Bush NO, to Vets medical needs BUT

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Bigger breasts offered as perk to U.S. soldiers
Plastic surgery available on taxpayers' dime

NEW YORK - 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."

Source

I guess when they aren't able to get basic health insurance at least they will look good!

That Rummy's always thinking isn't he?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,628 • Replies: 23

No top replies

What does Bush have to do with the military offering plastic surgery?

0 Replies

Practice makes perfect. A cosmetic surgeon in the army wants to keep his hand in and his knife sharp for his civilian career as well as for wounded soldiers who deserve his cosmetic skills.

What is the problem?

0 Replies

Well, to throw some reason into this, plastic surgery is needed in the military, these are the guys who make you look human if your face is shot off, who rebuild your arm when it is shredded.

They get paid the same if they are working or not, so the cost of allowing them to perform elective pastic surgery is small.

The US needs to allow them to practice civilian skills in order to keep doctors interested in military service.

It's basically a win/win for everyone.

And here we get treated to the ABB spin on the facts, instead of any attempt at reason. Sad what this board passes as political discussion.

0 Replies

Karzak-getting a little paranoid lately? Where in Redheat's post do you see any reference to Bush?

I have a close friend who is a cosmetic surgeon and I asked him about this situation. He explained that there is cosmetic surgery and there is reconstructive surgery and that the two are essentially unrelated. Doing a boob job does not give you practice for when you have to reconstruct someone's face any more than playing golf prepares you to repair your car. According to my friend, the army is simply lying when they claim that one is preparation for the other. In other words, they are covering their butts-or attempting to-hoping that there will be millions of lemmings out there like you guys that will lap up a bogus story like a cat would a saucer of cream.

Sorry to burst your collective bubbles, righties. But this is exactly what it seems: a virtually indefensible use of American tax dollars and is definitely not a win-win.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

And here we get treated to the ABB spin on the facts, instead of any attempt at reason. Sad what this board passes as political discussion.

Ow! The irony! It burns! It burns!!!

0 Replies

Sagamore wrote:

Karzak-getting a little paranoid lately? Where in Redheat's post do you see any reference to Bush?

Did you miss the title of the thread?

0 Replies

This is another opportunity for the military to be abused by the medical community. The military has a long history of performing obscene medical experiments on soldiers for the "good of the country". This type of plastic surgery has no place on a military base, and I feel bad for the poor underpaid soldiers that sign up for a "free" surgery with a brand new shaky hand doctor that needs to practice before heading off to start their own practice.

What type of guarantee does this solder have that the surgery will be a success, and what are the repercussions for a botched surgery whose symptoms may not show up for years? I would bet that all patients must sign a wavier giving away their rights to compensation should anything go wrong, in exchange for the "free" services. What a shame, our military deserves to be treated better than a bunch of guinea pigs.

0 Replies

Sagamore wrote:

Karzak-getting a little paranoid lately? Where in Redheat's post do you see any reference to Bush?

ROTFLMAO, are you blind or just liberal?

0 Replies

I'm all for hot soldier honeys with great racks.

/just kiddin'

0 Replies

winter.mist wrote:

What type of guarantee does this solder have that the surgery will be a success, and what are the repercussions for a botched surgery whose symptoms may not show up for years?

Same as anyone else.

The fact is that the doctors get paid the same if they are working or not, the facilities have to be maintained if they are being used or not.

Allowing military plastic surgeons to perform elective surgery is not a significant expense. Its a good, cheap perk, a win/win.

And Bush isn't involved in it one way or another, despite the brainless bush bashing evident in this issue.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

Quote:

Same as anyone else.

No, the guarantee is not the same as anyone else. These are new doctors that are still learning. This fact must be outlined to the patient before the surgery is performed, which leads me to believe the soldiers must sign a wavier giving away their rights to compensation, or sign a wavier that severely limits their rights because the surgeons are in training.

If a doctor in the private sector botches a surgery, you have the right to seek compensation from the doctor, clinic or hospital. If a doctor in training, works for the government and botches a surgery who can you turn to for compensation? The doctor? They are broke, still in training and struggling to pay their medical school loans. The government? Fat chance! The government has a long track record of NOT taking care of the veterans and others in uniform.

I'll say it again it's a shame and our military does not deserve to be treated like guinea pigs, so that some trophy wife can have the perfect boob job.

0 Replies

winter.mist wrote:

This is another opportunity for the military to be abused by the medical community. The military has a long history of performing obscene medical experiments on soldiers for the "good of the country". This type of plastic surgery has no place on a military base, and I feel bad for the poor underpaid soldiers that sign up for a "free" surgery with a brand new shaky hand doctor that needs to practice before heading off to start their own practice.

What type of guarantee does this solder have that the surgery will be a success, and what are the repercussions for a botched surgery whose symptoms may not show up for years? I would bet that all patients must sign a wavier giving away their rights to compensation should anything go wrong, in exchange for the "free" services. What a shame, our military deserves to be treated better than a bunch of guinea pigs.

You are right, Winter.Mist. That's an excellent point.

0 Replies

winter.mist wrote:

I'll say it again it's a shame and our military does not deserve to be treated like guinea pigs, so that some trophy wife can have the perfect boob job.

It's not just the wives: it's also the enlisted folk. I saw a sailor interviewed who began w/getting her teeth fixed, and that involved resetting her jaw, then the docs figured cheek implants and a chin implant would frame the new jaw better, then they decided what-the-heck, a boob job would enhance the new her best! Razz

She was all for it. She could've been a contestant on that awful reality show, *The Swan,* she looked so little like her previous self, but she was happy w/it. She would never have been able to afford to have that sort of elective surgery done, if she'd had to pay for it herself. She elected to be their guniea pig, and was happy w/her decision. It doesn't cost all that much for them to perform such surgery, and it hones the surgeon's skill for other more serious purposes. They have to practice somewhere, kwim? Better on volunteers than on captive victims, right?

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

Practice makes perfect. A cosmetic surgeon in the army wants to keep his hand in and his knife sharp for his civilian career as well as for wounded soldiers who deserve his cosmetic skills.

What is the problem?

Noddy,

Point one is definitely true.

Point two is less so as cosmetic and reconstructive surgery are different.

That said, there is SOME overlap.

A third point (perhaps implied in your #1) is that the Army In order to recruit MD's and to RETAIN them, has to keep them happy.

I spent a number of years as a reserve component Medical Service Corps officer and believe me it is HARD to recruit and retain MD's even for reserve duty.

If, to keep them happy, (and keep them in the Army) they need to do some cosmetic surgeries, then I'm all for it.

So, although the story at first glance seems to be a plausible expose' of the mis-use of government resources, I see the practice as primarily an inducement to keep valuable personnel.

0 Replies

I would have hoped that if there was 'extra' plastic surgery available through the military, it could have been donated to someone in need. Perhaps a child from an un/underinsured family following a fire, or something to that effect.

Boob jobs. Oh, well.
It's all better in the U.S.
<shrugs>

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I would have hoped that if there was 'extra' plastic surgery available through the military, it could have been donated to someone in need. Perhaps a child from an un/underinsured family following a fire, or something to that effect.

Boob jobs. Oh, well.
It's all better in the U.S.
<shrugs>

You would think that it should go to that.

However I think the point is the Military can afford to give some soliders wife a boob job, but they can't afford to give the National Guard the same medical benefits as enlisted men? They can't afford to give Vets extended benefits? They have to keep cutting money to Vets for their health care?

Sorry but I don't think Americans want their tax money going to bribe some solider with liposuction and boob jobs. My god people they couldn't afford to give these guys vests! and staples to survive!

I just don't see any need for free boob jobs and liposuction! Reconstruction surgery is something else and with over 3,000 soliders wounded and thousand more Iraqi's I think there are plenty of people willing to get free medical services to help reconstruct their faces etc...

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

However I think the point is the Military can afford to give some soliders wife a boob job, but they can't afford to give the National Guard the same medical benefits as enlisted men? They can't afford to give Vets extended benefits? They have to keep cutting money to Vets for their health care?

Sorry but I don't think Americans want their tax money going to bribe some solider with liposuction and boob jobs. My god people they couldn't afford to give these guys vests! and staples to survive!

I just don't see any need for free boob jobs and liposuction! Reconstruction surgery is something else and with over 3,000 soliders wounded and thousand more Iraqi's I think there are plenty of people willing to get free medical services to help reconstruct their faces etc...

Why redheat, comparing boob jobs for military to benefits for the nat'l guard is like comparing peaches to nectarines! :wink:

0 Replies

winter.mist wrote:

Karzak wrote:

Quote:
Same as anyone else.

No, the guarantee is not the same as anyone else. These are new doctors that are still learning.

As opposed to old doctors that are still learning?

The competency of your doctor is not assured, civilian or military.

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

However I think the point is the Military can afford to give some soliders wife a boob job, but they can't afford to give the National Guard the same medical benefits as enlisted men?

LOL, and which one costs next to nothing, and which one costs a lot?

Your point is silliness.

0 Replies

Bush NO, to Vets medical needs BUT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know