Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by krimson, Jul 23, 2004.
Bigger breasts offered as perk to U.S. soldiers
Plastic surgery was being done while I was active duty '74 - '76. I worked on a surgical floor. The surgeons have certain skills and want to maintain proficiency.
Wow.. didn't know that, and this is the first i've heard of it .. but my question would be why aren't they doing it for more... philanthropic (sp) purposes... i guess there's some limit as to who they are allowed to 'practice' on.
While i dont know the detailed statistics of the surgeries.. performing a augmentation on a woman who had a mastectomy would be a much better thing.. (and better PR)
or, im just reading too much into it.
Not sure what you mean by doing it for philantrophic purposes. In a military hospital only active duty personnel, their immediate family, or retired can be treated. The surgeons are practicing, in most cases they are already board certified. In the case of a mastectomy for cancer, the reconstruction can be seen as medically necessary.
My neighbor, who is in the army stationed in Hawaii, was able to receive corrective eye lazar surgery for free. In addition, his wife and family can relish this benefit.
It's not plastic surgery, but it's along the same lines. I would think wearing glasses or contacts could impede your ability to perform many military tasks, or at least make them more of a hinderance than they would be.
As for the plastic surgery being used for "legitimate" reasons, think of your face being blown off or burned in a testing procedure or something. That can be justified.
I think the men and women in the military deserve a lot for what they do. The actual costs to the government is far less than what it would be for the people to get it done by themselves. The doctors need practice and if they aren't doing doctoring then their time is wasted.
Perhaps "Be All You Can Be" should be "C all you can DD?"
I agree with Mongo; if people are going to volunteer to put their lives on the line for our country, they deserve a few extra perks.
OH THE PUNS! OH! OH!
People need to lighten up.
If the army was using taxpayer money to send the people to private surgeons for the surgeries, i might be pissed.
what they're doing is pragmatic and sensical. everybody wins.
this is more than a little disturbing...a significant portion of plastic surgery is quasi-medicine anyway.
I don't want to be paying for your boob jobs or BOTOX appointments.
Unless things have changed, military hospitals did accept civilians for ambulance calls (if they are the nearest).
The issue is that taxpayer money is being spent on purely cosmetic surgery; for vanity purposes. And that is wrong. The philanthropic idea is that there are those that need the surgery, not for vanity but improved quality of life. Yet for a number of reasons they are not getting that surgery. It would be far better to bring these people in, than to give some officers wife a tummy tuck.
There needs to be a better system so these surgeons can maintain their skills, but not for vanity needs on the taxpayer dime.
I'd think it is pretty vital for military surgeons to maintain their proficiency in certain skills. If maintaining that proficiency means performing surgical operations free-of-charge for military personnel and their next-of-kin, so be it. The way I understand it, the surgeons are being paid whether they operate or not, and I'm pretty sure that the costs the armed forces incur to operate upon a patient are certainly not going to bankrupt the mighty american military machine. They probably consider new boobes for Sargent Smith's wife to be a "upkeep cost" for their surgeons, and largely, that's fair and square.
And now, the de-rigeur quip (which I trust you'll all forgive me for voicing): "Make love, not war".
Why not get them to practice their skills on the poor and medically uninsured for vital operations and not cosmetic/unnecessary purposes.
Sensical??? Do you mean sensible?
I agree, there isn't a real cost increase doing the surgery on base. The surgeons are paid whether they work or not. The hospitals have to be supplied. It is to everyones benefit that the surgeons remain competent.
Those that are in the military are making an important contribution. Willing to put their lives on the line, so that others have the freedom to complain. They deserve our thanks. This is a way to say thank you.
I would guess that there is a need for cosmetic reconstruction in military hospitals, to help heavily wounded or burned soldiers. If the surgeons are training for plastic surgery, then they need to practice that particular skill. The article is vague, but I'm sure the people they are referring to are specialists, and not some generic "surgeon" needing to practice making cuts.
This actually helps the military keep more and better surgeons by giving them the opportunity to perform work similar to what they would do as a civilian. The military becomes a more attractive option for them to practice and learn and thus improve their options should they choose to switch to civilian life.
Cosmetic surgery is also very common with traumatic injury such as those that are common in battle. Improving the appearance of such severe injuries is tricky and was in the past sometimes either skipped or performed very crudely by surgeons unfamiliar with the relevant proceedures. The result is increased mental trauma and stress that interferes with recovery and rehabilitation.
I think veterans absolutely deserve the best medical treatment we can provide them. If this helps the doctors as well, so much the better.
And people wonder why Americans don't like paying taxes...
If there were, in fact, no other way for these surgeons to practice their skills - I would reluctantly go along with this.
Heck, if nothing else, send them on a humanitarian mission to various places around the world that are in the midst of war. I'd wager there are many people and especially children that could use reconstructive surgery and have no access to this type of medical care in most developing countries.
Seems like a better use of my money.
Your suggestion is a good one. It is already occurring. Doctors without borders is just one of many. Many hospitals and doctors provide free surgical care to children in need. Some of them bring the children to the US. Others use their vacation time to go in to areas a need around the world.
Thank you, I forgot about Doctors Without Borders. This is the type of thing that I was thinking of; but perhaps with a more "nationalist" point of view.
While some of wdlove's comments I understand being a military brat, whose father served 20+ years - there is a need to balance the "cost" to provide those that might be able to pay,, from those that can't.
There might be exceptions for those that need laser eye surgery. But for the life of me I cant see how liposuction, or an eye-lift or tummy-tuck can benefit the Doctors in dealing with the issues of those that face wartime cosmetic surgery.
what about a son or daughter of active duty person is born with a deformity that keeps them from eatting or breathing correctly or both. A plastic sugeon would be the one to repair that damage. i would be dead if it wasn't for a plastic sugeon.
Yeah, that is what I was kinda getting at without spelling it out - can't take any credit for original thinking here.
It seems like the "Spartanization" of this country is nearly complete
that is the sort of thing that should and needs to be covered. Sorry if my other posts did not make it clear.
Vanity surgery should not be covered. There is a difference IMO about vanity and corrective surgery. The report made it seem that vanity surgery was now covered.
I have no problem with it. And I can see why they limit the surgery to military personnel. If they opened it up to everybody they they would be just begging to get sued. At least with military personnel and dependents they can limit the chances of getting sued.
I have USAA car insurance which has some of the lowest rates around. It is limited to only military officers and their dependents. The reason it is so cheap (not government funded) is that insurance fraud and frivolous lawsuits among this group is really low. I am sure the military's thinking is along those lines. They have extra capacity to do more surgeries, but they don't want it to cause trouble. Simply operate only on military personnel and dependents. Less risk of getting sued and you give your servicemen a new perk.
US medical facilities are often used in foreign countries to provide health care that cannot be provided by local doctors. An actual case was my youngest daughter who developed a tumour on her spinal cord just below the junction of the skull and the neck. The only doctors with the proper training available at the time were US Military Doctors. They successfully performed the procedure, for which I am very grateful.
BTW they also extracted shrapnel and patched up non combatants in Somalia. I owe my ability to sit down without pain to some US Army Medics. And I'm a Canadian...
I use USAA also, a great company. It makes a difference having a more selective customer base. Customers used to working toward the good of the company.