Why don't all Americans deserve the same level of care as our military?

[iNow]

To summarize a point I was trying to make on the previous page, all of this talk about Jon Stewart has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It's all a giant waste of time, and a red herring ta boot.

 

 

I have no interest in convincing anybody that my opinion is correct and that they should chuck their own in favor of mine. Never have, never will.

No offense intended, mate, but this explains to me a bit why your arguments are often so weak and laden with logical fallacies. You do realize, right, that this is a discussion forum... not an online diary for you to share your opinions without supporting them?

[ydoaPs]

Um, frankly, I'd rather go without any sort of health insurance or plan than deal with the abomination of military health care.

 

You DON'T want the level of care that the military gets.

[iNow]

But, back to the heart of the issue, how do we know it's worse than what many of us are receiving now via private insurance?

 

Does the military make you pay $200 per month in premiums, and still demand a $1,500 deductible before they cover anything?

 

Does the military deny services which you and your doctor have agreed are required for proper care?

 

Does the military wait until AFTER your hospitalization to tell you that you are personally liable for the several hundreds of thousands of dollars being billed, despite the fact that you are current with your premiums and regularly pay your $200 per month for continued quote unquote "coverage?"

 

Do members of the military EVER have to pay for coverage out of their own pockets, and are they EVER pushed into bankruptcy as a direct result of an unplanned illness?

 

 

If you think that military coverage is bad, I'm led to assume you've never faced issues with private healthcare, and that you have nothing by which to compare your experiences. On top of that, nobody here is claiming that we must do it exactly the same as the military, just that the government is fully capable of offering quality service (despite the arguments to the contrary about nothing the government does can work and that they are going to kill all of our grandparents).

[ydoaPs]

But, back to the heart of the issue, how do we know it's worse than what many of us are receiving now via private insurance?

 

Does the military make you pay $200 per month in premiums, and still demand a $1,500 deductible before they cover anything?

 

Does the military deny services which you and your doctor have agreed are required for proper care?

 

Does the military wait until AFTER your hospitalization to tell you that you are personally liable for the several hundreds of thousands of dollars being billed, despite the fact that you are current with your premiums and regularly pay your $200 per month for continued quote unquote "coverage?"

 

Do members of the military EVER have to pay for coverage out of their own pockets, and are they EVER pushed into bankruptcy as a direct result of an unplanned illness?

 

 

If you think that military coverage is bad, I'm led to assume you've never faced issues with private healthcare, and that you have nothing by which to compare your experiences. On top of that, nobody here is claiming that we must do it exactly the same as the military, just that the government is fully capable of offering quality service (despite the arguments to the contrary about nothing the government does can work and that they are going to kill all of our grandparents).

 

Does your doctor dismiss nearly every issue as dehydration? Is the answer, according to your doctor, to everything a large dose of Motrine? Does your insurance provider have a well-deserved reputation for losing your entire medical record? Does your physical therapist make you buy a $200USD pair of shoes prior to ANY check(physical examination, MRI, anything)?

 

 

You get what you pay for. If you want military grade healthcare, just come to me. I'll tell you what they will: drink water and take Motrine.

[iNow]

I understand your frustration, man. I really do, but it sounds more anecdotal and as if you've personally had some troubles, not that this is some systemic problem. I don't know, I'm just letting you know what it sounds like.

 

I'm thinking about this in relative terms. Look at the 50 million who don't have healthcare in our country. I'm sure they'd prefer what you get at the military over nothing at all. Further, I'm pretty sure if you had a heart problem diagnosed, or even cancer, that the treatment wouldn't force you to spend your life savings, go into debt, bankruptcy, and perhaps even have to choose whether you feed your kid or treat your illness.

 

Countless people... people who DO have insurance with private companies and who DO make their payments every single paycheck... DO have to make those decisions.

 

I'm pretty sure no military service person would EVER have to face such choices, or such denials. I'm not saying military care is perfect, nor am I even saying it's the best. I'm just saying it demonstrates that our government CAN offer quality care, and that (even in it's current state to which you draw negative attention) is better than what countless millions of Americans are receiving... both those with and without private coverage.

[ydoaPs]

I understand your frustration, man. I really do, but it sounds more anecdotal and as if you've personally had some troubles, not that this is some systemic problem. I don't know, I'm just letting you know what it sounds like.

Yes, you're correct. It's only anecdotal being me and every person from every command I've EVER been to. Not to mention the other commands on the bases(it may be hard to believe, but I *DO* have friends ). It's not systematic at all.

 

</sarcasm>

 

I guess you're going to say the bad food is anecdotal too?

 

 

I'm pretty sure no military service person would EVER have to face such choices, or such denials.

No, they just refuse to let you do your job and often separate you.

[The Bear's Key]

Yes, you're correct. It's only anecdotal being me and every person from every command I've EVER been to. Not to mention the other commands on the bases(it may be hard to believe, but I *DO* have friends ).

Well there are others from military around here who can back up or refute your claim/experiences.

 

But if not, you might have to share some actual proof.

 

Though what you say is feasible, it does require proof or fact-checking to be entered into the (unofficial) debunking list

[DJBruce]

According to a CBO report military personnel on active duty report lower levels of satisfaction than than those who are not on active duty.

 

Although TRICARE’s overall satisfaction ratings compare favorably to civilian benchmarks, active-duty service members, who generally must use the in-house military health system, report lower satisfaction than do family members and retirees, who have better access to the civilian TRICARE network.

 

The report then says that Tricare users report similar levels of satisfaction when compared to civilians.

 

Users of the military health system were about as satisfied with their health plan as were civilians in the database used as a benchmark. For TRICARE, 55.9 percent were satisfied; in civilian plans, 59.4 percent.

 

Military users were nearly as satisfied as their civilian counterparts with their primary care physicians—67.2 percent versus 73.5 percent—and with their specialty physicians—69.2 percent versus 73.5 percent.

 

Military users were less satisfied with the health care they received—59.2 percent satisfied versus 72.4 percent—which may reflect dissatisfaction with the administration of the program rather than with TRICARE medical providers.

 

Active-duty personnel consistently reported lower levels of satisfaction than did family members and retirees. In 2006, 51.3 percent of active-duty users reported satisfaction with their health plan. In that same year, 57.9 percent of family members of active-duty personnel reported being satisfied, while 59.9 percent of retirees and their family members were satisfied with their health plan.]

 

The one question I have is although the report is a few years old there seems to be a difference in the percentage of civilians who are satisfied with their healthcare. The current number I hear being reported is roughly 80% will I think the CBO report cites about 50%.

 

Here is another link to an older report on satisfaction.

[Lance]

VA health care and Tricare are NOT the same.

 

I would also like to point out that tricare west has received so many entries around the Fort Leonard wood area that they can no longer accept any more patients and are sending them to private doctors, not all of which are networked providers.

[bascule]

If we offer that amazing level of service to everyone and not just veterans the high per-capita costs (since government is so inefficient) would be unsustainable, but we can get away with it as long as it's just for "the proud few" that serve.

 

I've heard this argument tossed out a lot, with no facts, statistics, or any sort of numbers to back it up. It seems entirely based on the rather vague and often incorrect assumption that competition will force services provided by the private sector to be more efficient than government-provided services. In the case of healthcare, this has resulted in a multi-tiered bureaucracy of private companies to provide for a multi-payer healthcare system. You end up with "middle men" companies that healthcare providers must use to bill multiple insurers. This alone makes the system much less efficient than a single-payer system.

 

I thought this comic articulated the point nicely:

 

 

The numbers iNow provided on another thread demonstrate quite the opposite in regard to the "government healthcare is inefficient" argument... the United States private insurer-based healthcare system is the costliest and most inefficient in the world:

 

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

 

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

 

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.

Edited August 4, 2009 by bascule