I've really become a big Neal Boortz fan, and his remarks about how the problems at Walter Reed will be everyone's problems if we have government health care hit home with me. We in the military have this government health care, and we truly understand the meaning of the phrase "you get what you pay for." I have never had any truly bad experiences with our health care system, but even the day-to-day dealings are what we'd all face under a nationalized plan. It takes at least six weeks to get a doctor's appointment, for anything whatsoever. And when it takes that long, it doesn't pay to be picky about which doctor you see, so I've never seen the same doctor more than once...except for the one in Germany whom everyone hated so her schedule was always open. It also routinely takes over an hour of waiting in line to get prescriptions filled. And records are constantly getting lost. It took me two months to request records from my hometown doctor, and then once the records finally arrived, you guess it, six weeks to get an appointment.
Boortz is right: this is what we'd all do if we had government health care. Yeah, we in the military don't pay for it, but when you don't pay, you also have no grounds to complain about being treated poorly.
MORE TO GROK:
JackArmy has great thoughts on the matter.
Posted by Sarah at March 7, 2007 08:39 AM | TrackBackI agree that a nationalized health care plan is a bad idea, maybe for several reasons but surely for the reasons you cited. Working in a civilian hospital definitely causes me to look at the differences on a daily basis and sometimes leaves me disappointed in the Army healthcare. However, the most troublesome aspect of this whole Walter Reed dabacle is the fact that military members DO pay for their healthcare. I've seen recruitment salary quotes with the healthcare incentive factored in...making $40,000/year look like $60,000 and so forth. It's one of the ways the Army can make staying in the Army (especially for certain ranks) at least comparable to civilian careers.
Posted by: Nicole at March 7, 2007 10:07 AM*debacle*
Posted by: Nicole at March 7, 2007 10:09 AMWhich is a big part of the reason hubby and I spent 3000$ of our own money three times to do home births rather than rely on military healthcare.
Posted by: airforcewife at March 7, 2007 12:07 PM“Yeah, we in the military don't pay for it, but when you don't pay, you also have no grounds to complain about being treated poorly.”
Your husband is in the Army, he pays for it. It may not come out of his paycheck, but he pays for it. Same with the guy who gets his leg blown off in Iraq, or gets shot in Afghanistan or breaks his leg at Camp Pendleton, etc, etc…
Military health care should be the best this country has to offer and maybe more people need to complain about it till it is.
Dismount soapbox.
A government-moving toward privatization-with Republicans from top to bottom, does a poor job of serving its citizens and its people.
What an astonishing conclusion on your part!
This is a tough one. Don't forget that not long ago, the plan was to close Walter Reed. When you're going to close a facility, you stop spending money on it.
IMO, the Army medical system is a victim of its own success. A war or two ago, many of our soldiers would not have survived their wounds let alone make it to Walter Reed.
I guess the point I wanted to make was that the military is composed of humans; making human mistakes. I used to think the Army hospitals were terrible until I had surgery in a civilian one. I've met some of the best and worst doctors/dentists in the Army. I should tell you my dentist story; he could pull my teeth anytime.
Posted by: R1 at March 7, 2007 10:51 PMI agree, R1: my dentist in Germany was the best and I wish I could keep him forever. I don't think the quality of personnel suffers as much as the desire to make the patient happy. Soldiers think nothing of waiting in line for an hour, so why speed things up? And a broken down section of Walter Reed was most likely a step UP from whatever these folks were living in in Iraq. I think that leaves little incentive for improvement.
Posted by: Sarah at March 8, 2007 07:25 AMIf our government shouldn't pay for the health care of our wounded, then what in the hell should it pay for?
Maybe commercials about how much we support the troops?