it isn't the job description. That's why you have one here who has disagreed with the government not only over the internet, and didn't find himself alone.

Except you haven't actually provided any argument, just went into denial.

Saying that the opposite of your proposition is really what occurs is not "denial."

I thought private health care was super plus good? Why is it okay for every other USian, but not for vets?

I thought private health care was super plus good? Why is it okay for every other USian, but not for vets?

Shh! Quit being confusing.

I thought private health care was super plus good? Why is it okay for every other USian, but not for vets?
My first thoughts also.

Saying that the opposite of your proposition is really what occurs is not "denial."
Let's see...
So you either say that healthcare costs in US are through the floor, or that the insurance system drives the healthcare prices down.

Looks like a denial of the reality to me.

Because there is the perception that, since the government sends the soldiers off to get these injuries, the government owes it to them to provide unlimited free medical care.

but here's the problem. It's not saying "we won't help you". It's not saying "we won't provide you medical insurance."

It's saying "if you have private insurance, private insurance that has already agreed to pay for these kinds of treatments, let's let the private insurance pay for it, BEFORE the government does. If you don't, we will.

How is this a bad thing? Shouldn't conservatives be all over this?

Despite the locking of the last thread, I think most of us can agree that this is an issue worthy of serious political debate, and that it is one where even many Obama supporters may express their criticism of this particular policy.

Here is the CNN link, for those who want details from a relatively credible source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html

Meh.

Veterans should have to pay extra for healthcare. They got to opt out of the working week for a while, and play games that would be illegal among civilians. It's a joke to give them freebies on top of that.

Despite the locking of the last thread, I think most of us can agree that this is an issue worthy of serious political debate, and that it is one where even many Obama supporters may express their criticism of this particular policy.

Here is the CNN link, for those who want details from a relatively credible source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html


..NM posted 2 links. Fox News is everybit as credible as CNN.

Meh.

Veterans should have to pay extra for healthcare. They got to opt out of the working week for a while, and play games that would be illegal among civilians. It's a joke to give them freebies on top of that.

you really have no knowledge of the working world...do you..

but here's the problem. It's not saying "we won't help you". It's not saying "we won't provide you medical insurance."

It's saying "if you have private insurance, private insurance that has already agreed to pay for these kinds of treatments, let's let the private insurance pay for it, BEFORE the government does. If you don't, we will.

How is this a bad thing? Shouldn't conservatives be all over this?


Private insurance has limits.


Okay as a member of the Armed forces, let me put it into perspective. The military has its own government insurance policies called Tri-Care. Basically I don't pay for Anything. Dental, medical, the works. The Government put these soldiers in harms way, they should pay.

And if thats how it would work, charge private industry, first and the Government pick up the slack? That probably would work fine. But thats not how it is. The Government will be absolving itself of any responisiblitiy to pay for medical treetment to Veterans. Private insurance has LIMITS as to what they will pay. Your insurance plan has a ceiling. Anything past the ceiling is ON YOU. Obama is more concerned with giving money back to firms like AIG who use it uselessly, and ready to cut money from supporting our wounded vets to support his programs. Proof that Obama is just plain dumb at this point. It's a shame really. The bill died so the fuss should lower in a few days. I really want the president to succeed, but I'll say this, If Obama screws up, there wont be another black man in the white house, for a LONNGGG time.

WTF?

How is charging private insurance for veteran's care an attack on veterans in any way? If a veteran has private insurance, how does it hurt him or her to have their insurance contribute to their health care?

By the way, I don't understand why the double standard.

Why soldiers get free care, and other workers don't?

I think it would be a no-brainer that all workers (including soldiers) get free care for injuries and illnesses suffered during work time. The State, or the employer, should pay for it, generally.

Okay as a member of the Armed forces, let me put it into perspective. The military has its own government insurance policies called Tri-Care. Basically I don't pay for Anything. Dental, medical, the works. The Government put these soldiers in harms way, they should pay.
Without meaning to be flippant, you chose to join the armed forces, not the government, and there are plenty of other careers that carry risk of injury that don't get their injuries paid for by the fedral government, let alone perks like dental.

And if thats how it would work, charge private industry, first and the Government pick up the slack? That probably would work fine. But thats not how it is. The Government will be absolving itself of any responisiblitiy to pay for medical treetment to Veterans. Private insurance has LIMITS as to what they will pay. Your insurance plan has a ceiling. Anything past the ceiling is ON YOU. Obama is more concerned with giving money back to firms like AIG who use it uselessly, and ready to cut money from supporting our wounded vets to support his programs. Proof that Obama is just plain dumb at this point. It's a shame really. The bill died so the fuss should lower in a few days.
As bad an idea as this is, for both practical and political reasons, I doubt this is done because Obama wants to use the money to bail out AIG. Perhaps I'm not cynical enough. Having said that, I do agree with you here, although I think that should also apply to everybody, not just veterans, the poor and the elderly.

I really want the president to succeed, but I'll say this, If Obama screws up, there wont be another black man in the white house, for a LONNGGG time.
How does that work? You guys elected Carter after Nixon, right?

WTF?

How is charging private insurance for veteran's care an attack on veterans in any way? If a veteran has private insurance, how does it hurt him or her to have their insurance contribute to their health care?
Did private insurance companies send the veteran to a war zone to get injured? Why should a private insurance company pay for a service connected disability? If a veteran got his arm blown off in Iraq or Afghanistan it should not be up to a private insurance company to pay for the injury. Plus when you get a private insurance company involved the veteran will then have to pay a copay and other bullshit fees depending on how shitty the veterans insurance is. The government broke this person in a bullshit war the least the government can do is pay the medical bills.

Did private insurance companies send the veteran to a war zone to get injured? Why should a private insurance company pay for a service connected disability?

If the contract says so the company has to pay, of course.

The company could have refused to sign the contract on the grounds that a soldier's risk factors are too high (or ask for a lot more money).

This is the kind of thinking that made the medical care so insanely expensive.

"Hey, we bill the insurance anyway, not the guy - so why not bill $1,000 per hour?"
Yeah no kidding and just think private medical insurance can not even negotiate with Veterans Hospitals. So imagine how premiums will skyrocket.

If the contract says so the company has to pay, of course.

The company could have refused to sign the contract on the grounds that a soldier's risk factors are too high (or ask for a lot more money).

What contract? As far as I know my insurance company will not pay for pre-existing conditions. And making disabled veterans pay more money is pretty fucked up. Why not let octomom and her octobabies starve to death with every other non productive welfare recipient if we want to save some money or maybe we could stop giving trillions to the billionaire bankers. Veterans Service connected injuries should be the absolute last thing to make budget cuts on.

You know, I have always kind of wondered.

Why should people in the military get special treatment for doing a job they chose to do?Can you imagine how much money I would get if I was working at a private company and got my leg blown off doing my job for the company? Say I worked Target and the freezer blew up and blew my leg off. I would be a fucking millionaire and get my medical bills paid. Why are you complaining about veterans getting medical bills paid by the government who sent them into the war that mutilated them?

Can you imagine how much money I would get if I was working at a private company and got my leg blown off doing my job for the company? Say I worked Target and the freezer blew up and blew my leg off. I would be a fucking millionaire and get my medical bills paid.
Not by health insurance I don't think.

Let's see...
So you either say that healthcare costs in US are through the floor, or that the insurance system drives the healthcare prices down.

Looks like a denial of the reality to me.
Now you're just making shit up, which isn't surprising.

Health insurers negotiate with the hospitals and such so they get a smaller bill and people without insurance get charged more to make up for it. Your proposition that they charge insurers whatever they want was asinine and devoid of reality.

Private insurance has limits.


Okay as a member of the Armed forces, let me put it into perspective. The military has its own government insurance policies called Tri-Care. Basically I don't pay for Anything. Dental, medical, the works. The Government put these soldiers in harms way, they should pay.
So there is no private insurance involved in your equation. Who do you propose that the government would then be charging for services in that situation? I am pretty sure Tricare isn't provided through the VA budget. If soldiers have private insurance instead, they will get a bill then.

Not by health insurance I don't think.When you get hurt at work you get workers compensation and your medical bills are paid by your employer.

I thought private health care was super plus good? Why is it okay for every other USian, but not for vets?Are you saying you would like VA medical coverage quality for everyone? I made an appointment at the VA once and had to wait 2 months just to talk to a doctor my infection luckily went away before I was even able to see the doctor. So socialist medicine is super, super plus two good.

When you get hurt at work you get workers compensation and your medical bills are paid by your employer.

So the VA employs soldiers?

Are you saying you would like VA medical coverage quality for everyone? I made an appointment at the VA once and had to wait 2 months just to talk to a doctor my infection luckily went away before I was even able to see the doctor. So socialist medicine is super, super plus two good.
If the whole system converted to that, then all hospitals and doctors would be on the program, not just a handful, thus your wait complaint would be moot.
And for an infection? Maybe you should have tried a local walk-in clinic.

but here's the problem. It's not saying "we won't help you". It's not saying "we won't provide you medical insurance."

It's saying "if you have private insurance, private insurance that has already agreed to pay for these kinds of treatments, let's let the private insurance pay for it, BEFORE the government does. If you don't, we will.

How is this a bad thing? Shouldn't conservatives be all over this?

Your company has worker's compensation; if you get hurt while at work, they are on the hook for your medical treatment. Same for soldiers. They get hurt while on the job; their employer is responsible for the medical costs to treat said injuries. The VA only pays for service-related injuries. If a vet falls down a flight of stairs and breaks an arm, the VA will rightly tell him to go bill his private insurance. But, soldiers should be entitled to the same guarantees as any other employee. Hurt on the job? Your employer pays for that.

Meh.

Veterans should have to pay extra for healthcare. They got to opt out of the working week for a while, and play games that would be illegal among civilians. It's a joke to give them freebies on top of that.

No. Soldiers should be entitled to the same workplace protections as any other employee. While I don't think they should be entitled to more protection, they certainly should not be entitled to less. If any one of us were hurt at work doing our jobs, we would be covered by worker's compensation. I see no reason why soldiers should not have the same protection.

Let's see...
So you either say that healthcare costs in US are through the floor, or that the insurance system drives the healthcare prices down.

Looks like a denial of the reality to me.

He's right; you're wrong. Health insurance companies are able to negotiate lower rates with doctors and hospitals because of the allure of thousands upon thousands of potential customers that a health insurance company brings with it. Insurers and providers negotiate rates for services that are contractually agreed upon. The people getting charged whatever the doctor feels like are the uninsured who have no contractually agreed upon rates. What you think happens is quite literally the exact opposite of what actually happens.

you really have no knowledge of the working world...do you..

Private insurance has limits.


Okay as a member of the Armed forces, let me put it into perspective. The military has its own government insurance policies called Tri-Care. Basically I don't pay for Anything. Dental, medical, the works. The Government put these soldiers in harms way, they should pay.

And if thats how it would work, charge private industry, first and the Government pick up the slack? That probably would work fine. But thats not how it is. The Government will be absolving itself of any responisiblitiy to pay for medical treetment to Veterans. Private insurance has LIMITS as to what they will pay. Your insurance plan has a ceiling. Anything past the ceiling is ON YOU. Obama is more concerned with giving money back to firms like AIG who use it uselessly, and ready to cut money from supporting our wounded vets to support his programs. Proof that Obama is just plain dumb at this point. It's a shame really. The bill died so the fuss should lower in a few days. I really want the president to succeed, but I'll say this, If Obama screws up, there wont be another black man in the white house, for a LONNGGG time.

The irony burns.

How the "real world" works is things cost money. Treatment for soldiers' war injuries cost money. The VA does not have money. This plan was an attempt to save money, so that the VA may be able to continue providing medical care to wounded soldiers. To honestly believe that Obama was trying to save a few million in VA medical costs in order to give it to AIG is so completely assinine that I don't think there's a word to describe the stupidity. Really, you have no place accusing other people of being disconnected from reality. And the laughable racism you tacked on to the end of your post is just delightful.

Health insurers negotiate with the hospitals and such so they get a smaller bill and people without insurance get charged more to make up for it.
Yes, that's why US has the cheapest healthcare in the world...

Oh... does it? US spends the highest % of GDP on healthcare out of all nations. Perhaps it's the best healthcare in the world, then? Well yeah, being in the 49th place (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) by life expectancy is a testament to its excellence. The richest major nation in the world, with the highest healthcare spending by a huge margin, ranks 49th.



The problem is, health insurers don't have much leverage. It's a fixed-quantity market. What can the insurer do, deny its clients service in the hospital nearest to them? Ban its clients from going to a doctor more than twice a year? It's the ultimate seller's market.

Individuals can reduce the quantity of services consumed. 90%+ of things you normally go to the doctor for won't kill you, so if the prices becomes too high, you will use the service much less. That's a lot of leverage.
With insurance, however, the customer doesn't have anywhere near as much a choice. You can't just go on without health insurance, what if you get really sick. And not going to the doctor when you're just a bit sick won't save you any noticeable money.

The price-demand curve is extremely inelastic with insurance. Thus there's little pressure to lower the prices, market-wide.

How does that work? You guys elected Carter after Nixon, right?

Niiiice! :D

Why should a private insurance company pay for a service connected disability?

...because the insurance contract that they signed said they would?

Why is this a hard concept?

Let's see...
So you either say that healthcare costs in US are through the floor, or that the insurance system drives the healthcare prices down.

Looks like a denial of the reality to me.

Or perhaps he's saying that it isn't about healthcare providers thinking they can charge whatever they want because the insurance companies pay.

In fact, almost the exact opposite happens. The insurance companies decide what they will and will not pay - and what they will pay is quite often less than what the actual cost was. The provider will then try and bill the patient, but the patient usually can't pay it. So the provider gets stuck holding the bag themselves.

There's a reason that so many hospitals are in the red all the time.

There's a reason that so many hospitals are in the red all the time.
Yes, and that reasons stems from the system.

Other countries manage to do better for half the price or less. Forty other countries.

By the way, I don't understand why the double standard.

Why soldiers get free care, and other workers don't?


Because the US has this insane notion that soldiers are the equivalent of Homeric heroes and that we should be giving them special treatment and gushing all over them just for doing the job they chose to do.

Yes, and that reasons stems from the system.

Other countries manage to do better for half the price or less. Forty other countries.

I didn't argue against the statement that healthcare costs are too high in this country. That is absolutely true.

However, the notion that this is true because healthcare providers are overcharging insurance companies is bullshit. In truth, they are generally not even adequately reimbursed by said companies and thus quite often end up in debt.

you really have no knowledge of the working world...do you..

Was that addressed to anything in particular?

Okay as a member of the Armed forces, let me put it into perspective. The military has its own government insurance policies called Tri-Care. Basically I don't pay for Anything. Dental, medical, the works.


WHich is how it should be for everyone, not just a select few.


The Government put these soldiers in harms way, they should pay.


Welcome to the modern world. Asymmetric war is the new paradigm, and that means EVERYONE is 'in harm's way'.

If any one of us were hurt at work doing our jobs, we would be covered by worker's compensation. I see no reason why soldiers should not have the same protection.

If 'any of us' were getting paid to shoot people, I'd agree.

If you sign up for a job shooting people, you don't deserve any protection when someone shoots back.

I think it would be a no-brainer that all workers (including soldiers) get free care for injuries and illnesses suffered during work time. The State, or the employer, should pay for it, generally.

They do, at least in theory...

http://www.workerscompensation.com/

So the VA employs soldiers?

In a sense, yes. Seeing as the VA is a part of the Federal government and the government does employ soldiers. (http://www.va.gov/)

If 'any of us' were getting paid to shoot people, I'd agree.

If you sign up for a job shooting people, you don't deserve any protection when someone shoots back.

So your argument is that soldiers should have less protection than someone in a different job?

So your argument is that soldiers should have less protection than someone in a different job?

Of course! They chose the job, didn't they? :rolleyes:

Of course! They chose the job, didn't they? :rolleyes:

Soldiers should recieve the same treatment anyone else would for doing a job they chose to do.

Im no going to swoon over someone and call them "heroic" for doing a job that they chose for themselves.

Cause you totally know a guy in the military, right? A guy who just so happens to be the mouthpiece for the military hive-mind that we know definitely exists?

You do not know what the military does and does not think, because the military is composed of multiple people with varying political views. So, no, I don't think I'll "trust" you. In fact, I think I'll continue to call you out as a liar and a fool every time you try to speak for the entire military.

I am in the Military currently, I have been to Iraq twice and I'm looking at a third deployment to either of the two current war zones.

Myself and people I know do not always agree with Obama's decisions, then again we did not always agree with President Bush's decisions either. To say that we Hate him (President Obama) would be a wrong assessment.

@ Grave n Idle

By your logic if you sign up for a job that requires you to lift things all day, you should not be entitled to any medical coverage in regards to any back/neck/shoulder/knee injuries.

Further in reaility members of the armed forces do not get Free health care etc. Tri-care is funded by tax dollars, soldiers, sailors, and airmen all pay taxes. So in essence we DO pay not only our salaries, but also for all of the "benefits" we receive.

If you had said everyone who pays taxes should get the same benefits then I would be more inclined to side with you. However Joe Snuffy who flips my burgers at BK only on the weekends does not deserve the same benefits as John Doe who works in an iron mill mon-fri from 9-5.


@ Kings of Liberty

I think military service should be mandatory for at least 2 years. Thankfully for the lot that don't enlist however others are willing to do so for them. So they can sit back and complain about us getting "free" health care while they watch robots make Toyota automobiles. I always tell people who complain when someone buys me a free drink etc "If you want the benefits, go wear the uniform, if you don't then shut the fuck up and stop bitching."

So your argument is that soldiers should have less protection than someone in a different job?

The job I do now, and the job I did before this one had 'different protections' based on the choices of my employers.

Soldiers should recieve the same treatment anyone else would for doing a job they chose to do.
Which means receiving employer-paid (i.e. free to the employee) healthcare for on the job injuries.
Im no going to swoon over someone and call them "heroic" for doing a job that they chose for themselves.
Agreed, calling every soldier a hero is absurd.

@ Kings of Liberty

I think military service should be mandatory for at least 2 years.
lulz. Why?
Thankfully for the lot that don't enlist however others are willing to do so for them.
Even if it was mandatory Id dodge, so either way.
So they can sit back and complain about us getting "free" health care while they watch robots make Toyota automobiles.
Im not complaining about you getting free healthcare. You should get some form of healthcare through your employer, like anyone else would. Im just saying I dont worship the ground you walk on, nor believe you are entitled to special treatment for doing a job you chose to do.
I always tell people who complain when someone buys me a free drink etc "If you want the benefits, go wear the uniform, if you don't then shut the fuck up and stop bitching."
This is that hero worship Im talking about. Its pathetic. Do people buy garbage men free drinks for doing a job they chose to do? What about construction workers?

@ Grave n Idle

By your logic if you sign up for a job that requires you to lift things all day, you should not be entitled to any medical coverage in regards to any back/neck/shoulder/knee injuries.

Further in reaility members of the armed forces do not get Free health care etc. Tri-care is funded by tax dollars, soldiers, sailors, and airmen all pay taxes. So in essence we DO pay not only our salaries, but also for all of the "benefits" we receive.


So, basically, you're saying Veterans are spongers?

Us hard-working Americans are giving them stuff for something they don't even do?


If you had said everyone who pays taxes should get the same benefits then I would be more inclined to side with you. However Joe Snuffy who flips my burgers at BK only on the weekends does not deserve the same benefits as John Doe who works in an iron mill mon-fri from 9-5.


Why?

The only place hiring is BK, and Joe is taking all the hours he can get. Why should he get less access to healthcare?

So, basically, you're saying Veterans are spongers?

Us hard-working Americans are giving them stuff for something they don't even do?



Why?

The only place hiring is BK, and Joe is taking all the hours he can get. Why should he get less access to healthcare?

No I was saying all our great benefits, aren't really free like so many people like to think they are.

I ment benefits, Joe flipping burgers isn't going to have the same health issues John would from carrying heavy equipment all day.

The job I do now, and the job I did before this one had 'different protections' based on the choices of my employers.

My guess (given the nature of worker's comp) is that, in both cases, an on-the-job injury would have been covered by the company. And, if either job had inherent health risks, the company was legally required to provide protection for those risks and cover any injuries caused by them. Why shouldn't a soldier get the same benefit?

No I was saying all our great benefits, aren't really free like so many people like to think they are.


No one thinks they're 'free' - they just think that ex-soldiers don't have to pay for healthcare, the way other people have to.

Obviously, I'm aware that some of the taxes I earn from working hard, are going to pay for medical treatment that you preferentially get over other people, whether or not you are working.

Whereas, for some reason, I'm stuck with a combination of whatever my employer chooses to offer, and whatever I can afford. So - like most Americans, MY healthcare is somewhere between non-existant and shit.


I ment benefits, Joe flipping burgers isn't going to have the same health issues John would from carrying heavy equipment all day.

Joe is more likely to get oil burns, and John is more likely to get contact dermatitis from metal polish? Something like that?

So they should have work-specific protection... oh wait, they do.

What about the tests that just came back that show BOTH of them are in second-stage of colonic cancer? Why does John deserve better treatment for his?

lulz. Why?

Even if it was mandatory Id dodge, so either way.

Im not complaining about you getting free healthcare. You should get some form of healthcare through your employer, like anyone else would. Im just saying I dont worship the ground you walk on, nor believe you are entitled to special treatment for doing a job you chose to do.

This is that hero worship Im talking about. Its pathetic. Do people buy garbage men free drinks for doing a job they chose to do? What about construction workers?

I don't get free health care....

"lulz why" That's a self explanatory reason right there. You probably wouldn't last long in anyways so the dodging bit would probably be a good idea for you.

My guess (given the nature of worker's comp) is that, in both cases, an on-the-job injury would have been covered by the company. And, if either job had inherent health risks, the company was legally required to provide protection for those risks and cover any injuries caused by them. Why shouldn't a soldier get the same benefit?

Because killing people is bad.

I don't get free health care....
No shit. Can you read? I flat out said thats not what Im complaining about.
What I am complaining about is you getting special treatment. A lot of us dont get health insurance fro our employer once we quit that job.
"lulz why" That's a self explanatory reason right there.
Not really, good cop out though. You want a real question? Fine. Why do you think we should have mandatory 2 years military service?
Of course, Im expecting some bullshit answer about instilling discipline and patriotism into the youth. To which Ill just laugh at you.
You probably wouldn't last long in anyways so the dodging bit would probably be a good idea for you.
Because you are qualified to make such statements about me. The only reason I 'wouldnt last long' is because Im not a patriot.

Because killing people is bad.

Always?

Weren't you the person who argued vehemently in favor of the death penalty?

Because killing people is bad.

So your position is that because you do not approve of their job, they should get fewer benefits than you do?

If 'any of us' were getting paid to shoot people, I'd agree.

If you sign up for a job shooting people, you don't deserve any protection when someone shoots back.

Nonsense. They deserve the same exact workplace protections that you or I do.

There are other jobs that are dangerous besides "soldier". If people in those jobs are hurt at work, they get worker's compensation. Demonstrate what is different about soldiers that results in them deserving fewer workplace rights than other people.

Because killing people is bad.

But you know, assisting in rescuing New Orleans citizens trapped on their roofs is good, or assisting in searches at sea for lost ships or aircraft etc etc.,

Military personnel get called heroes, law enforcement officers get called heroes (when they aren't giving you a ticket) paramedics are often referred to as heroes, as are firemen etc etc.

Yet all of them receive lower pay than a lot of civilian jobs, especially until recently the military pay gap between military and civilian jobs was huge. congress finally started to close the gap

and yet some douche that can fake tears on video and remember a few lines of text gets paid 1.3 million dollars + bonuses and have thousands of mindless zombies worship them.


And no I don't care so much about patriotic youth, discipline would be a good thing though not just in terms of listening to superiors but things like being on time,learning respect towards others and how to address issues with people (especially co workers) in a tactful manner,learning better time management..I could go on and on..

All of which by and large America, especially American youth lacks, severely.

Other skills you pick up in the military would be useful overall as well, unless of course you plan on being a bum working at BK all your life.

You wouldn't last long because you think you know everything and you're too arrogant. I know plenty of people who aren't "patriotic" in the military.

The job I do now, and the job I did before this one had 'different protections' based on the choices of my employers.

But they both had the same basic, government-guaranteed protections. Anything above and beyond the government mandate is the choice of your employer, but everyone is entitled to the same basic rights while employed.

No I was saying all our great benefits, aren't really free like so many people like to think they are.

I ment benefits, Joe flipping burgers isn't going to have the same health issues John would from carrying heavy equipment all day.

So? They're both entitled to the same protections. They're both entitled to have any injuries or conditions suffered as a direct result of their employment paid by their employer. If Joe suffers fewer at-work injuries, then obviously he'll receive less care, but that doesn't mean he "deserves" less. He deserves the same protection against incurring medical costs as a result of his job.

I think military service should be mandatory for at least 2 years.

I'd sooner kill myself than do THAT for two years. NOBODY forces me to enforce the Law of the Jungle.

Always?

Weren't you the person who argued vehemently in favor of the death penalty?

We don't have conscription. Someone who signs up to kill people is doing so by choice. The best thing you could say is that they are willing to kill for profit, rather than for pleasure.

If you think our 'executioners' in the judicial system should be accomodated equally, I'm willing to agree.

So your position is that because you do not approve of their job, they should get fewer benefits than you do?

I don't recall saying either of those things.

The 'bad' aspect of their job relates not to a personal preference of my own, but to pragmatic, societal and legalistic values.

The 'fewer benefits' thing is a red herring. Veterans are getting BETTER healthcare than me, and under better circumstances. I'm getting what I can get from my current employer, and what I can get for myself.

Nonsense. They deserve the same exact workplace protections that you or I do.

There are other jobs that are dangerous besides "soldier". If people in those jobs are hurt at work, they get worker's compensation. Demonstrate what is different about soldiers that results in them deserving fewer workplace rights than other people.

What about assassins? Hitmen? That kind of thing - should they get special care?

We don't have conscription. Someone who signs up to kill people is doing so by choice. The best thing you could say is that they are willing to kill for profit, rather than for pleasure.

Or because they want to protect their country. Or because they don't see another option.

There are plenty of jobs in the military that aren't "point and shoot". And the general idea is that the training they do have in such things will be put to use only when necessary (although that obviously isn't the case).

Do you similarly think that police should be entitled to less protection because her job might entail killing someone? If a police officer is involved in a shoot-out and is injured, should she have to pay for her own medical care?

If you think our 'executioners' in the judicial system should be accomodated equally, I'm willing to agree.

If they are injured on the job, they should certainly get that injury paid for by their employers - whether it is a state government or the federal one.

But you know, assisting in rescuing New Orleans citizens trapped on their roofs is good, or assisting in searches at sea for lost ships or aircraft etc etc.,


Charles Manson writes songs, you know?


Military personnel get called heroes, law enforcement officers get called heroes (when they aren't giving you a ticket) paramedics are often referred to as heroes, as are firemen etc etc.


The Broadway actor who risked his life to jump in front of a train and physically lift another guy off the rails and onto the platform - at risk to himself, for NO remuneration.... that's a hero.


Yet all of them receive lower pay than a lot of civilian jobs, especially until recently the military pay gap between military and civilian jobs was huge. congress finally started to close the gap


And the military pays better than a video-store clerk - despite the fact that one of those jobs is about making people happy, and one is about making people dead.

Tanj.


and yet some douche that can fake tears on video and remember a few lines of text gets paid 1.3 million dollars + bonuses and have thousands of mindless zombies worship them.


This is... somehow turning into a complaint about whether actors earn their wages?


And no I don't care so much about patriotic youth...

I think you're mistaking me for another poster.

Or someone who cares.

What about assassins? Hitmen? That kind of thing - should they get special care?

If you're not even going to attempt to debate intelligently, I see no reason to continue bothering with you.

Are assassins or hitmen legal professions, subject to legal protections? Do you want to even TRY to come up with a counterpoint?

Are assassins or hitmen legal professions, subject to legal protections? Do you want to even TRY to come up with a counterpoint?

Why is it legal, nay, GLORIFIED, to kill someone who did you no harm in one situation and illegal in another?

Or because they want to protect their country. Or because they don't see another option.

There are plenty of jobs in the military that aren't "point and shoot". And the general idea is that the training they do have in such things will be put to use only when necessary (although that obviously isn't the case).

Do you similarly think that police should be entitled to less protection because her job might entail killing someone? If a police officer is involved in a shoot-out and is injured, should she have to pay for her own medical care?


I don't buy the 'no other option' argument - our legal system doesn't allow it as an excuse for theft, even when you're starving, so I don't see why it should be indulged.

There is a difference between the military and the police force - one is to preserve the peace, and one is to disturb it.


If they are injured on the job, they should certainly get that injury paid for by their employers - whether it is a state government or the federal one.

And how does that connect to Veterans (not soldiers) and their preferential care long after they served?

Why is it legal, nay, GLORIFIED, to kill someone who did you no harm in one situation and illegal in another?

Make a new thread if you want to debate the morality of the military. For the purposes of this thread, it is.

Why is it legal, nay, GLORIFIED, to kill someone who did you no harm in one situation and illegal in another?

It is legal to kill in defense of one's country.

Unfortunately, the people who decide what is necessary for defense quite often make bad decisions (especially lately).

Suppose an army invaded Brazil tomorrow. Would you consider it a legal action for your own soldiers to shoot back? Would that be ok? After all, the invading army wouldn't have personally hurt those soldiers...yet.

Make a new thread if you want to debate the morality of the military. For the purposes of this thread, it is.

There was no comma between "why" and "is"...

If you're not even going to attempt to debate intelligently, I see no reason to continue bothering with you.

Are assassins or hitmen legal professions, subject to legal protections? Do you want to even TRY to come up with a counterpoint?

Have you seen "Grosse Point Blank"?


Kevin McCullers: Man, why don't we just do his job, so we can do our job and get the fuck out of here?
Steve: What do you mean, "do his job?" What am I, a cold-blooded killer? I'm not a cold-blooded killer.
Kevin McCullers: Now, wait a minute...
Steve: No, you wait a minute. You want to kill the good guy but not be the bad guy. Doesn't work like that. You have to wait until the bad guy kills the good guy, then when you kill the bad guy, you're the good guy.
Kevin McCullersp: So - just to clarify - if we do his job we're the bad guys, and if we do our job we're the good guys.
Steve: Yes.
Kevin McCullers: That's... great.

There was no comma between "why" and "is"...

I realize this. I'm sure you have a point, so why don't you just get to it.

As Dem said, killing in defense of one's country is considered legal. If you disagree with that, and want to debate it, make a new thread where that is the topic. It's not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread has to do with health care for soldiers.

Have you seen "Grosse Point Blank"?

So, no, you're not going to come up with a valid counterpoint?

It is legal to kill in defense of one's country.

Unfortunately, the people who decide what is necessary for defense quite often make bad decisions (especially lately).

Suppose an army invaded Brazil tomorrow. Would you consider it a legal action for your own soldiers to shoot back? Would that be ok? After all, the invading army wouldn't have personally hurt those soldiers...yet.

And what was the last time the American army (heck, the BRAZILIAN Army) repealed an invasion?

Invader armies should be given no quarter. They started it, let their eyes be gouged off. But how many armies are defending ones nowadays? Japan, Germany, Brazil itself (Blessed be Art. 84, line XIX of our Constitution). Who else?

I don't buy the 'no other option' argument - our legal system doesn't allow it as an excuse for theft, even when you're starving, so I don't see why it should be indulged.

Well, for one thing, joining the military isn't illegal.

There is a difference between the military and the police force - one is to preserve the peace, and one is to disturb it.

Not strictly true. That may be how the military has been used in recent times, but it is not the stated purpose of the military. In principle, the police are for keeping the peace in a domestic sense and the military is there to protect it against foreign threats.

And how does that connect to Veterans (not soldiers) and their preferential care long after they served?

I'm discussing the particular proposal mentioned in the OP of this thread, in which the government would stop paying for service-related injuries for vets.

If you incur an on-the-job injury that requires life-long care, your employer (or, more often, worker's comp through your employer) is responsible for seeing to that care.

Make a new thread if you want to debate the morality of the military. For the purposes of this thread, it is.

A sacred cow?

There can be no dissent, 'veterans' deserve 'x' because... and that 'because' can't be questioned?

A sacred cow?

There can be no dissent, 'veterans' deserve 'x' because... and that 'because' can't be questioned?

Not a sacred cow. Equal protection for all people. No creation of classes of sub-people because you personally disapprove of their employment. You've consistently failed to explain why some people are entitled to less legal protection just because you don't like what they do.

Not a sacred cow. Equal protection for all people. No creation of classes of sub-people because you personally disapprove of their employment. You've consistently failed to explain why some people are entitled to less legal protection just because you don't like what they do.

And no creation of classes of Uber-people because you personally approve of their employment either.

Well, for one thing, joining the military isn't illegal.


Seen an argument like that before: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal".

We 'allow' killing in the military, but we don't 'allow' theft, among the starving. We allow one 'crime' but not the other - that's why I don't buy the 'no other option' story.


Not strictly true. That may be how the military has been used in recent times, but it is not the stated purpose of the military. In principle, the police are for keeping the peace in a domestic sense and the military is there to protect it against foreign threats.


Protection against foreign threats IS the stated purpose of the military?

How does that explain... say... Vietnam?


I'm discussing the particular proposal mentioned in the OP of this thread, in which the government would stop paying for service-related injuries for vets.

If you incur an on-the-job injury that requires life-long care, your employer (or, more often, worker's comp through your employer) is responsible for seeing to that care.

But then, my job doesn't ask me to kill people. Indeed, it tends to suggest I should do the opposite, as much as possible.

And no creation of classes of Uber-people because you personally approve of their employment either.

We're not. We're giving soldiers the exact same rights as everyone else. Injuries at work are the responsibility of the employer, not the employee.

So, no, you're not going to come up with a valid counterpoint?

Your 'justification' is that one form of killing is okay, and one isn't. You wouldn't (I assume) argue that hitmen or assassins should receive the same kind of protections, even though all the same arguments that COULD be argued about the military COULD be argued about them, also (except for the 'legal' bit).

Seen an argument like that before: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal".

No, in this case, it's more "When the law doesn't make it illegal, that means it's not illegal." ;)

We 'allow' killing in the military, but we don't 'allow' theft, among the starving. We allow one 'crime' but not the other - that's why I don't buy the 'no other option' story.

"Killing" isn't a crime. There are instances in which you can kill someone, and it isn't a crime.

Protection against foreign threats IS the stated purpose of the military?

Yes.

How does that explain... say... Vietnam?

I believe the explanation they settled on was that Communism was a big threat and that any more countries falling to Communism would give the USSR more power and then they'd take over.

It wasn't a very good rationale, but it was still based in the idea that military action must be taken to protect the US. Even the justifications for Iraq were based in that premise.

Unfortunately, the people at the top often make shitty decisions and then find ways to fit them in, rather than actually starting with the basic premise.

But then, my job doesn't ask me to kill people. Indeed, it tends to suggest I should do the opposite, as much as possible.

....which isn't really relevant to a discussion of whether or not people who work for the government (and might be asked to kill people as part of their job) should get the same basic benefits and protections as people who work elsewhere.

Not a sacred cow. Equal protection for all people. No creation of classes of sub-people because you personally disapprove of their employment. You've consistently failed to explain why some people are entitled to less legal protection just because you don't like what they do.

Except - you don't believe in 'equal protection for all people', when it comes to injuries contracted in 'careers' that traditionally centre on making live people into dead people.

It's nothing to do with my approval.

Except - you don't believe in 'equal protection for all people', when it comes to injuries contracted in 'careers' that traditionally centre on making live people into dead people.

It's nothing to do with my approval.

I believe in equal protection for all legal professions. If you want to argue that the military is illegal and/or immoral, go create a new damn thread for that discussion. For this discussion, though, soldiers are legally employed individuals and, as such, are just as deserving of legal protections in the workplace as you or I.

No, in this case, it's more "When the law doesn't make it illegal, that means it's not illegal." ;)


I only said it was like it... ;)


"Killing" isn't a crime. There are instances in which you can kill someone, and it isn't a crime.


I'm not sure if that's true to the spirit of the law, even if it's true to the letter.

If I kill in self-defence, the killing is a 'crime', but the 'self-defence' mitigates it. According to the spirit.


Yes.


Is that, like, on the US Army website?


I believe the explanation they settled on was that Communism was a big threat and that any more countries falling to Communism would give the USSR more power and then they'd take over.

It wasn't a very good rationale, but it was still based in the idea that military action must be taken to protect the US. Even the justifications for Iraq were based in that premise.

Unfortunately, the people at the top often make shitty decisions and then find ways to fit them in, rather than actually starting with the basic premise.


This, at least, I can agree with.


....which isn't really relevant to a discussion of whether or not people who work for the government (and might be asked to kill people as part of their job) should get the same basic benefits and protections as people who work elsewhere.

It is relevant, if the argument I'm making is that there are two 'classes' of work. the IRS work for the government, but don't kill people - which small distinction should maybe hold them to a different standard than, say, someone who got paid to napalm Vietnamese villages.

I believe in equal protection for all legal professions. If you want to argue that the military is illegal and/or immoral, go create a new damn thread for that discussion. For this discussion, though, soldiers are legally employed individuals and, as such, are just as deserving of legal protections in the workplace as you or I.

Then let's examine that.

Let's consider a constitutional amendment that allows hitmen and assassins to unionise and organise, and ply their trades... legally.

Should a former Mafia buttonman be getting his medical paid for out of your taxes, for that bullet he caught capping Nicky Finger's consigliere?

Charles Manson writes songs, you know

And the military pays better than a video-store clerk - despite the fact that one of those jobs is about making people happy, and one is about making people dead.
Tanj.




You seem to think being in the military=killing people, which is untrue.
Again I point out the military being involved in various Search and Rescue operations, or humanitarian relief operations. Neither of which involve killing people, instead those types of operations involve saving lives.

Further you're not even making a valid argument by using the military=killing people argument, you're simply stating your own personal belief/view on what the military means. If you're just going to continue to reiterate this then you might as well find another thread to post in as I have provided twice now examples where military =\=killing people. Also in peacetime, the military=\= killing people.

Further using movie quotes as a counter argument or to attempt to justify your position is just..well...dumb.

The last part of my last post was directed at another poster, not you I simply forgot to address it specifically to them.

Then let's examine that.

Let's consider a constitutional amendment that allows hitmen and assassins to unionise and organise, and ply their trades... legally.

Should a former Mafia buttonman be getting his medical paid for out of your taxes, for that bullet he caught capping Nicky Finger's consigliere?

In your assinine and ridiculous scenario, yes. If we made contract killings legal, and they were a legal profession, then yes, they would be subject to the same workplace laws as you or I. Why wouldn't they? They'd be a legal profession. Why should they get fewer rights than you or I?

That's not a hero, that's an idiot.



I'm going to go with hero. Sorry.

That's not a hero, that's an idiot.

No, that'd be a hero.

So? They're both entitled to the same protections. They're both entitled to have any injuries or conditions suffered as a direct result of their employment paid by their employer. If Joe suffers fewer at-work injuries, then obviously he'll receive less care, but that doesn't mean he "deserves" less. He deserves the same protection against incurring medical costs as a result of his job.

Colon cancer isn't a job related injury.

I agree everyone should be covered for job related injuries IE Joe should be covered for receiving a burn at work and John for having a compressed disk from carrying heavy equipment. If Joe got a slipped disk from building his own porch then his employer shouldn't fit the bill, Unless the employer chooses to do so.

However if Joe chose to stay in a career where he knew his employer only provided X benefits. and John chose a career where he knew his employer provided X, Y, and Z benefits. The tough cookies for Joe when he gets colon cancer he made his choice.

In your assinine and ridiculous scenario, yes. If we made contract killings legal, and they were a legal profession, then yes, they would be subject to the same workplace laws as you or I. Why wouldn't they? They'd be a legal profession. Why should they get fewer rights than you or I?

Assinine and ridiculous... I'm sure you are aware of the historical significance of privateers?

I stand corrected on my perception of your position. It seems that you'd accord the same rights to mafia hitmen you'd accord to pilots and sappers, assuming their legal status was equal in recognition.

No, that'd be a hero.

I read the first part of that post wrong. =\

You seem to think being in the military=killing people, which is untrue.


I must be thinking of the other military. The one with bombs, and guns. You're talking about the one that went into Iraq and used kittens to lick bunnystickers onto Republican Guards, right?


Again I point out the military being involved in various Search and Rescue operations, or humanitarian relief operations. Neither of which involve killing people, instead those types of operations involve saving lives.


And, again, I point out that Charles Manson writes songs.


Further you're not even making a valid argument by using the military=killing people argument, you're simply stating your own personal belief/view on what the military means. If you're just going to continue to reiterate this then you might as well find another thread to post in as I have provided twice now examples where military =\=killing people. Also in peacetime, the military=\= killing people.


The President's job is running the country. The President CAN play golf. That doesn't mean that the President's job is playing golf.


Further using movie quotes as a counter argument or to attempt to justify your position is just..well...dumb.


Really? I thought it was quite cool. (You know the 'Nixon' quote isn't just a movie quote, right?)

I must be thinking of the other military. The one with bombs, and guns. You're talking about the one that went into Iraq and used kittens to lick bunnystickers onto Republican Guards, right?



And, again, I point out that Charles Manson writes songs.



The President's job is running the country. The President CAN play golf. That doesn't mean that the President's job is playing golf.



Really? I thought it was quite cool. (You know the 'Nixon' quote isn't just a movie quote, right?)

Again you're implying the only job of the military is to kill people,which is untrue. Again in peacetime, military personnel aren't killing anyone either.

you keep referencing wartime, which even then the purpose isn't always to kill people, IE numerous buildings of schools etc by military engineers..

You're still doing nothing but reiterating your own opinionated view on what the military is not offering anything of value to the discussion.

Using movie quotes/referencing movies to make a point does nothing but show you have very poor debating skills and is still dumb.

Unless of course you're debating something like the social impact of a film on a group of society or society as a whole.

Anyways until you can come up with a valid argument/point I won't be responding to you.

Basically the military serves the government, the government takes care of the military. You work for a video-store let the video-store take care of you.

Again you're implying the only job of the military is to kill people,which is untrue. Again in peacetime, military personnel aren't killing anyone either.

you keep referencing wartime, which even then the purpose isn't always to kill people, IE numerous buildings of schools etc by military engineers..

You're still doing nothing but reiterating your own opinionated view on what the military is not offering anything of value to the discussion.


The definitive job of the military, is killing people. (I didn't say 'only'). That's why we have a military. If it was all about building schools and petting kittens, or whatever you think the military does - then we'd simply employ the people that ALREADY build schools (and pet kittens) to go on about their business.

So - what's the difference between schoolbuilders (in the school-building industry) and schoolbuilders (in this thing we're calling the military)? Killing people.


Also using movie quotes/referencing movies to make a point does nothing but show you have very poor debating skills and is still dumb.


Okay.

I thought that the occassional pop-culture reference that ALSO made the point, or the occassional literary snippet that ALSO answered the question, might be considered a rhetorical flourish.

I apologise for my very poor debating skills, and regret being dumb.

The definitive job of the military, is killing people. (I didn't say 'only'). That's why we have a military. If it was all about building schools and petting kittens, or whatever you think the military does - then we'd simply employ the people that ALREADY build schools (and pet kittens) to go on about their business.

So - what's the difference between schoolbuilders (in the school-building industry) and schoolbuilders (in this thing we're calling the military)? Killing people.



Okay.

I thought that the occassional pop-culture reference that ALSO made the point, or the occassional literary snippet that ALSO answered the question, might be considered a rhetorical flourish.

I apologise for my very poor debating skills, and regret being dumb.

The definitive job of the military is the defense of the country, and protection of its citizens. in some cases this means killing people in others it means military ran operations involving S&R. The coast guard, a branch of the military, also stops illegal drugs/aliens from entering the country. The army in recent times has deployed provide better border security.

The Navy has assisted in recovering aircraft that crashed into the ocean, as well as attempted rescue of other nations sailors who were trapped inside submarines.

None of these jobs, which were/are all performed by the military involved killing anyone

The military has no single definitive job other than protecting the nations citizens and government from threats, be they a foreign terrorist, a domestic terrorist, pulling someone from a sinking ship, or giving food and water to people who are left with nothing following a natural disaster.

To say the military has one single definitive job as killing people is foolish and ignorant.

I also could be a construction worker, who builds schools and one day decide to shoot my wife or coworkers making me a school builder that kills people..

The definitive job of the military


I tried finding 'definitions' of 'military'. The words that kept coming up were things like 'warfare', 'weapons' and 'force'.


The Navy has assisted in recovering aircraft that crashed into the ocean, as well as attempted rescue of other nations sailors who were trapped inside submarines.


Interestingly, lots of different careers (including swimmingpool lifeguard) might involve pulling people out of water - so that can't really be the 'definitive' identifier of the military, now, can it?


...or giving food and water to people who are left with nothing following a natural disaster.


FEMA might be involved in something like that, too... and the Red Cross. And yet neither makes a habit of killing people (that I know of).


To say the military has one single definitive job as killing people is foolish and ignorant.


Really? How would YOU define 'military'?


I also could be a construction worker, who builds schools and one day decide to shoot my wife or coworkers making me a school builder that kills people..

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, here. You appear to be constructing a parallel between the military... and construction workers gone wild...?

Obama needs to take care of our veteran's healthcare before he even considers steps towards a socialized healthcare system. Otherwise it is obviously a targeted insult against our military and we WILL respond. If money is an issue, clearly he should wait on his other healthcare priorities.

I tried finding 'definitions' of 'military'. The words that kept coming up were things like 'warfare', 'weapons' and 'force'.



Interestingly, lots of different careers (including swimmingpool lifeguard) might involve pulling people out of water - so that can't really be the 'definitive' identifier of the military, now, can it?



FEMA might be involved in something like that, too... and the Red Cross. And yet neither makes a habit of killing people (that I know of).



Really? How would YOU define 'military'?



I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, here. You appear to be constructing a parallel between the military... and construction workers gone wild...?

I thought it might work, since you were the one trying to parallel Hitmen to a legal career choice, you know, put things at your level of understanding and comprehension type thing...

You obviously missed the entire point of my post, the military doesn't have one definitive job, other than defending the country and its citizens from harm.

Civilian law enforcement officers sometimes kill people, so by your own argument and example "killing people" can not be the definitive job of the military.

Obama needs to take care of our veteran's healthcare before he even considers steps towards a socialized healthcare system. Otherwise it is obviously a targeted insult against our military and we WILL respond. If money is an issue, clearly he should wait on his other healthcare priorities.

Wait, what?

If he doesn't specifically target veteran healthcare before EVERYONE else... then he's somehow specifically targetting veterans.... for insult?

I thought it might work, since you were the one trying to parallel Hitmen to a legal career choice,


The 'parallel' being the 'killing people' part.


You obviously missed the entire point of my post, the military doesn't have one definitive job, other than defending the country and its citizens from harm.


The 'military' would have a 'definitive' job, if you could highlight a 'job' that could be argued to 'define' the military, as opposed to something that 'defines'... 'non-military'.

The thing that 'defines' the 'military' seems to be the use of 'force', the participation in 'warfare', etc.... no?


Civilian law enforcement officers sometimes kill people, so by your own argument and example "killing people" can not be the definitive job of the military.

Civilian law enforcement officers sometimes kill people.

Okay.

And the US servicemen that opposed, for example, the Republican Guard, in Iraq? Their mission objective was what? Protect and serve?

I already answered your question as to what the definitive job of the military is, it doesn't have one exact job that it does daily. It certainly doesn't kill people daily. I've done training for how to properly treat someone with a neck injury after a fall, given/had classes on suicide prevention, given classes/had classes on everything from boating safety to sexual harassment.

Now you're trying to say that "protect and serve" is the "job" of law enforcement but "defend the country and its citizen's" can't be the "job" of the military.

Nice double standard too, you support a broad undefined title as a job for law enforcement in protect and serve but you deny the same broad undefined title for the military as defend the nation and its citizens..because it directly goes against your personal views.

maybe if i changed it to "protect and serve the nation and its citizens" it would work for you.

point being the military's job is not solely to kill people, your own arguments are going against the point you're trying to make...guess you're too ignorant to see that.

Wait, what?

If he doesn't specifically target veteran healthcare before EVERYONE else... then he's somehow specifically targetting veterans.... for insult?

The OP said Obama was going to cut veteran's healthcare benefits for financial reasons. That seems to be rather callous and insulting since he wants to give everyone else free health care. Unless he really thinks free healthcare for all will be at the same quality as our current veteran's healthcare system... which is a little ludicrous.

I already answered your question as to what the definitive job of the military is, it doesn't have one exact job that it does daily. It certainly doesn't kill people daily. I've done training for how to properly treat someone with a neck injury after a fall, given/had classes on suicide prevention, given classes/had classes on everything from boating safety to sexual harassment.


Curiously, I've done training for those things, too - and dealing with nuclear fallout, and what to do with animals in emergencies, and how the chain of command works when the police AND the fire-brigade turn up on the site of an incident...

And yet, none of those things are my 'job'. Nor do they define it.

And, no, none of that meansI'm in the military, either.


Now you're trying to say that "protect and serve" is the "job" of law enforcement but "defend the country and its citizen's" can't be the "job" of the military.


Actually, 'law enforcement' says that that is their 'job', not me.


Nice double standard too, you support a broad undefined title as a job for law enforcement in protect and serve but you deny the same broad undefined title for the military as defend the nation and its citizens..because it directly goes against your personal views.

maybe if i changed it to "protect and serve the nation and its citizens" it would work for you.

point being the military's job is not solely to kill people, your own arguments are going against the point you're trying to make...guess you're too ignorant to see that.

Yep. I'm ignorant, and I'm dumb. And I'm a bad debater... and... all those other things you've said about me. Because that's you attacking my arguments, not me.

Oh, actually....

The OP said Obama was going to cut veteran's healthcare benefits for financial reasons. That seems to be rather callous and insulting since he wants to give everyone else free health care.


Really? I thought he was arguing for universal cover, rather than free healthcare?


Unless he really thinks free healthcare for all will be at the same quality as our current veteran's healthcare system... which is a little ludicrous.

So... why do vets deserve this better cover, again?

The OP said Obama was going to cut veteran's healthcare benefits for financial reasons. That seems to be rather callous and insulting since he wants to give everyone else free health care. Unless he really thinks free healthcare for all will be at the same quality as our current veteran's healthcare system... which is a little ludicrous.
One hopes that single payer health care (which is never free, by the way) would be better quality than what we have for vets or for active duty personnel. Unfortunately, the evidence is that quality medical care under a NHS-type system will be just as rationed as what we have for the armed forces.

Curiously, I've done training for those things, too - and dealing with nuclear fallout, and what to do with animals in emergencies, and how the chain of command works when the police AND the fire-brigade turn up on the site of an incident...

And yet, none of those things are my 'job'. Nor do they define it.

And, no, none of that meansI'm in the military, either.



Actually, 'law enforcement' says that that is their 'job', not me.



Yep. I'm ignorant, and I'm dumb. And I'm a bad debater... and... all those other things you've said about me. Because that's you attacking my arguments, not me.

Oh, actually....

Yes but you're saying "protection of the country and citizens" can't be the job of the military because its too broad of a job description and isn't definitive, yet you say "protect and serve" is the job of law enforcement although this sometimes means killing people.

you're accepting it one way and denying it the other because it goes against your notion that the military's sole purpose is to kill people.

I've already addressed your points, with valid counter examples all you've done to counter them is continue to say the military's job is to kill people despite all the other "jobs" it does. The only "job" you personally accept as defining it is the "killing people" one despite the fact their are other professions which involve killing people as part of the profession.

That's ignorance on your part.

The US military's Job then would be to

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

No where does it say "Killing people"

Really? I thought he was arguing for universal cover, rather than free healthcare?



So... why do vets deserve this better cover, again?

You must not be familiar with the Walter Reid incident where they found vermin openly living in amongst the veterans, and neglected care/living conditions that

...yea vets get it so much BETTER than the average joe....

Otherwise it is obviously a targeted insult against our military and we WILL respond.

How?:rolleyes:

you seem to forget that for the past eight years the VA budget was slashed and vet prescription benefits cut year after year.

the fact is, we're out of money, that's it.

no, i don't like it.

i don't want guys who know how to use guns getting angry at my government or my fellow citizens.

so what is your alternative?

hold a bake sale for them or something?

In truth, they are generally not even adequately reimbursed by said companies and thus quite often end up in debt.
With salaries in medical professions in the hundreds of thousands, and large numbers of staff not essential for actual medicine, that's not much of a surprise.

So essentially all this means is - that the massive gross profits don't go into hospital owners' pockets, but rather are spread among the entire healthcare industry.


The fact that many commercial hospitals end up in debt is just an effect of capitalism, which leads to a certain distribution of companies, where in every industry some will always be losing money, some have minor, some major profits. It doesn't mean that the industry isn't ripping you off.

The OP said Obama was going to cut veteran's healthcare benefits for financial reasons. That seems to be rather callous and insulting since he wants to give everyone else free health care. Unless he really thinks free healthcare for all will be at the same quality as our current veteran's healthcare system... which is a little ludicrous.
Likely, he doesn't want to give everyone free healthcare. He wants to talk about giving everyone free healthcare, because that brings him the votes of everyone who can't easily afford health insurance, without all the trouble of actually implementing it.

So the VA employs soldiers?No it was created for ex-soldiers and military personnel known as veterans. Hence the name Veterans Administration and 1 is before 2 if you did not know.

Obama needs to take care of our veteran's healthcare before he even considers steps towards a socialized healthcare system. Otherwise it is obviously a targeted insult against our military and we WILL respond.

Whoho. Calling for a coup now? So much for defending the country, I'd say.

If the whole system converted to that, then all hospitals and doctors would be on the program, not just a handful, thus your wait complaint would be moot.
And for an infection? Maybe you should have tried a local walk-in clinic.So you say. The government would probably handle universal health care like they handled hurricane Katrina and it would be even worse than the VA. I just ate a lot of raw garlic(Russian Penicillin) to kill the infection seemed to work. I did not smell too good but the puss on my tonsils disappeared after a few days.

...because the insurance contract that they signed said they would?

Why is this a hard concept?Because of the private insurance concept of not covering pre-existing conditions.

Because killing people is bad.Even if you catch them raping your chihuahua?

This thread is over Obama removed this idea from consideration.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/vets.insurance/?iref=mpstoryview
He was being diplomatic, he should have said after even the democrats in the senate threatened to come kick my ass.
Then again, it was just an idea he was toying with, there wasn't even specifics yet.
The important part is we told him no and he backed away from this bad idea like the pile of horse crap it was.

This thread is over Obama removed this idea from consideration.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/vets.insurance/?iref=mpstoryview
He was being diplomatic, he should have said after even the democrats in the senate threatened to come kick my ass.
Then again, it was just an idea he was toying with, there wasn't even specifics yet.
The important part is we told him no and he backed away from this bad idea like the pile of horse crap it was.Yeah! looks like those of us arguing against this were right after all.

Then again, it was just an idea he was toying with, there wasn't even specifics yet.
The important part is we told him no and he backed away from this bad idea like the pile of horse crap it was.
You know who don't share their crystal balls with the world? Communists.

Also, I would like to say Vault 10 has no idea what he is talking about on healthcare.

Yeah! looks like those of us arguing against this were right after all.

Here is my take on it. It is an idea that leaked. I doubt it would have become a proposal even if it had not leaked. You are going to have 50 bad ideas for every good one. Even if it had been a proposal even Mr. Obama's party was not going to vote for it.

Here is my take on it. It is an idea that leaked. I doubt it would have become a proposal even if it had not leaked. You are going to have 50 bad ideas for every good one. Even if it had been a proposal even Mr. Obama's party was not going to vote for it.Its political suicide for who ever supports it.

Whoho. Calling for a coup now? So much for defending the country, I'd say.

We already addressed President Obama, the military majority voted for McCain.

I dunno wtf Wuldio is talking about though...

Whoho. Calling for a coup now? So much for defending the country, I'd say.

Coup ?!?!?

No, no, a bonus army maybe but no coup.

With salaries in medical professions in the hundreds of thousands, and large numbers of staff not essential for actual medicine, that's not much of a surprise.

Salaries for doctors are sometimes 6-figure, yes. These days, that's upper middle class. In truth, the salary for a doctor has fallen in recent years as compared to salaries for other jobs.

And what staff is not essential? The nurses? Techs? Are you under the impression that healthcare providers are in the habit of paying people to sit around and do nothing?

So essentially all this means is - that the massive gross profits don't go into hospital owners' pockets, but rather are spread among the entire healthcare industry.

Most of the profits end up in the pockets of the health insurance companies and drug companies.

The fact that many commercial hospitals end up in debt is just an effect of capitalism, which leads to a certain distribution of companies, where in every industry some will always be losing money, some have minor, some major profits. It doesn't mean that the industry isn't ripping you off.

The industry may be ripping you off, but it isn't generally the healthcare providers doing it. It is people in other sectors of the industry - most often insurance (which will charge high premiums and then do everything they can not to pay for anything) and drug companies (which, btw, tend to charge much higher prices in the US than elsewhere).

The main reason that most hospitals are losing money is that they don't really run a for-profit business. To a large extent, hospitals will treat patient regardless of their ability to pay. They are practicing medicine. Most of the rest of the industry, however, is set up to be for-profit. And, since healthcare is a necessity, they can charge exorbitantly and still get paid. For them, the point isn't medicine, it's making money.

I don't recall saying either of those things.
Then what are you saying, 'cause that's what it looks like to me.
The 'bad' aspect of their job relates not to a personal preference of my own, but to pragmatic, societal and legalistic values.
:rolleyes:
The 'fewer benefits' thing is a red herring. Veterans are getting BETTER healthcare than me, and under better circumstances. I'm getting what I can get from my current employer, and what I can get for myself.
Not when it comes to workplace injuries they aren't.
What about assassins? Hitmen? That kind of thing - should they get special care?
You seriously don't get the difference between an assassin and a soldier?

Have you seen "Grosse Point Blank"?

Right, you think Hollywood movies represent reality. :rolleyes:

Protection against foreign threats IS the stated purpose of the military?

How does that explain... say... Vietnam?

Our involvement in Vietnam was (at least theoretically) to oppose the expansion of the Soviet Union's power.

Except - you don't believe in 'equal protection for all people', when it comes to injuries contracted in 'careers' that traditionally centre on making live people into dead people.
The rest of us are capable of differentiateing between legal and illegal...
It's nothing to do with my approval.
You keep saying that, how about backing it up with something more than "killing is bad, so they shouldn't get employer paid healthcare for work-related injuries."

I must be thinking of the other military. The one with bombs, and guns.

You are aware that not all military professions are combat oriented, yes?

Salaries for doctors are sometimes 6-figure, yes. These days, that's upper middle class.
They pretty much start at six figures.

Most specialists earn $300,000 to $500,000. That is median, the most typical. Average is higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_specialties
That's not exactly upper middle class. Upper middle class is around 100 grand. 140, 180 is there too. These count as rich.

Median personal income in US is $32,000. That means the doctor's salary is over an order of magnitude higher than that of a typical patient.
You still wonder why healthcare is so expensive?

And, no, it isn't this way in all the world. In UK, for instance, the medical salaries are far lower (link (http://student.bmj.com/issues/07/11/reviews/424b.php)). They're still good, but not off the charts like in US.

This isn't to say doctors are overpaid or they don't deserve it. I'm myself guilty of helping the Gini index, though in a way less humanitarian job. But let's not pull all the blame on scapegoats, shall we?


And what staff is not essential? The nurses? Techs?
Truth being, the safety margins could be dropped a bit. Also sometimes hotel facilities, some bureaucratic staff. Totally drop lawyers doing malpractice lawsuits, the whole staff of insurance companies - of course under a different model.


Most of the profits end up in the pockets of the health insurance companies and drug companies.
Healthcare is a bigger business in US than pretty much anything else. How come they aren't on the very top?

We should talk about gross profits, by the way. Net profits are the gains of lads of all kinds around the world holding 1, 1,000 or 10e8 stocks. And mine too when I buy them. Gross profits include those, and the profit (income) of people who are actually involved with the company.

You are aware that not all military professions are combat oriented, yes?

So, what's the difference between being - say - a communications operative in the NON-military world, and being one in the military world?

The gun.

The rest of us are capable of differentiateing between legal and illegal...


The difference between legal and illegal is - and I realise this is going to sound obvious - merely a question of legality.

I would take no consolation, as I watched the blood oozing from my body into the gutter, in knowing that the bullet that hit me was from a 'good' gun, not a 'bad' one.

Our involvement in Vietnam was (at least theoretically) to oppose the expansion of the Soviet Union's power.

Which isn't the same as addressing a threat to us.

It doesn't matter if the Martians have the biggest space fleet in the whole universe, if we're not fighting them.

Right, you think Hollywood movies represent reality. :rolleyes:

Why would you assume that?

If I tell a pretty girl that the light from her window is the East, and she is the sun - does that mean that I think she's a long-dead fictional fourteen yeal old?

No - because you can find inspiration or relevance in words already written. And - IF you can find the sentiment you wish to express already written, where is the implicit wrong in appealing to the words of another?

Hell, I even cited my source.

You seriously don't get the difference between an assassin and a soldier?

Are you saying there is one?

They pretty much start at six figures.

Most specialists earn $300,000 to $500,000. That is median, the most typical. Average is higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_specialties
That's not exactly upper middle class. Upper middle class is around 100 grand. 140, 180 is there too. These count as rich.

Specialists also have even greater education. I really don't think doctor's salaries are unreasonable. And, as I said, it is my understanding that they've been coming down, relative to other professions.

Truth being, the safety margins could be dropped a bit.

Sure, if you want lots more people to die or suffer because of improper medical care.

Also sometimes hotel facilities, some bureaucratic staff.

Hotel facilities? As for "bureaucratic staff", I assume you mean people who do paperwork? Some of that certainly could be streamlined.

Totally drop lawyers doing malpractice lawsuits,

Sure, as soon as people stop suing their doctors for malpractice...

the whole staff of insurance companies - of course under a different model.

Insurance companies are not healthcare providers, though. It was hospital staff that we were referring to.

Healthcare is a bigger business in US than pretty much anything else. How come they aren't on the very top?

Some of them are. Some aren't. Like I said, there is a big difference between healthcare providers and the rest of the healthcare industry.

In the end, healthcare really shouldn't be run as a for-profit business.

Are you saying there is one?

You have yet to make any valid argument other than constantly restating your view that killing is bad,

I've provided numerous examples even going to the extreme on how your statement is invalid in regards to using "killing people" as a definitive job of the military.

All you've done in response is quote a movie, try to argue the legality of a mafia hit man as equal to a soldier and answered others statements by turning them into a question.

You're not contributing anything of value to the discussion

Specialists also have even greater education. I really don't think doctor's salaries are unreasonable.
I don't say they are necessarily unreasonable.... Yes, I see why a doctor should earn more than average Joe. Education is not necessarily the reason, though. Most PhD have comparable education, they don't earn that much. Neither is responsibility alone; doctor's mistake can cost a life, my mistake a few hundred lives in direct deaths only. It's more really that everyone needs healthcare. I don't necessarily see why it should be 10 times more than Joe.
And in most countries it isn't - but rather just around twice more than Joe Average.


Sure, if you want lots more people to die or suffer because of improper medical care.
But fewer would die or suffer from complete lack of healthcare. Fewer would also suffer financially from medical bills bankruptcy (the leading bankruptcy cause).

Seeing how many people in US don't have an insurance, neither the money to pay directly, I'm sure having 4 doctors in the room instead of 5 would cause much fewer deaths than total lack of healthcare for 1/6 of the country does. So would reduced hospitalization terms and other things. Basically, implementing some elements of lean production.


Hotel facilities? As for "bureaucratic staff", I assume you mean people who do paperwork? Some of that certainly could be streamlined.
And some outright reduced or eliminated.


[QUOTE]Sure, as soon as people stop suing their doctors for malpractice...

They will stop if their lawsuits are dismissed for lack of a case. No massive payouts for mistakes that don't involve criminal negligence, and that's done.


Insurance companies are not healthcare providers, though. It was hospital staff that we were referring to.
They do increase the cost of healthcare, though. I'm referring to everything that the medical [insurance] bills go to. The whole model.

Trim off the majority of insurers, and you'll cut the cost.


In the end, healthcare really shouldn't be run as a for-profit business.
Probably. But either way, it shouldn't be run as an almost monopolistic single-tier for-profit system.

I wouldn't welcome putting the current overpriced healthcare wholly on the budget, but a two-tier system, where the taxes provide the services like in Europe, and if you want better conditions, an extra safety margin and a right to huge payouts in case of a mistake, you can go to a private hospital (possibly with partial reimbursement), could be both more effective and cheaper.

Which isn't the same as addressing a threat to us.

It doesn't matter if the Martians have the biggest space fleet in the whole universe, if we're not fighting them.

I can't argue that, it has been a long time since the U.S. fought a war in defense of a genuine threat.


Are you saying there is one?
:rolleyes:

I can't argue that, it has been a long time since the U.S. fought a war in defense of a genuine threat.


Most notably, against Martians. The enormity of their space fleet notwithstanding, we don't attack every perceived threat.

In fact, some cynical people would say, we don't attack ANY perceived threat. (And some would say that that has been the modus operandi for 'the American military' for as long as the concept has existed).


:rolleyes:

I'm not hearing a 'no'.

You have yet to make any valid argument other than constantly restating your view that killing is bad,

I've provided numerous examples even going to the extreme on how your statement is invalid in regards to using "killing people" as a definitive job of the military.

All you've done in response is quote a movie, try to argue the legality of a mafia hit man as equal to a soldier and answered others statements by turning them into a question.

You're not contributing anything of value to the discussion

You have yet to actually portray my argument honestly. I didn't say that killing was bad, in MY view.

You've prevaricated around what the definitive trait of the military is. You've consistently trotted out whole LISTS of things that other organisations do definitively, which makes it seem incongruous to suggest that those things then 'define' the military.

The military has chefs. DOes that mean that the military is 'defined' by cooking? No - of course not. You could argue that CHEFS are, but the military isn't DEFINED by the presence of chefs.

So - what exactly IS the 'definitive' trait of the military? I'm still going with the 'killing people' thing, because it's what sets 'the military' and the 'non-military' apart.

All you've argued is that vets deserve some kind of treatment - which SEEMS to be based on nothing except self-interest. You're not contributing anything of value.

So, what's the difference between being - say - a communications operative in the NON-military world, and being one in the military world?

The gun.

not really. I was communications in Maryland for 3 years never saw my rifle. The differences was I wear a uniform, got paid a lot less, and my boss and didn't have a clue how any of the equipment worked.

not really. I was communications in Maryland for 3 years never saw my rifle. The differences was I wear a uniform, got paid a lot less, and my boss and didn't have a clue how any of the equipment worked.

I assume you mean, you were doing that in the military?

If so...

Frankly, I'm not buying it. It's a cute anecdote, and thus worth all that an anecdote is ever worth, but it's also bullshit. No one is going to believe you were in the military and 'never saw' a gun.

I assume you mean, you were doing that in the military?

If so...

Frankly, I'm not buying it. It's a cute anecdote, and thus worth all that an anecdote is ever worth, but it's also bullshit. No one is going to believe you were in the military and 'never saw' a gun.

I saw it in basic. Saw it once a year for Rifle qualification. Saw it at my previous duty assignment in Korea. The rifle was not involved with my job at all in Maryland. We didn't even have one issued to us, just enough so we could have 20 people shooting at once for rifle qualification.

I saw it in basic. Saw it once a year for Rifle qualification. Saw it at my previous duty assignment in Korea. The rifle was not involved with my job at all in Maryland. We didn't even have one issued to us, just enough so we could have 20 people shooting at once for rifle qualification.

So, when you said: "I was communications in Maryland for 3 years never saw my rifle...", what you actually mean was "I was communications in Maryland for 3 years and saw my rifle when I was in Korea, when I was in Basic training, and saw it at least once a year, every year, despite the fact that I claim I didn't see at all"?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "I was communications in Maryland for 3 years and saw my rifle"?

Are you saying there is one?You seem the to under the assumption the world is governed by morality, well I am here to tell it is not governed by morality the world is governed by violence. As Bob Dylan said "Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid."

Even if you catch them raping your chihuahua?

Yes.

Even if you catch them raping your chihuahua?

I hate it when that happens, don't you?

So, when you said: "I was communications in Maryland for 3 years never saw my rifle...", what you actually mean was "I was communications in Maryland for 3 years and saw my rifle when I was in Korea, when I was in Basic training, and saw it at least once a year, every year, despite the fact that I claim I didn't see at all"?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "I was communications in Maryland for 3 years and saw my rifle"?

Seeing something 15 minutes every year is as good as not seeing it at all. It was an exaggeration but it carried the point hat a firearm had nothing to do with my job.