|
Bigger breasts offered as perk to soldiers
|
View this Thread in Original format
| xKaoSx |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/21/mi...reut/index.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The U.S. Army has long lured recruits with the slogan "Be All You Can Be," but now soldiers and their families can receive plastic surgery, including breast enlargements, on the taxpayers' dime.
The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills.
"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio told the magazine, which said soldiers needed the approval of their commanding officers to get the time off.
Between 2000 and 2003, military doctors performed 496 breast enlargements and 1,361 liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents, the magazine said.
The magazine quoted an Army spokeswoman as saying, "the surgeons have to have someone to practice on." |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| It's good to get the surgeons practice like this, in case they need to perform an emergency liposcution on the battlefield. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
finally! My tax paying dollars being put into good use and something I can enjoy and agree with.
Ahh the beautificaiton of America... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It's good to get the surgeons practice like this, in case they need to perform an emergency liposcution on the battlefield. |
They could practice on your avatar! HAR!:crazy: |
|
|
| TrueToTheCrew |
How the can you guys let your government do this when you have children and the sick dying because they have no medical benefits. What is it now, 25 million with no health insurance?
Shame. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| hey, we have to have some perks to attract people to fight bush's wars |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew
How the can you guys let your government do this when you have children and the sick dying because they have no medical benefits. What is it now, 25 million with no health insurance?
Shame. |
While I agree that it sounds like a horrendous waste of funds. Frankly it's laughable. Are they really free operations or are there hidden costs(most likely). Are doctors doing the work pro-bono because they really need practice?(Hardly ideal circumstances for an operation!)
And while I agree with your statement that there are people who have no medical benefits, etc.
I do not believe a government has the obligation to provide health benefits to everyone. It's a huge point of contention, but nowhere does the constitution explicitly say that the federal governemnt is repsonsible for providing health insurance to all. They don't pay for my life insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance...why don't we focus our energy on lowering healthcare costs across the board to make it more affordable for everyone instead of looking for ways to redistribute wealth and tax the "rich" so that congress can continue to spend all it wants while those who earn their income are left with a smaller and smaller piece of their own pie?
I certainly don't think it's the government's obligation to provide plastic surgery to anyone! However if the operations are truly provided at no cost to the tax payers then it's just a weird recruiting idea that is destined to only recruit more women(by and large). And yeah, I think it's a dumb idea. |
|
|
| Nautilus |
| quote: | Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew
How the can you guys let your government do this when you have children and the sick dying because they have no medical benefits. What is it now, 25 million with no health insurance?
Shame. |
More like 43 million. |
|
|
| JM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
finally! My tax paying dollars being put into good use and something I can enjoy and agree with.
Ahh the beautificaiton of America... |
:D
the beautiful people, the beautiful people!
>JM< |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
The military is perhaps the most socialistic US institution, and yes for the record I also think military tit jobs are a waste of money.
For the cost of the Iraq war, most everyone in the US could have been covered with health insurance.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
While I agree that it sounds like a horrendous waste of funds. Frankly it's laughable. Are they really free operations or are there hidden costs(most likely). Are doctors doing the work pro-bono because they really need practice?(Hardly ideal circumstances for an operation!)
And while I agree with your statement that there are people who have no medical benefits, etc.
I do not believe a government has the obligation to provide health benefits to everyone. It's a huge point of contention, but nowhere does the constitution explicitly say that the federal governemnt is repsonsible for providing health insurance to all. They don't pay for my life insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance...why don't we focus our energy on lowering healthcare costs across the board to make it more affordable for everyone instead of looking for ways to redistribute wealth and tax the "rich" so that congress can continue to spend all it wants while those who earn their income are left with a smaller and smaller piece of their own pie?
I certainly don't think it's the government's obligation to provide plastic surgery to anyone! However if the operations are truly provided at no cost to the tax payers then it's just a weird recruiting idea that is destined to only recruit more women(by and large). And yeah, I think it's a dumb idea. |
Should an HMO be able to drop a patient because of a pre-existing condition or because they get sick?
Should an HMO be able to send patients the bill for something they are supposed to cover as part of a scheme to dupe people who have not read their policy?
Should an HMO be able to make doctors jump through rings of fire in order to prescribe various expensive medications?
Should an HMO be able to dictate what kind of care a patient should get instead of doctors?
2 out of 4 of those things have happened to me personally, and really I'm lucky to even have insurance.
The system we have in place now protects HMOs and pharma companies at the expense of patients.
For over 40 million Americans, their healthcare plan is, "pray you don't get sick." |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/o...print&position=
| quote: |
June 28, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Second Opinion
By BOB HERBERT
n an article a few years ago in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine took a look at the overall health of the American people, and compared conditions here to those in other industrialized countries.
What she found was disturbing.
"The fact is that the U.S. population does not have anywhere near the best health in the world," she wrote. "Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators."
She said the U.S. came in 13th, dead last, in terms of low birth weight percentages; 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality over all; 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes); 11th for life expectancy at the age of 1 for females and 12th for males; and 10th for life expectancy at the age of 15 for females and 12th for males.
She noted in the article that more than 40 million Americans lacked health insurance (the figure is about 43 million now) and she described the state of Americans' health as "relatively poor."
"U.S. children are particularly disadvantaged," she said, adding, "But even the relatively advantaged position of elderly persons in the United States is slipping. The U.S. relative position for life expectancy in the oldest age group was better in the 1980's than in the 1990's."
The article was published in the summer of 2000. At the time Japan ranked highest among developed countries in terms of health, and the United States ranked among the lowest.
Last week I talked with Dr. Starfield, an internationally respected physician, professor and researcher, and asked whether the situation had improved over the last four years.
"It's getting worse," she said, noting, "We've done a lot more studies in terms of the international comparisons. We've done them a million different ways. The findings are so robust that I think they're probably incontrovertible."
The U.S. has the most expensive health care system on the planet, but millions of Americans without access to care die from illnesses that could have been successfully treated if diagnosed in time. Poor people line up at emergency rooms for care that should be provided in a doctor's office or clinic. Each year tens of thousands of men, women and children die from medical errors and many more are maimed.
But when you look for leadership on these issues, you find yourself staring into the void. If you want to get physicians' representatives excited, ask them about tort reform, not patient care. Elected officials give lip service to health care issues, but at the end of the campaign day their allegiance goes to the highest bidders, and they are never the people who put patients first.
To get a sense of just how backward we're becoming on these matters, consider that in places like Texas, Florida and Mississippi the politicians are dreaming up new ways to remove the protective cloak of health coverage from children, the elderly and the poor. Texas and Florida have been pulling the plug on coverage for low-income kids. And Mississippi recently approved the deepest cut in Medicaid eligibility for senior citizens and the disabled that has ever been approved anywhere in the U.S.
Even the affluent are finding it more difficult to obtain access to care. For patients with insurance the route to treatment is often a confusing maze of gatekeepers and maddening regulations. The costs of insurance are shifting from employers to employees, and important health decisions are increasingly being made by bureaucrats and pitchmen interested solely in profits.
In the maddening din that passes for a national conversation in this country, distinguished voices like Dr. Starfield's are not easily heard.
Echoing so many other patient advocates, she continues to call for movement on two crucial needs: coverage for the many millions who currently do not have access to care, and the development of a first-rate primary care system, which would bring a sense of coherence to a health care environment that is both chaotic and wildly expensive.
"We don't have any national health policy at all in this country," said Dr. Starfield.
And there is no sign of that changing anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
The military is perhaps the most socialistic US institution, and yes for the record I also think military tit jobs are a waste of money.
For the cost of the Iraq war, most everyone in the US could have been covered with health insurance.
Should an HMO be able to drop a patient because of a pre-existing condition or because they get sick?
Should an HMO be able to send patients the bill for something they are supposed to cover as part of a scheme to dupe people who have not read their policy?
Should an HMO be able to make doctors jump through rings of fire in order to prescribe various expensive medications?
Should an HMO be able to dictate what kind of care a patient should get instead of doctors?
2 out of 4 of those things have happened to me personally, and really I'm lucky to even have insurance.
The system we have in place now protects HMOs and pharma companies at the expense of patients.
For over 40 million Americans, their healthcare plan is, "pray you don't get sick." |
I don't know if I'm exactly sure of what you're saying, but if you want government insured healthcare for everyone, you'd better get used to the idea of HMO's(READ: Socialized medicine). I'd rather do a home surgery job on myself than go to an HMO--they are generally substandard in quality(though certainly better than many healthcare alternatives across the globe).
I put more faith in the Hippocratic Oath than I do in some government sponsored institution designed to give me the minimum. Help make healthcare more affordable, don't bastardize it so that everyone gets the same ty care no the cheap. Not to mention it would deteriorate the quality of physicians in this country as they would no longer have as much incentive to pursue the medical profession. Look at why it costs so much and attack the root of the problem--band-aid fixes only last so long before the cost becomes even greater and you see another tax hike designed to "make healthcare more affordable". Who's gonna get taxed in that situation? Let me guess--tax the rich, after all, what are they thinking making all of that money! I hereby declare that it is their responsibility to be babysitters to someone less fortunate, but God forbid they ever ask for anything in return--after all, they've already got more than they deserve, right?
THE RICH!! me and my hard-earned salary! Ever spent much time at an HMO? You'd have better luck passing out in front of the emergency room entrance at a hospital.
Can somebody give me a compelling argument as to why the Government should be responsible for providing healthcare to everyone? Try to convince me--it's gonna be difficult. |
|
|
|
|
