Thread: The Cost of War

I don't know... I continue to look. It seems that if he fought in three wars!! According to this, one is enough unless she remarried.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Originally Posted by earcutter

I don't know... I continue to look. It seems that if he fought in three wars!! According to this, one is enough unless she remarried.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

The survivors pension benefit is apparently only for "low-income, un-remarried surviving spouse and/or unmarried child(ren) of a deceased Veteran with wartime service".
Source: Survivors Pension - Pension

I don't understand what's the issue with not using the health care benefits - I think most people with common sense would rather be healthy; being sick just for the sole purpose of raking up bills that somebody else is going to pay sounds ridiculous.

Qualifying for multiple insurance benefits isn't strange or uncommon - it happens all the time to most people and then they can use the program that works best from them. Having and using a health insurance from one's employer instead of going through the VA is just one example.

Originally Posted by earcutter

That should read, "I guess all people..."

In a capitalist society all people seek out that which will afford them the most utility. Utility isn't always about cash, it can be measured by lifestyle, safety, patriotism... Whatever.

Hence if a man joins the military for altruistic reasons, his reward for doing so, his utility, comes from altruism... not money. But the point is, joining still provides him a higher level of utility than his next best alternative.

That's all to say that why a man/woman joins the military, short of actually wanting to kill people which many would call a sickness, isn't nearly as important as its made to be unless you can argue that patriotism is a form of brainwashing utilized by "the man" to get people to enroll in spite of their best interests.

Blessed are those who do "believe," but in a capitalist system that isn't drafting, "believe(ing) in your country" isn't a requirement. That's freedom!!

You can certainly disagree with any position or opinion that I share here. What you are not entitled to however is to suggest how I should write something or, suggest to edit my original submission. Seeing as how you and are complete polar opposites on any social or political topic, perhaps you could do one of the following: Place me on an ignore status or report my postings as offensive. I'm sure that you have at least two moderators here that would respond to any reported post of mine for an immediate retort.

Otherwise, cite your position, refute mine or ignore it. But, don't suggest any changes to what I share here. You're not a moderator here, yet. But, I'm sure that you're working on it.


Frank

Originally Posted by Lakebound

You can certainly disagree with any position or opinion that I share here. What you are not entitled to however is to suggest how I should write something or, suggest to edit my original submission. Seeing as how you and are complete polar opposites on any social or political topic, perhaps you could do one of the following: Place me on an ignore status or report my postings as offensive. I'm sure that you have at least two moderators here that would respond to any reported post of mine for an immediate retort.

Otherwise, cite your position, refute mine or ignore it. But, don't suggest any changes to what I share here. You're not a moderator here, yet. But, I'm sure that you're working on it.


Frank

Oh for the love of Pete Frank!

You don't interest me enough to get into it with you again. But seriously - if you want me to ignore you, why not start by not posting on a thread I started lol!!

I think it has well been shown many folks join the military because they see no other alternatives economically.

Remember the draft riots during the civil war in NYC. In those days if you were drafted you could pay your way out. As I recall around $250 cash which was a lot of money then. You didn't see many rich folks fighting then. Of course that was on the Union side.

The Va is vastly underfunded and always has been. it's just another agency Congress treats like dirt and when focus is brought on it and questions are asked it just becomes a whipping boy.

The VA system has always had a reputation and it was never good. it would be the last place I would go to if I needed medical attention and I'm a Vet. I've known two MDs and one RN who have worked for them and they tell horror stories of gross incompetence and folks dying for lack of care, wrong care, indifference and then there's the techs who bet on who's gonna die in the next so many hours.

I worked In V.A hospitals for years (cardiac surg) The docs get pennys on the dollor so going the extra mile is not going to happen.
The care is worse than the poorest county Hosp for the total down and out.
The vets served their purpose,when discharged, they have no purpose any longer.

So, what is the bigger problem from the underfunding:

A) Poorly qualified doctors/staff who can not get a better paid job elsewhere (in an expensive private hospital)
B) Well qualified doctors/staff who do not care to do their job well because of the lack of monetary incentives

I read somewhere that the medicine has gotten so much better that too many soldiers survive instead of dying from their wounds - here are the numbers
US death/wounded in war

Originally Posted by gugi

So, what is the bigger problem from the underfunding:

A) Poorly qualified doctors/staff who can not get a better paid job elsewhere (in an expensive private hospital)
B) Well qualified doctors/staff who do not care to do their job well because of the lack of monetary incentives

I read somewhere that the medicine has gotten so much better that too many soldiers survive instead of dying from their wounds - here are the numbers
US death/wounded in war

Gugi, the stats are field survival rates,has nothing to do with U.S based V.A Hospitals.
Most V.A Hospitals are aligned with a major university,In my case,V.A Palo alto cailf, was connected with stanford Hosp.
Great docs, not enough time nor money.
The new genra of Docs are a differant breed, they have huge debt to pay off from govt. loans that got them thru years of med school.
They are saddled with major malp practice ins rates,they have office staff to pay plus rent on said office.
Heres an example,The cardiac surgeon I worked for, for 25 yrs was paid an average of $1250.00 for triple bypass surg for medicare patients.
When our caseload became 70 % Medicare (we did 300 cases/yr) you cannot make expenses anymore,is simple math.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.
My experience is with the Syracuse New York VA hospital. It was for my father in law - WW2 vet. Care better than what I've experienced in other upstate New York hospitals.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Gugi, the stats are field survival rates,has nothing to do with U.S based V.A Hospitals.
Most V.A Hospitals are aligned with a major university,In my case,V.A Palo alto cailf, was connected with stanford Hosp.
Great docs, not enough time nor money.
The new genra of Docs are a differant breed, they have huge debt to pay off from govt. loans that got them thru years of med school.

Well, presumably these doctors get paid a fixed amount for the teaching/research they do, from that exact big tuition. So even if the medical services they perform are reimbursed at a lower rate, in total they may still make comparable to not having teaching duties. And neglecting the quality of the medical care seems counterproductive - how can you be a good doctor if you're not doing a good job. Especially when you're training the doctors of the future it simply doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

They are saddled with major malp practice ins rates,they have office staff to pay plus rent on said office.

Everybody has that. US has always been very litigious and lawyers have always done better than doctors. I don't see what's changed.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Heres an example,The cardiac surgeon I worked for, for 25 yrs was paid an average of $1250.00 for triple bypass surg for medicare patients.
When our caseload became 70 % Medicare (we did 300 cases/yr) you cannot make expenses anymore,is simple math.

Couple of things - those must be some old numbers, because when some data trickled in the media last year the reimbursement for colonoscopy was pretty much similar. Of course, cardiac surgery nowadays is far easier than it was in the 1950s.
I don't understand the medicare issue - are the veterans' health care paid though medicare? I thought that it was a separate funding.

Survival rates should matter - from a benefits point of view it is likely cheaper for somebody to die quickly in the battlefield than to incur expensive medical costs for the rest of their life (I don't know the exact numbers, but this is verifiable either way). Plus things like PTSD were not considered medical condition until the 1980s iirc - that's an expense that previous wars didn't incur. So, may be in the old days the society did treat veterans worse than it does now.