If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[Dak]

So you agree, then.

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.

You're also ignoring the nature of the majority of US healthcare costs and the nature of US military demands. The majority of US healthcare costs are due to unhealthy lifestyle (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, etc) and age. The majority of active duty service members are 18-22 and passed a physical that at least 1 in 4 couldn't pass, and that number is growing, primarily due to growing childhood obesity. If one wants active duty style healthcare, we would also need to instantiate active duty style health standards and required physical activity. Most are not going to agree to that. The US can't afford universal health care with the current situation, but if everyone needed to run 3 miles 3 times a week in under 28 minutes (Marine standards), and meet height/weight standards, we might be able to.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're also ignoring the nature of the majority of US healthcare costs and the nature of US military demands. The majority of US healthcare costs are due to unhealthy lifestyle (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, etc) and age. The majority of active duty service members are 18-22 and passed a physical that at least 1 in 4 couldn't pass, and that number is growing, primarily due to growing childhood obesity. If one wants active duty style healthcare, we would also need to instantiate active duty style health standards and required physical activity. Most are not going to agree to that. The US can't afford universal health care with the current situation, but if everyone needed to run 3 miles 3 times a week in under 28 minutes (Marine standards), and meet height/weight standards, we might be able to.

Again, I think this misses the point. But you're right, we can't afford universal health care with the current situation.

 

[Dak]

Again, I think this misses the point. But you're right, we can't afford universal health care with the current situation.

I approach things in terms of practicality first, and ideology second. Even ideologically, there's a difference between a random retail worker or whatever hurting their back lifting a sack of concrete and a servicemember rucking 75lbs for 10 miles multiple times. There is a difference in contract agreement and exposure. If we could force universal exercise and nutrition we could provide universal healthcare.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If we could force universal exercise and nutrition we could provide universal healthcare.

We """"could"""" provide universal healthcare even without that; other, less wealthy countries do. The issue is of course one of quality, wait times, taxes, and overall autonomy and freedom of choice in medical care. A substantial amount of public healthcare money right now is spent on the elderly in their last moments of life, a massive waste. The problems are inherent to a quasi-private healthcare system where it's in the interest of private insurers and doctors to charge the public as much as possible.

 

[Dak]

We """"could"""" provide universal healthcare even without that; other, less wealthy countries do. The issue is of course one of quality, wait times, taxes, and overall autonomy and freedom of choice in medical care. A substantial amount of public healthcare money right now is spent on the elderly in their last moments of life, a massive waste. The problems are inherent to a quasi-private healthcare system where it's in the interest of private insurers and doctors to charge the public as much as possible.

There's an element of truth in your post, but there's zero equivalent in Scandinavian white health and a bunch of Southern/Eastern/tribal whites and Southern Euros/Mestizos/Afro health cases. A bunch of McDonalds eatin,sausage eatin, purple drankin MFs wantin diabetes and cardiovascular care motherfuckers.

 

[rms]

Scandinavian countries tax harmful.things to hell anyways so that's horseshit.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There's an element of truth in your post, but there's zero equivalent in Scandinavian white health and a bunch of Southern/Eastern/tribal whites and Southern Euros/Mestizos/Afro health cases. A bunch of McDonalds eatin,sausage eatin, purple drankin MFs wantin diabetes and cardiovascular care motherfuckers.

There doesn't really need to be. While there's no doubt that most Europeans have healthier lifestyles than most Americans, health and cost don't even correlate all that well. A person shot dead or dropped dead of a heart attack in their 40s is a boon on the medical care system relative to someone that lives a healthy life and treats every benign cancer they encounter up to their 90s. Every year that a person lives beyond their working years is one more year to diminish the tax surplus paid to the government during their working years (assuming they were ever not net-drains on the country). Our rate of heart disease isn't actually that out of line with other first-world nations, and it's the leading cause of death in virtually all of Europe, whether it kills at 60 or 90.

The problem is that our system is fundamentally backwards. If you don't contribute to society, you don't deserve anything from society. The elderly are the last people on Earth that deserve special medical treatment; they had an entire life to live healthy and save money, as well as plenty of time to have children who could in turn support their parents, and yet they're the biggest drains as well as the most indeterminate. Ideally we would reverse things, providing free health care to all minors (only fair since they are dependents with few rights and little opportunity for income) and encouraging savings accounts for all working adults. Retirees with no savings go to the glue factory when they begin to sour.

 

[EternalMetal]

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.

Thank you for the clarification. The author of the article you linked seems to be oblivious to these stipulation, which invalidates his point.

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

Well to be honest I did separate them: into ideal and practical. I think that government subsidized healthcare should be a right that everyone is entitled to, but I recognize that this is impractical. I dont really understand what you mean by government "control"; I think everyone should have the right resolve their own health issues if it is technically possible. Doctors are trained to do everything in their power in order to enable their patient to survive. By extension I believe that the healthcare system should ensure that everyone in the nation should have the same justice. Even if this isnt currently possible, I still think that it should be our end goal, and anything in between is a fiscal compromise.

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.

This is a serious point of contention imo. Drafted veterans are completely different from those who willingly signed a contract. Anybody who signs up for military service should understand the risks involved and agree to them. Anybody signing up for a dangerous job should be considering the cost:benefit analysis of said job and be ok with it. Most people I know who joined the military knew about the benefits and decided to join based on them. The others who joined based upon coerced nationalism or altruism were simply the fools who bought into military propaganda.

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.

I dont think I follow what you are saying. You seem to be downplaying the potential danger of military service while simultaneously mocking the career pursuit of a teacher who decides to teach outside his/her comfort zone. I havent had military experience, so maybe I just dont understand your esoteric viewpoints?

I approach things in terms of practicality first, and ideology second. Even ideologically, there's a difference between a random retail worker or whatever hurting their back lifting a sack of concrete and a servicemember rucking 75lbs for 10 miles multiple times. There is a difference in contract agreement and exposure. If we could force universal exercise and nutrition we could provide universal healthcare.

While there may be a physical difference, the moral difference between two such people is indistinguishable. You may conflate individual contribution with human worth, but this is the same fundamental issue that mankind has faced since day one. I also think that your logic is backwards: ideals should come before practicality, otherwise you are aiming for underachievement.

 

[CiG]

This is a serious point of contention imo. Drafted veterans are completely different from those who willingly signed a contract. Anybody who signs up for military service should understand the risks involved and agree to them. Anybody signing up for a dangerous job should be considering the cost:benefit analysis of said job and be ok with it. Most people I know who joined the military knew about the benefits and decided to join based on them. The others who joined based upon coerced nationalism or altruism were simply the fools who bought into military propaganda.

Agreed. I'm not really sure where the point of contention is.