If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Do service members’ sacrifices mean they should be some of the only Americans to have guaranteed care?

It makes little sense to me, then, that my service should entitle me to any more or less medical care from my government than any other citizen receives.

I'll probably regret this, but... why are these two sentences contradictory?

 

[Dak]

Non-servicemembers, generally speaking, didn't put their lives on the line for the government and purportedly the public. Signing on the dotted line puts your life on the line, regardless of your actual exposure to combat etc. Military personnel are targets, live/work on bases that are targets, amd can always be called on to take on more dangerous assignments than they were originally on if the situation is dire enough. Someone living in a ghetto isn't doing it for the purported greater good.

 

[rms]

the argument just stops at it being a financial incentive, which this dude doesn't realize. and it's not permanent VA healthcare for all service members anyways, but the piece is garbage for many reasons and I found it hilarious

 

[EternalMetal]

Non-servicemembers, generally speaking, didn't put their lives on the line for the government and purportedly the public. Signing on the dotted line puts your life on the line, regardless of your actual exposure to combat etc. Military personnel are targets, live/work on bases that are targets, amd can always be called on to take on more dangerous assignments than they were originally on if the situation is dire enough. Someone living in a ghetto isn't doing it for the purported greater good.

In a way, teachers who opt to teach in dangerous neighborhoods are doing so to educate the next generation of adults who grow up in the area, and therefore could be seen to be contributing towards the greater good of a struggling community. I know that you are referring to non-military people from a generalized standpoint, but the author is asserting the idea that more than just military vets put their lives on the line to ensure the greater good of the country/community and do not receive any additional benefit.

the argument just stops at it being a financial incentive, which this dude doesn't realize. and it's not permanent VA healthcare for all service members anyways, but the piece is garbage for many reasons and I found it hilarious

The author definitely seemed to imply that VA-healthcare was for anybody who was honorably discharged; so this is not the case? I dont know anything about veteran healthcare, so im asking this with no agenda.

Otherwise I think im in the minority of people who thinks that government subsidized healthcare should be guaranteed for everyone. I realize that pragmatically this may not currently be possible in the US, but I think denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it is unethical. But since this is currently not a sustainable model for US healthcare at the moment, we cant just jump to the ideal end result. So overall I agree with the sentiment of the article: that a healthy America makes a better America. I just think that is more of an ethical issue than a fiscal one.

 

[rms]

The author definitely seemed to imply that VA-healthcare was for anybody who was honorably discharged; so this is not the case? I dont know anything about veteran healthcare, so im asking this with no agenda.

yeah it's a weird thing. you only get continued care if you deployed to a combat zone, and that care is only for 5 years after your deployment(or end of service date?). You only get lifetime healthcare if you are disabled over 20% rating or 10%/0% on specific body parts/areas.

the author has VA care because he deployed, but he's not supposed to once that 5 years is gone.

but I think denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it is unethical.

I just think that is more of an ethical issue than a fiscal one.

I personally don't think you can separate the two aspects and i'm not sure how to weigh them in respect to each other. I think I dislike the idea of the government controlling what you can do because of the health care costs more than poor people/unlucky people getting fucked

 

[Einherjar86]

Non-servicemembers, generally speaking, didn't put their lives on the line for the government and purportedly the public. Signing on the dotted line puts your life on the line, regardless of your actual exposure to combat etc. Military personnel are targets, live/work on bases that are targets, amd can always be called on to take on more dangerous assignments than they were originally on if the situation is dire enough. Someone living in a ghetto isn't doing it for the purported greater good.

I'm not sure if this was a response to my question or not, but I can't tell if it actually answers my question.

I think EM delivered the basic gist of what I would say; but I'll just add that the author's point seems to be that military service doesn't constitute a form of personal sacrifice that is essentially different from various other forms of personal sacrifice (such as teaching in a rough neighborhood, for example), other than the fact that it's institutionally (and ideologically) sanctioned through the process of "signing on the dotted line." There's a powerful cultural celebration of military "sacrifice" in this country, and the author is suggesting that this celebration disproportionately awards guaranteed health coverage to military service members.

Since there is no unique or essential difference between these forms of sacrifice, the author is simply suggesting that it makes no sense to assume that military service should automatically entitle its members to guaranteed coverage.

We can disagree with his argument; but the two comments, in and of themselves, aren't contradictory.

 

[CiG]

Comparing teaching to literally signing away the ownership of your body to a military force seems really cringeworthy. Even if teaching in a ghetto comes with risks, not all teachers teach in a ghetto nor are they teaching under the assumption that they will be transferred to a ghetto at any moment.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure if this was a response to my question or not, but I can't tell if it actually answers my question.

I think EM delivered the basic gist of what I would say; but I'll just add that the author's point seems to be that military service doesn't constitute a form of personal sacrifice that is essentially different from various other forms of personal sacrifice (such as teaching in a rough neighborhood, for example), other than the fact that it's institutionally (and ideologically) sanctioned through the process of "signing on the dotted line." There's a powerful cultural celebration of military "sacrifice" in this country, and the author is suggesting that this celebration disproportionately awards guaranteed health coverage to military service members.

Since there is no unique or essential difference between these forms of sacrifice, the author is simply suggesting that it makes no sense to assume that military service should automatically entitle its members to guaranteed coverage.

We can disagree with his argument; but the two comments, in and of themselves, aren't contradictory.

I agree that the two statements aren't contradictory, so we can get that out of the way.

Now, we need to distinguish between guaranteed coverage for active duty service members and coverage for veterans. There is guaranteed full coverage for active duty members and their family, and anyone who has a problem with this is welcome to argue about its merits and get their ass handed to them. There is a massive difference between choosing to "teach in a dangerous neighborhood", which is voluntary at every minute, and signing a blank check to the government for an irrevocable period, which CIG addressed. It is unique.

There is not guaranteed full free medical coverage for all veterans. There is service connected disability related medical coverage, which means that if you are hurt via or during your service, the government provides care for that injury extending past your contracted service. There is full service free medical for all retirees, which is a fraction of the total number of veterans, which are a fraction of the total population. To retire one must serve, generally, a minimum of 20 years (sometimes there are situations in which one can retire at 16 years), which is typically 5 periods of enlistment/commission. Most veterans (like myself) only served one period of enlistment (or commission), and do not rate full medical coverage, if any.

Edit: I do agree that the military is overly glorified in this country, but that has nothing to do with the practicalities of this issue.

 

[Dak]

trollololol

 

[Einherjar86]

There is a massive difference between choosing to "teach in a dangerous neighborhood", which is voluntary at every minute, and signing a blank check to the government for an irrevocable period, which CIG addressed. It is unique.

It's unique in terms of the legal paperwork. A soldier in the Middle East might lose his leg in a suicide bombing; others might return home without a scratch. A teacher in Chicago might get shot leaving her school; others might never get so much as a paper cut.

The difference is in red tape only, not in the kind of harm that people might actually suffer. That's the point, and that's what the glorification of the military does have a practical impact. It affects the way we institutionalize comparable consequences for different jobs.

There is not guaranteed full free medical coverage for all veterans. There is service connected disability related medical coverage, which means that if you are hurt via or during your service, the government provides care for that injury extending past your contracted service. There is full service free medical for all retirees, which is a fraction of the total number of veterans, which are a fraction of the total population. To retire one must serve, generally, a minimum of 20 years (sometimes there are situations in which one can retire at 16 years), which is typically 5 periods of enlistment/commission. Most veterans (like myself) only served one period of enlistment (or commission), and do not rate full medical coverage, if any.

Yeah, I've followed the comments above. I don't think any of this affects my general sentiment above.

Comparing teaching to literally signing away the ownership of your body to a military force seems really cringeworthy. Even if teaching in a ghetto comes with risks, not all teachers teach in a ghetto nor are they teaching under the assumption that they will be transferred to a ghetto at any moment.

I understand that. The argument is that military service alone doesn't suffice as an argument against providing healthcare for comparable injuries suffered in other areas of work. "Signing away ownership of your body" is still a personal choice, even if it leads to a lack of choice. That shouldn't dictate the difference between how we treat comparable injuries in different fields.

 

[Dak]

It's unique in terms of the legal paperwork. A soldier in the Middle East might lose his leg in a suicide bombing; others might return home without a scratch. A teacher in Chicago might get shot leaving her school; others might never get so much as a paper cut.

The difference is in red tape only, not in the kind of harm that people might actually suffer. That's the point, and that's what the glorification of the military does have a practical impact. It affects the way we institutionalize comparable consequences for different jobs.

You are conflating known danger with potential danger, and the ability to forecast tomorrow in a very limited local social arena with the ability to forecast four or more years of international diplomacy and technology. Furthermore conflating standing in front of a class with the physical toll of physical labors. Most service connected disability isn't from combat, it's lifting or carrying heavy objects for long periods of time and/or in awkward ways; exposure to loud noise/hard vibrations, toxic chemicals, etc.

 

[CiG]

"Signing away ownership of your body" is still a personal choice, even if it leads to a lack of choice. That shouldn't dictate the difference between how we treat comparable injuries in different fields.

Sacrifice has to be a personal choice, otherwise it's just oppression eg the draft. However it wasn't myself who compared the danger and sacrifice involved in choosing to be a teacher vs choosing to join the military.

Regardless I support the adoption of a NHS type system in America anyway, so I was just concerned with the stupid comparison, which incidentally seems to be a part of this newish glorification of the teaching profession and specifically on the left the OTT romanticism seems to be reaching right-wing military glorification levels. They're not walking Jesuses they're teachers who seem to be doing a shitty job lately anyway.

 

[Dak]

Teachers at the primary and secondary levels do a generally thankless and impeded job, with often poor renumeration, to which they often respond to expectedly poorly. Unfortunately, most persons who have the personality to be teachers in the current environment also suck at acquiring/understanding knowledge or imparting it. A triple whammy for students, who already have shitty parents.

 

[CiG]

Public schools over here man...

 

[Einherjar86]

You are conflating known danger with potential danger, and the ability to forecast tomorrow in a very limited local social arena with the ability to forecast four or more years of international diplomacy and technology. Furthermore conflating standing in front of a class with the physical toll of physical labors. Most service connected disability isn't from combat, it's lifting or carrying heavy objects for long periods of time and/or in awkward ways; exposure to loud noise/hard vibrations, toxic chemicals, etc.

But there are plenty of cases for military service members stationed abroad in which danger is only potential, no?

@Dak and @CASSETTEISGOD --I realize the practical differences between teaching and military service. I'm not trying to say there's no difference, only that there's not always a consequential difference. I'm questioning the subtle ideological move by which many people rationalize awarding disproportionate healthcare responses to comparable injuries in different lines of work. I'm not saying specifically that all teachers should get the same kind of healthcare that veterans do. I'm simply saying that "military service" is more of an appeal to pathos than it is a logical argument.

 

[CiG]

Are there comparable injuries?

 

[Einherjar86]

I mean, I would categorize bullet wounds as comparable, no?

 

[Dak]

But there are plenty of cases for military service members stationed abroad in which danger is only potential, no?

@Dak and @CASSETTEISGOD --I realize the practical differences between teaching and military service. I'm not trying to say there's no difference, only that there's not always a consequential difference. I'm questioning the subtle ideological move by which many people rationalize awarding disproportionate healthcare responses to comparable injuries in different lines of work. I'm not saying specifically that all teachers should get the same kind of healthcare that veterans do. I'm simply saying that "military service" is more of an appeal to pathos than it is a logical argument.

Potential danger today. Who knows what happens tomorrow? People who enlisted on September 10, 2001 thought they were getting an easy GI Bill and SURPRISE, goin to Afghanistan. Teachers working at Columbine on April 19, 1999 who got a bad feeling could stay home.

Similar injuries are incurred in different lines of work. The difference is in the potentiality, the terms of contract, the accompanying lifestyle, etc. It's not incidental that with all the perks of military service, most people A. Aren't interested and B. Don't qualify.

 

[Einherjar86]

Potential danger today. Who knows what happens tomorrow? People who enlisted on September 10, 2001 thought they were getting an easy GI Bill and SURPRISE, goin to Afghanistan. Teachers working at Columbine on April 19, 1999 who got a bad feeling could stay home.

So you agree, then.

Similar injuries are incurred in different lines of work. The difference is in the potentiality, the terms of contract, the accompanying lifestyle, etc. It's not incidental that with all the perks of military service, most people A. Aren't interested and B. Don't qualify.

I don't object to this. The truth is that many times, military service sends people home with no scars; and sometimes it sends them home with no legs.

Sometimes, a teacher might go home with bullet wounds; more often than not, they go home with no scars.

The point isn't in the frequency, but in our capacity to cover injuries incurred.

 

[rms]

I think the contradiction was a tad more obvious because the writer called it sacrifice and not work, but the underlying point is not really important to anyone but myself.

the fact that we mostly talking about combat zone injuries/complications is part of the problems with the mentality in this country. You don't sacrifice human rights that we attempt to establish when you decide to join AmeriCorps or get a few years of "urban" experience.

You also don't throw away X years of your life away by signing a contract at age 19, where teaching is always a good look to get other teaching options.

The article is short sighted and it's hilarious that an active/veteran service member would write it. But he was ADA, an officer but that just shows how opportunity shapes opinion without any interest in understanding the whole thang.