March 07, 2007
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
I've really become a big Neal Boortz fan, and his remarks about how
the problems at Walter Reed will be everyone's problems if we have government health care hit home with me. We in the military have this government health care, and we truly understand the meaning of the phrase "you get what you pay for." I have never had any truly bad experiences with our health care system, but even the day-to-day dealings are what we'd all face under a nationalized plan. It takes at least six weeks to get a doctor's appointment, for anything whatsoever. And when it takes that long, it doesn't pay to be picky about which doctor you see, so I've never seen the same doctor more than once...except for the one in Germany whom everyone hated so her schedule was always open. It also routinely takes over an hour of waiting in line to get prescriptions filled. And records are constantly getting lost. It took me two months to request records from my hometown doctor, and then once the records finally arrived, you guess it, six weeks to get an appointment.
Boortz is right: this is what we'd all do if we had government health care. Yeah, we in the military don't pay for it, but when you don't pay, you also have no grounds to complain about being treated poorly.
MORE TO GROK:
JackArmy has great thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:39 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree that a nationalized health care plan is a bad idea, maybe for several reasons but surely for the reasons you cited. Working in a civilian hospital definitely causes me to look at the differences on a daily basis and sometimes leaves me disappointed in the Army healthcare. However, the most troublesome aspect of this whole Walter Reed dabacle is the fact that military members DO pay for their healthcare. I've seen recruitment salary quotes with the healthcare incentive factored in...making $40,000/year look like $60,000 and so forth. It's one of the ways the Army can make staying in the Army (especially for certain ranks) at least comparable to civilian careers.
Posted by: Nicole at March 07, 2007 05:07 AM (Mk6ZZ)
Posted by: Nicole at March 07, 2007 05:09 AM (Mk6ZZ)
3
Which is a big part of the reason hubby and I spent 3000$ of our own money three times to do home births rather than rely on military healthcare.
Posted by: airforcewife at March 07, 2007 07:07 AM (0dU3f)
4
“Yeah, we in the military don't pay for it, but when you don't pay, you also have no grounds to complain about being treated poorly.”
Your husband is in the Army, he pays for it. It may not come out of his paycheck, but he pays for it. Same with the guy who gets his leg blown off in Iraq, or gets shot in Afghanistan or breaks his leg at Camp Pendleton, etc, etcÂ…
Military health care should be the best this country has to offer and maybe more people need to complain about it till it is.
Dismount soapbox.
Posted by: tim at March 07, 2007 07:43 AM (nno0f)
5
A government-moving toward privatization-with Republicans from top to bottom, does a poor job of serving its citizens and its people.
What an astonishing conclusion on your part!
Posted by: John at March 07, 2007 12:33 PM (v4s/2)
6
This is a tough one. Don't forget that not long ago, the plan was to close Walter Reed. When you're going to close a facility, you stop spending money on it.
IMO, the Army medical system is a victim of its own success. A war or two ago, many of our soldiers would not have survived their wounds let alone make it to Walter Reed.
I guess the point I wanted to make was that the military is composed of humans; making human mistakes. I used to think the Army hospitals were terrible until I had surgery in a civilian one. I've met some of the best and worst doctors/dentists in the Army. I should tell you my dentist story; he could pull my teeth anytime.
Posted by: R1 at March 07, 2007 05:51 PM (xexA1)
7
I agree, R1: my dentist in Germany was the best and I wish I could keep him forever. I don't think the quality of personnel suffers as much as the desire to make the patient happy. Soldiers think nothing of waiting in line for an hour, so why speed things up? And a broken down section of Walter Reed was most likely a step UP from whatever these folks were living in in Iraq. I think that leaves little incentive for improvement.
Posted by: Sarah at March 08, 2007 02:25 AM (vrR+j)
8
If our government shouldn't pay for the health care of our wounded, then what in the hell should it pay for?
Maybe commercials about how much we support the troops?
Posted by: John at March 08, 2007 05:43 PM (8h7sz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 05, 2007
SAVE THE UGLIES
You should go check out this
photo slideshow of ugly endangered animals. It was a very interesting commentary on the conservation movement. Plus, I think that jerboa is kinda cute. But what do I know; I'm a girl who hates dolphins.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:38 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Now how can you hate dolphins? They taste just like tuna!
Posted by: Ted at March 05, 2007 11:49 AM (+OVgL)
2
I'm your mother, and I'm surprised that you don't like dolphins? Why? Did they scare you when you fed them off the coast of Florida?
Mama
Posted by: Nancy at March 06, 2007 08:17 AM (b3nH9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MMMMMM
This should get your mouth watered up for
Lileks today:
Beware people who regard the distinctions between public and private as a mere legality, and one based on subjective viewpoint at that. In the end, they can define anything private as public, which gives them the right to take it away. And if you lose something you own, well, “loss” is a subjective concept as well that does not match real life. Or at least the real life you can understand if you have a whole new mind.
And if that doesn't make you want to click the link, this will:
It’s a safe bet that people who use the words “empowered,” “community” and “meaningful” in close proximity do not produce anything you can hold in your hands.
It isn't quite Notes from the Olive Garden, but it's definitely good squishy.
And here comes the heart attack, because I just tried to link to the Olive Garden screed and found that it is gone. Panic sets in. Lilek's main page says the screeds will be reposted in 03/07. Whew. OK, I suppose I can give him some time to rearrange.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
March 04, 2007
DESKMERC, THIS ONE'S FOR YOU
Found this via
SciencePunk:
Yeah, I didn't get it either until I went to the original website, and now I can't stop thinking that this is the coolest thing I've ever seen. Romantic Math is awesome.
Oh, and I totally want this clock.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:52 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
1
NEAT NEAT NEAT
(rummages around for disk of Mathematica)
I'll get back to you on this one.
Posted by: Deskmerc at March 04, 2007 03:46 PM (obWV/)
2
Thanks for the mention! Although I think the
clock on my site is much better, as it can magically improve your stereo.
Posted by: Frank at March 05, 2007 07:58 AM (ywDyB)
3
Too cool! ...and I thought my binary clock was something.
Posted by: Vonn at March 05, 2007 05:42 PM (/VoEr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 03, 2007
LINK
The new Victor Davis Hanson:
Anatomy of Iraq. Excerpt:
There were numerous reasons to remove Saddam — 23, according to the Congress that authorized the war — but the administration privileged just one, the sensible fear of weapons of mass destruction. That was legitimate and understandable, and would prove effective so long as either a postwar weapons-trove turned up or the war and its aftermath finished without a hitch.
Unfortunately neither proved to be the case. So with that prime rationale discredited, the partisan Congress suddenly reinvented itself in protesting that it had really voted for war on only one cause, not 23. And when the news and evidence both went bad, that lone reason was now pronounced null and void and hardly a basis for war.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
March 02, 2007
LOOKING FOR COMPANIONSHIP?
Anyone in Texas want to adopt
two truly beautful dogs?
(No,
Erin, not you. You already have four.)
Posted by: Sarah at
10:35 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
THANK YOU!!!!! Kobe & Kalli are still looking for a forever home and I truly appreciate you mentioning it here.
Posted by: Mare at March 02, 2007 06:14 PM (Oc90P)
2
Haha. They are beautiful, though.
Hey, I have four minutes left on my lunch break. I just wanted to say hi. I haven't had any time to comment on the rest of your posts, but I've been reading. And I miss you.
Posted by: Erin at March 03, 2007 10:23 AM (XRza7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
56kb generated in CPU 0.0176, elapsed 0.083 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.0704 seconds, 220 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.