Jump to content

Menu

S/O Health care now a human right in Vermont


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 326
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I absolutely agree with you that we need to get out of the wars. We also need to end a majority of nation building internationally.

 

We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. People with businesses and money provide jobs.

 

We have had the cuts for about 10 years. Where are the jobs?

 

My grandfather paid the income tax rates in the 50s and 60s of 70 to 90%. Yet he was still able to create 100s and 100s of jobs. He still was able to take his extended, extended family all over the world many times. He was still able to enjoy a lot of money. I don't buy it that they will not create jobs if we go back to the rates under President Clinton which were still low by comparison to the rates in my grandfathers day when jobs were booming.

 

As for jobs, one thing our country really needs to do is to modify free trade. It is unsustainable for all of our jobs to be shipped overseas:(. Free trade needs to be modified IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone had medicare, I'm thinking that the quality and standard would rise, b/c it wouldn't be dismissed as just the poor that had it.

 

Lets face it, the poor are powerless. Easy to ignore. But if the rich and powerful had to deal with the same health care system, things would change in a hurry. What is deemed acceptable for those who have no voice wouldn't be tolerated by those with power.

 

There are no income limits for medicare. Most retirees have medicare regardless of their income or assets.

Edited by LizzyBee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare for all does not equate to people seeking to be dependent upon the state at all. People do pay for medicare now. I strongly believe in personal repsonsibility, hard work, and frugality. I also hope my dh earns a lot of money. I just think for medical care, the extreme profit motive needs to be taken out of the equation since human lives are in the balance. For example, the top executives at insurance companies do not need to make 20 plus million dollars a year IMO. Medicare for all would take this out of the equation:D

 

I do see your point, but I still do not believe the government is the end-all, be-all to our problems.

 

We are capitalists. Profit motive drives business here. I understand that you would prefer a different system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is I would rather not have most people dependent on the government for healthcare (or anything else). IMO, Medicare is not a success.

 

If they have paid into medicare all of their working lives, then they are not dependent upon the government. They paid their fair share.

 

As for the success, I disagree. I have read of many people in the 50s and early 60s who thank God once they are eligible for medicare seeing as many of them have had to forgo medical care previously:(.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're very unlikely to be able to afford it, and once you get it this way, without some sort of regulatory relief, if you could afford it when you were well, you'll find that you can't anymore once your health goes south. The rates are only in place year by year in private insurance. So the bottom line really is that if you're not on Medicare as a senior, your health insurance will fall apart on you just when you need it most, under our current set of laws and product offerings.

 

:iagree:As a side note, my dad won't retire until he's 70. Both of my parents *had* to enroll in Medicare just to keep their current insurance. Their private insurance won't pay one penny if Medicare isn't billed first.

 

I think that system is a bit whacked too... but my parents feel like they are "****ed if they do" and "****ed if they don't." They don't like the Medicare system, would like to opt out of it -- but if they do, they won't be able to see a doctor without paying 100% of the costs. That is just not feasible, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're very unlikely to be able to afford it, QUOTE]

 

How do you know what I can afford?

 

You know, I was careful here and said 'unlikely'. And I stand by that statement, because it is extraordinarily expensive to purchase private health insurance in retirement, and very few people can afford it no matter how hard they save.

 

Why don't you check the prices and see for yourself how much private insurance costs in your senior years? And then check the prices for private insurance continuation beyond the point of a serious diagnosis? And then check the rejection rates for those who have a serious diagnosis--if not for government regulation, those people who are very sick would not be able to get insurance at all, and even with it, they have to show some kind of semi-continuous coverage history to be entitled to even have private insurance available to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have had the cuts for about 10 years. Where are the jobs?

 

My grandfather paid the income tax rates in the 50s and 60s of 70 to 90%. Yet he was still able to create 100s and 100s of jobs. He still was able to take his extended, extended family all over the world many times. He was still able to enjoy a lot of money. I don't buy it that they will not create jobs if we go back to the rates under President Clinton which were still low by comparison to the rates in my grandfathers day when jobs were booming.

 

As for jobs, one thing our country really needs to do is to modify free trade. It is unsustainable for all of our jobs to be shipped overseas:(. Free trade needs to be modified IMO.

 

Companies are holding money because they are uncertain what additional taxes and regulation are coming down the pike. Would your family spend and spend if you knew you probably had additional bills coming?

 

And I agree that shipping jobs overseas doesn't help us. The shackles need to be removed from businesses so we can produce things here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone had medicare, I'm thinking that the quality and standard would rise, b/c it wouldn't be dismissed as just the poor that had it.

 

Lets face it, the poor are powerless. Easy to ignore. But if the rich and powerful had to deal with the same health care system, things would change in a hurry. What is deemed acceptable for those who have no voice wouldn't be tolerated by those with power.

I truly believe in this country where the poor are way way richer than the truly poor in the world that our poor are kept that way by forces within and just outside of the government that wants to desperately to "help" them.

 

If these people were allowed to succeed things would be vastly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they have paid into medicare all of their working lives, then they are not dependent upon the government. They paid their fair share.

 

As for the success, I disagree. I have read of many people in the 50s and early 60s who thank God once they are eligible for medicare seeing as many of them have had to forgo medical care previously:(.

 

You sound like my DH's grandma. She was telling me how SHE WANTS HER SOCIAL SECURITY BECAUSE SHE PAID INTO IT! Even though she has a very high yearly income. (I guess there was some talk about reducing SS benefits to people making over a certain amount.) What she doesn't realize is that she used up her contributions in the first 5 years of her retirement. She's now 91.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. :001_huh:

 

Where's Johnny? Any good kilts around?

 

OH hey, speaking of pot stirring, I tried this great recipe this weekend. Ya'll have to try it!

 

 

Mama's 3 bean salad recipe!

 

Ingredients

 

1 (15 ounce) can garbanzo beans (chickpeas), drained and rinsed

1 (15 ounce) can kidney beans, drained and rinsed

1 (15 ounce) can green beans, drained and rinsed

4 green onions, chopped

1 stalk celery, sliced

 

1/2 cup cider vinegar

1/4 cup vegetable oil

1 tablespoon honey

1/2 teaspoon ground dry mustard

1/4 teaspoon garlic powder

1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper

1/4 teaspoon onion powder (optional)

1/4 teaspoon ground cayenne pepper (optional)

 

 

Directions

 

In a bowl, gently mix the garbanzo beans, kidney beans, green beans, green onions, and celery. In a separate bowl, whisk together the vinegar, oil, honey, mustard, garlic powder, black pepper, onion powder, and cayenne pepper. Pour dressing over the salad, and toss gently to coat. Cover, refrigerate at least 2 hours, and gently toss before serving.

 

:thumbup1::thumbup1:

Edited by cin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read of many people in the 50s and early 60s who thank God once they are eligible for medicare seeing as many of them have had to forgo medical care previously:(.

 

I know people like this, too, and many of them are hardworking, effective people who have saved their whole lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me if I'm not understanding--are you saying the earlier poster is in the military and gets his medical care paid thru the rest of America's taxpayers, yet does not believe the gov't should cover all??

If so, then I am totally flabbergasted! But then, maybe that is part of the "privilege" statement. Soldiers do something to deserve healthcare, while the sick, the poor, the non-soldiers do not contribute. That's interesting.....but then why do soldiers' families deserve care??

 

Umm, it's called an employment benefit. Their employer is the government, ergo taxpayers pay their salaries and benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Companies are holding money because they are uncertain what additional taxes and regulation are coming down the pike. Would your family spend and spend if you knew you probably had additional bills coming?

 

And I agree that shipping jobs overseas doesn't help us. The shackles need to be removed from businesses so we can produce things here again.

 

I don't think companies are shipping our jobs overseas because of shackles at all. I think they are freely shipping our jobs overseas to pay them slave wages so they can make outrageous amounts of money for their top executives which is often 400 to 700 times the average employee wages. In the 60s top executives made only about 60 times the average workers. Can you say robber baron?:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, being a student is not a right. It is a privilege. We are lucky enough to live in a country that does not use child labor, is interested in raising children to live productive, successful lives. My children are very lucky to live in the US (something I tell them often). It is a privilege to WORK toward earning an education. An education is not anyone's right. They must earn it.

 

But in this country right now it IS a right. Every child has the right to an education according to our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think companies are shipping our jobs overseas because of shackles at all. I think they are freely shipping our jobs overseas to pay them slave wages so they can make outrageous amounts of money for their top executives which is often 400 to 700 times the average employee wages. In the 60s top executives made only about 60 times the average workers. Can you say robber baron?:D

 

Here we go again.

 

I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made me laugh out loud! You know that isn't what I meant. You do have a wonderful sense of humor! :D

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: it's hard to take a purist style capitalism approach without sounding like a character out of Dickens.

 

For example, Ayn Rand was a purist capitalist. She is often quoted by those types. She was very dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest. She was against all philanthropy-government or private. The Ayn Rand Center recently heavily criticized Mark Zuckerberg for signing a philanthropy pledge.

 

eta: It may not have been what *you* meant, but you're dead wrong if you think it isn't how big business thinks. One of my uncles is an executive in a clothing company. His company was fined by Target because one of their factories was using child labor. His claim was that those children were glad to have the jobs. He couldn't understand that if the adults were paid a fair wage that children wouldn't need to work.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in this country right now it IS a right. Every child has the right to an education according to our laws.

Too bad they aren't all getting an education. Which is all part and parcel with what I was saying earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: it's hard to take a purist style capitalism approach without sounding like a character out of Dickens.

 

For example, Ayn Rand was a purist capitalist. She is often quoted by those types. She was very dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest. She was against all philanthropy-government or private. The Ayn Rand Center recently heavily criticized Mark Zuckerberg for signing a philanthropy pledge.

 

Good thing I didn't throw Ayn out there. :001_smile:

 

The bottom line is some things need to change. Almost everyone agrees on that.

 

When I run for office I promise to keep you ladies close so you can attempt to influence me.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is some things need to change. Almost everyone agrees on that.

 

My cousin majored in business and economics. Our views are somewhat in opposition. One thing we violently agree upon? It is attempting to please everyone that has us in the mess we are currently in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: it's hard to take a purist style capitalism approach without sounding like a character out of Dickens.

 

So true. And people don't tend to realize this, because they can't even imagine unrestrained, pure greed capitalism because it is so foreign. Yet it has existed, and even now it exists in some central American countries.

 

For example, Ayn Rand was a purist capitalist. She is often quoted by those types. She was very dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest. She was against all philanthropy-government or private. The Ayn Rand Center recently heavily criticized Mark Zuckerberg for signing a philanthropy pledge.

 

It's interesting that you mention Ayn Rand. I just reread one of her books--Anthem--and in thinking about it from an older, more experienced perspective, I have realized that she postulated a generous, obligated-to-society-inclined, good nature in effective, inventive, capable capitalists that is not born out by any description of historical purist capitalism that I have ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the responses...and this may have been answered...but what about Christian Scientists and others that would rather opt out of health care.

 

I haven't been to an MD in over 25 years.... midwives for the birth of the 3 children. I haven't relied on any kind of materia medica for almost my whole life. My husband hasn't been to a doctor for nearly 40 years.

 

Our kids, born at home, have never been to a doctor/dentist/etc. We are all strong and healthy. We have had our challenges at times but have always relied on prayer and have always been healed with that alone.

 

Both our parents have never used health care, except for my Dad for a very short time...until they said they didn't know what was going on and my folks returned to prayer and the episodes ceased. My FIL is 82 and my Dad is 82. My Mom just passed on and was healthy as a horse up until the end a few months ago.

 

Why should I be forced to pay for health insurance that we will never use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...those children were glad to have the jobs. He couldn't understand that if the adults were paid a fair wage that children wouldn't need to work.

 

That opens a whole 'nother can of worms. If, as a parent, I decide my very motivated and responsible child can and should get a part-time job at 14, it's no one's business, especially not the government. But, you need a work permit if you're under 16 years old, and you can't be younger than 15 1/2.

 

Some parents might choose to use a part-time job as a way to teach hard work, dedication, determination, etc. Some might just use their kids, too. But, don't take away my choices because of what someone else might do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is I would rather not have most people dependent on the government for healthcare (or anything else). IMO, Medicare is not a success.

 

Should they be dependent on government for fire fighters? Or police officers? How about roads? Public schools? Clean water? Perhaps we should stop being dependent on on the government for all of these things. Make everyone have to pay to have a share in a private fire brigade, and if they can't afford it, oh well. Make them have to pay a toll for all city roads, and if they can't afford to get to work, oh well. Make them pay for a private security force, rather than be dependent on the government for security. I mean, what if you forgot to lock your car door? Why should I pay for the police to track down your car, when I am responsible and lock my car? Oh, and if you can't afford private school your children don't get educated, because why should I have to pay for your kid's education?

 

I have never understood why education is a legal right in this country, but lifesaving medication or treatment is not. If you are dead from cancer you can't get an education anyway.

 

Maybe I'm jaded after having my house forclosed on due to my exhusband's medical bills from heart failure at age 29. We HAD good insurance. Those were the bills AFTER insurance. And we both worked until he had to go on long term leave because he had less than 30% cardiac function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that you mention Ayn Rand. I just reread one of her books--Anthem--and in thinking about it from an older, more experienced perspective, I have realized that she postulated a generous, obligated-to-society-inclined, good nature in effective, inventive, capable capitalists that is not born out by any description of historical purist capitalism that I have ever seen.

 

Right. History tells us robber barons are far more common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see your point, but I still do not believe the government is the end-all, be-all to our problems.

 

We are capitalists. Profit motive drives business here. I understand that you would prefer a different system?

 

We don't rely on capitalism for fire departments, roads, police, or education, to name a few. Why is it anti-capitalism to want health care for all, but not anti capitalism for us to have the other things listed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no quick and easy answer to health care. There just isn't. Yes, people like the PP with the disabled son and those who are elderly and/or chronically ill don't need the added stress of worrying about food vs pills that they need to continue to live. That's just obscene in a society as rich as ours.

 

However, we simply don't have the money to support everyone's healthcare. Especially as many, if not most Americans refuse to take care of themselves with preventive health. I smoke. I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to assume that the government is going to pay for the damage I'm doing to my body by smoking. That's not something I would expect. That's not my right. In the same way, I shouldn't have to pay for people who refuse to do a basic Google search about their health issues enough to be proactive and take care of themselves. And I shouldn't have to pay for people who refuse to follow their doctor's orders.

 

I think this is going to take a major shift in our society. For one, we need to get back to families taking care of each other. It's not the government's job to provide for my parents when they're old and ill. It's mine. It's not society's job to insure that they have adequate health care, and are able to eat and have a roof over their heads. It's mine (and my brother's, and my sister's, to a lesser extent, but she's still a child). It's also not the government's job to provide the outrageously expensive pills my son needs. It's mine.

 

BUT BUT BUT.... the fact that those pills are outrageously expensive is part of the problem. A PP mentioned that a pill that costs a quarter to make costs us hundreds of dollars to buy. My son doesn't need his pills to live (they're for his ADHD), but if he did, honestly, they'd probably be even more expensive. That's just insane. And that's a real problem.

 

I don't think the government needs to supply us with universal healthcare. I think we as a society needs to return to each family/tribe/whatever taking care of their own, first. That will seriously require a complete reworking of our society at a basic level, though, and it's not a quick fix, but one I do think absolutely needs to happen if America is to survive.

 

I DO think the government needs to step in and end the insanity within the health care system, such as lifesaving drugs and care being prohibitively expensive. If my mother died today, and I had to take care of my stepfather, who has dementia from brain trauma, I don't know that I could honestly afford it. His drugs and treatment are just too expensive. Plus, he would need 24/7 care and watching, and with 6 kids, I couldn't handle that. I would have to put him in a home, or hire a full time nurse to help me. How am I supposed to afford that on one income? Now, he receives disability, so that would help, but, honestly, he shouldn't. His stroke (that made him fall on a pallet, the reason for his brain trauma and dementia) was caused by him abusing his body with illegal drugs for nearly 30 years. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his care, but they do. And, honestly, without his disability payments, how am I supposed to?

 

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts. This isn't a two-sided issue, and it's not black and white. There are so many facets to it, it can't possibly be fixed quickly. I don't think the Vermont law is a good idea. But I don't think we can do nothing, either. It's insanity when Americans are starting to go to other countries to get health care when we have some of the best in the world. It's also insanity when I'm paying for a crack head's health care for the rest of his life, because his body finally gave out after too much abuse.

Edited by kchara
because I killed a kitten and I had to fix it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should they be dependent on government for fire fighters? Or police officers? How about roads? Public schools? Clean water? Perhaps we should stop being dependent on on the government for all of these things. Make everyone have to pay to have a share in a private fire brigade, and if they can't afford it, oh well. Make them have to pay a toll for all city roads, and if they can't afford to get to work, oh well. Make them pay for a private security force, rather than be dependent on the government for security. I mean, what if you forgot to lock your car door? Why should I pay for the police to track down your car, when I am responsible and lock my car? Oh, and if you can't afford private school your children don't get educated, because why should I have to pay for your kid's education?

 

I realize you are being sarcastic, but I really like several of your ideas!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't rely on capitalism for fire departments, roads, police, or education, to name a few. Why is it anti-capitalism to want health care for all, but not anti capitalism for us to have the other things listed?

 

Not everyone wants the things you listed.

 

Many people here live in rural country and pay to take care of their own roads. They are just fine to drive on. Many in better shape, actually.

 

People just got used to those things being supplied by the goverment which is taking your money and spending it on what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should they be dependent on government for fire fighters? Or police officers? How about roads? Public schools? Clean water? Perhaps we should stop being dependent on on the government for all of these things. Make everyone have to pay to have a share in a private fire brigade, and if they can't afford it, oh well. Make them have to pay a toll for all city roads, and if they can't afford to get to work, oh well. Make them pay for a private security force, rather than be dependent on the government for security. I mean, what if you forgot to lock your car door? Why should I pay for the police to track down your car, when I am responsible and lock my car? Oh, and if you can't afford private school your children don't get educated, because why should I have to pay for your kid's education?

There are a lot of places in the US just like the bolded. There are plenty of places that have nothing but volunteer fire fighters. I know, I was one of the volunteers.

 

In a lot of areas the government is turning road maintenance over to private companies - selling the job to the lowest bidder who generally does a crappy job.

 

Do you have any idea how overworked and under paid our law enforcement officers are? So much so that they do often take second jobs as private security in gated communities and private companies.

 

Personally I think if education were a private enterprise our school system wouldn't be in the toilet. And as a homeschool I'd like a tax break for a service I don't need or use.

 

I have never understood why education is a legal right in this country, but lifesaving medication or treatment is not. If you are dead from cancer you can't get an education anyway.

 

Maybe I'm jaded after having my house forclosed on due to my exhusband's medical bills from heart failure at age 29. We HAD good insurance. Those were the bills AFTER insurance. And we both worked until he had to go on long term leave because he had less than 30% cardiac function.

I'm sorry. :grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't rely on capitalism for fire departments, roads, police, or education, to name a few. Why is it anti-capitalism to want health care for all, but not anti capitalism for us to have the other things listed?

Sorry, but yes, in many areas these things are privatized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you asking me or him? In my opinion (and experience) it is a *major* benefit. It's a *big* factor in retention rates. I don't think you'd have nearly as many people making a career out of the military if they lost that benefit.

 

However, it is expensive to maintain.

 

You know, this triggers one of my pet peeves about the insanity that is our health care non-system. Entrepreneurship is severely stunted in this country by the tying of health care benefits to employment with large enough firms to offer guaranteed-issue coverage at reasonable rates. I know SO MANY PEOPLE who could reasonably start and run their own businesses if it weren't for the catastrophic downside risk of having no medical insurance, or of being dependent on completely undependable private coverage in that event. Retention rates in private corporations are hugely dependent on the availability of reasonably priced group medical insurance and the LACK of availability of reasonably priced, dependable individual or small group policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may have already been addresses bu other US military members here, but I've been skimming thtough the posts (can't be here long enough to read all of them), and i have run into, once again, the idea that military families are "given" health care by the government. One poster, quite correctly, stated that this is a benefit and is important for retention, but let me go a bit further in explaination.

 

First, service members do not get paid what equivalent jobs in the private sector recieve - I would say a good majority of the time. Frequenlty they work, for the government as a paid employee, over 100 hours a week. My DH, for example, right now will work two months straight, with only one day off, 14 hour days, sleeping on a cot, taking 3 minute showers, and having to take cover a few times a day when mortar shells get fired at the base. Many are away from families for a year or more at a time (we are looking at a year coming up soon), and in my case, DH has been gone for about 1/2 of my kids' lives.

 

Now - we signed up for this, and I don't usually complain. No one forced us into it. However, knowing that the pay was lower - forever -than what he could get on the outside (he went in 17 years ago when the economy was quite good, and had many nice offers after college), knowing that we would never - even in 20 years - get to the income levelhe could have gotten to, we chose the military for a number of reason.

 

First and foremost was my DH's desire to serve his country. However, also very important was medical care and retirement funds. We knew that what we lacked in income throughout the years would be compensated in benefits and reitement pay. We decided that we would chose those benefits - as payment in kind -rather than getting the cash and investing in reitrement and healthcare seperately.

 

We get a statement every year showing us how his benefits are paid out, what they are worth, and basically what we pay for those (in the amount they are worth that we do not get in a paycheck). This is no different than recieving a health plan at any other company with the cost coming directly out of a paycheck.

 

We are not recieving "free government healthcare". Anyone who works for the government as a paid employee should be able to recieve benefits as any employee of any company that providea healthcare does.

Also - we chose less income over 20-25 years in order to have a stable retirement. It is really no different than having been given the cash up front and intelligently invested it. Also - we pay in to social security, but do not receive it the same way as private citizens if we take military retirement.

 

My husband works very hard for very standard benefits. We pay 50% of much of our dental care, almost all of any orthodontic care, we only receive vision exams, no other vision care, and have to be seen at a military facility for most care unless it is a specialty that is not offered at that base - and we have to fight tooth and nail to get Tricare to cover any thing "odd". We are basically enrolled in an HMO and have PCM's who manage our care. In fact - Tricare is a private HMO provider with whom the DoD contracts with.

 

So - please - do not equate our benefits with free government healthcare. It is extremely insulting and denigrates everything we do to earn those benefits. Anyone willing to make the same choices can be eligible for this care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why we need to rescind the tax cuts under President Bush to start with so that we can start paying for the wars we have in for the past 10 years.

 

I feel it is wrong to pay for these wars on the backs of the middle class. I also say we can pay for it if we channel even a portion of the money we all pay now for healthcare:D

 

Don't the Bush tax cuts primarily benefit the middle class??:confused: I know how much they benefit me and my family is definitely middle class.

 

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this triggers one of my pet peeves about the insanity that is our health care non-system. Entrepreneurship is severely stunted in this country by the tying of health care benefits to employment with large enough firms to offer guaranteed-issue coverage at reasonable rates. I know SO MANY PEOPLE who could reasonably start and run their own businesses if it weren't for the catastrophic downside risk of having no medical insurance, or of being dependent on completely undependable private coverage in that event. Retention rates in private corporations are hugely dependent on the availability of reasonably priced group medical insurance and the LACK of availability of reasonably priced, dependable individual or small group policies.

 

:iagree:

 

This may have already been addresses bu other US military members here, but I've been skimming thtough the posts (can't be here long enough to read all of them), and i have run into, once again, the idea that military families are "given" health care by the government. One poster, quite correctly, stated that this is a benefit and is important for retention, but let me go a bit further in explaination.

 

I never said it wasn't earned. But, it is completely accurate to say it is one of the major benefits.

 

First, service members do not get paid what equivalent jobs in the private sector recieve - I would say a good majority of the time. Frequenlty they work, for the government as a paid employee, over 100 hours a week. My DH, for example, right now will work two months straight, with only one day off, 14 hour days, sleeping on a cot, taking 3 minute showers, and having to take cover a few times a day when mortar shells get fired at the base. Many are away from families for a year or more at a time (we are looking at a year coming up soon), and in my case, DH has been gone for about 1/2 of my kids' lives.

 

Now - we signed up for this, and I don't usually complain. No one forced us into it. However, knowing that the pay was lower - forever -than what he could get on the outside (he went in 17 years ago when the economy was quite good, and had many nice offers after college), knowing that we would never - even in 20 years - get to the income levelhe could have gotten to, we chose the military for a number of reason.

 

First and foremost was my DH's desire to serve his country. However, also very important was medical care and retirement funds. We knew that what we lacked in income throughout the years would be compensated in benefits and reitement pay. We decided that we would chose those benefits - as payment in kind -rather than getting the cash and investing in reitrement and healthcare seperately.

 

We get a statement every year showing us how his benefits are paid out, what they are worth, and basically what we pay for those (in the amount they are worth that we do not get in a paycheck). This is no different than recieving a health plan at any other company with the cost coming directly out of a paycheck.

 

We are not recieving "free government healthcare". Anyone who works for the government as a paid employee should be able to recieve benefits as any employee of any company that providea healthcare does.

Also - we chose less income over 20-25 years in order to have a stable retirement. It is really no different than having been given the cash up front and intelligently invested it. Also - we pay in to social security, but do not receive it the same way as private citizens if we take military retirement.

 

My husband works very hard for very standard benefits. We pay 50% of much of our dental care, almost all of any orthodontic care, we only receive vision exams, no other vision care, and have to be seen at a military facility for most care unless it is a specialty that is not offered at that base - and we have to fight tooth and nail to get Tricare to cover any thing "odd". We are basically enrolled in an HMO and have PCM's who manage our care. In fact - Tricare is a private HMO provider with whom the DoD contracts with.

 

So - please - do not equate our benefits with free government healthcare. It is extremely insulting and denigrates everything we do to earn those benefits. Anyone willing to make the same choices can be eligible for this care.

My dh is military too, he has been for over 17 years. I know exactly what we sacrifice. I know exactly how the system works. I maintain my stance that it is a major factor in maintaining retention because it is so awesome compared to our friends in the civilian world.

 

Some of what you say *really* depends upon the service, your location and which version of Tricare you use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...