aleph_0 Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 I've been thinking a while about a question that Jon Stewart (yeah, yeah, shoot me for liking The Daily Show) asked of a Republican on his show: If you think that public healthcare and government programs in general are inept, then do you believe we should have private medical care for our military? The Republican was probably too stodgy and pressured by being in front of the cameras to be willing to consider the alternative. Personally, I'm not sure. I'm not entirely sure about the idea of the government granting private contracts in general, since this seems like government favoring some individual private enterprises over others. Besides the possibility for corruption, that seems like the kind of thing we shouldn't allow government to do for the same reason that we don't want government running businesses either. Monopolization tends to follow in the shadow of government "entrepreneurship". But if it's cheaper and we are to make decisions about how to most effectively use taxpayer money, then is it necessarily bad? If it's better care for the people who are risking their lives, is it still right to maintain a government medical program for our soldiers? Perhaps a third option. Give them insurance which they can use wherever they please. Perhaps--to encourage cost-effective behavior--give then better insurance if they prove that they've researched at least three locations to search for the lowest price. Whatever, point being, how should we administer benefits to government employees? A similar question is, should we contract out the construction of public buildings, like the courts and whatever roadways may need to be built for the police and military to effectively do their jobs? It seems like it might be wasteful to have a construction division in our government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) As far as possible, the government should buy those types of ancillary services. Yet, the army is slightly different from other parts of government in that their needs are very different during peace-time and during war. In a war, one needs doctors, nurses and bridge-engineers who will go to war. So, readiness might require having at least some such folk as part of the standing army that can be deployed at short notice. From this, it might follow that such people might as well provide health-care and do some civil-engineering projects for the army during peacetime as well. Edited June 28, 2010 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) see this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=17126&st=0&p=225960&hl=" (Yeah I called him Leibowitz... too much listening to neocon radio. ) Edit: damn I was rude on that thread. Sorry Euiol. Edited June 28, 2010 by 2046 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudmer Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 Having grown up receiving military health care (my dad was an Air Force pilot until a few years ago), I can attest that it is neither efficient nor quality. You think that the civilian system is bogged down by bureaucracy? Add several levels of government laws, regulations, and inept pencil pushers to the mix and imagine the nightmare. I once thought that I had fractured my lower leg -- it took ten hours of pain at the base clinic to procure an x-ray (this is a clinic, not an emergency room, so they were not overwhelmed), and the doctor there was positive that my tibia was fractured. We went to Children's Hospital to get it treated, and the doctor there took one look at the x-ray and said, "Your doctor's an idiot. That's not a fracture, that's a growth plate. Your leg is just very badly bruised." I was walking again in under 72 hours. However, I am not opposed to the government providing health care for its soldiers, in principle. I believe that falls very nicely under the government's task of maintaining a military fit to protect from foreign threats -- it is VERY important for the military to have accurate, up-to-date medical records on hand for its soldiers, and to control what types of treatments they are receiving. Neither of these would be plausible without in-house health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selfish28 Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 Having grown up receiving military health care (my dad was an Air Force pilot until a few years ago), I can attest that it is neither efficient nor quality. You think that the civilian system is bogged down by bureaucracy? Add several levels of government laws, regulations, and inept pencil pushers to the mix and imagine the nightmare. I once thought that I had fractured my lower leg -- it took ten hours of pain at the base clinic to procure an x-ray (this is a clinic, not an emergency room, so they were not overwhelmed), and the doctor there was positive that my tibia was fractured. We went to Children's Hospital to get it treated, and the doctor there took one look at the x-ray and said, "Your doctor's an idiot. That's not a fracture, that's a growth plate. Your leg is just very badly bruised." I was walking again in under 72 hours. However, I am not opposed to the government providing health care for its soldiers, in principle. I believe that falls very nicely under the government's task of maintaining a military fit to protect from foreign threats -- it is VERY important for the military to have accurate, up-to-date medical records on hand for its soldiers, and to control what types of treatments they are receiving. Neither of these would be plausible without in-house health care. I don't think analytical evidence is useful in regards to the effectiveness of military health care. My father was also an officer in the Air Force and throughout all my experiences they were mostly good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnomercee Posted July 1, 2010 Report Share Posted July 1, 2010 Being in the military for 18 years now I can say the healthcare I have received has been pretty good. The military system has some problems and many inefficiencies but for the most part I can't complain. My family receives their care through the government plan called Tricare. We have chosen a plan that allows her and my son to be seen by private doctors that accept tricare. We pay more out of pocket then those that choose to use the military hospital, but the care she receive is excellent. Personally, I think the military needs its own system to allow for flexibility and for training doctors that forward deploy to combat zones. I believe it should be limited to active duty and activated reserve and guard only. Families and retirees should be seen by private doctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 What makes medicine different from any other trade? They have their own mechanics, IT experts, pilots, etc... Why not their own medical personnel if they need them? Any job can be contracted out. Why not just hire mercenaries? At some point the government needs it's own employees to ensure that it performs its proper functions. Whether something is done internally or on contract is a management decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.