Big Boobs for the military
 

Am i the only one that thinks this is odd? Wouldnt it be much better if the army would look after people that cant afford decent healthcare?

The training aspect of this would even be better since they wouldnt have to do the same op over and over and would be handling real deseases.

*edit: fixed quotes*

Psst... quote tags work like this [ quote ] [ /quote ] ;) But without the spaces..

I agree though, they need people to train on, I can understand that... So use ordinary citizens who can't afford such care.

Do a lot of people who can't afford healthcare really need boob jobs and lipo?

It's about plastic surgery, which is very relevant to the military. In fact, the first cases of plastic surgery were performed on soldiers, to cover up the wounds they suffered. Reports of such surgery date back to the US civil war at least.

If army doctors are able to train at increasing boob size and such, they'll also get experience at doing more important work on wounds suffered during combat, y'see?

Giving health care to the needy may sound nice, and will also be very good, but it won't give doctors this specific XP.

Yup ;) Granted, I think the boob job option is a bit much, but the plastic surgery is very useful for military doctors to know about.

Dragonlich - you just nailed another one.
Good work.

There are other uses for breast enhancement besides T&A. Maybe for a female soldier if she lost part of a breast in an explosion.

I was thinking that after I replied... Makes sense.

That would be valid if it were only for serving soldiers.. Its not.. Its for soldiers serving AND thier imediate family

I guess they could just go back to shooting dogs and operating on them.

Ah, but it's for training purposes you see. The more people they work on the better they will be at fixing up people who were mangled in combat.

That makes it even more valid. The more training the better. Plus, breast enhancement is also used to treat breast cancer victims.

i call bullshit. 496 boob jobs are not combat related and that much practice is not warrented for the rare case when a woman gets a breast blown off in a warzone. it would be much more economical to just pay a trained plastic surgeon full price next time a soldier needs a boob job due to injury -- and as a tax payer i'd happily foot the bill for that surgery rather than pay for a bunch of unnessasary cosmetic surgery.

Most of those Docs are learning on the job as part of their military commitment. Learning plastic surgery takes time and you need patients. Without patients they need to find them. Some of our medics get practice in ER rooms because they simulate war time injuries like gun shot victims. Its the same idea.

thanks for the quote-advice. ;)

obviously i wasnt making myself quite clear.

I wasnt suggesting that military docs treat needy people with a cold. Neither was i suggesting to enhance the appearance of your community by supplying every female bum with oversized boobs.

I applaud the effort of the docs to hone their skills when not immediately needed. But they could get the same training or probably even better in the ambulance of every major hospital.

These facilities all run with too few personell anyways. A rotation of military docs could realy improve the quality and reduce some costs.

I agree the arguement for people who cant afford decent healthcare isnt too stable. The cost of coordination would be too high.
But every now and then a needy person with an emergency case could get lucky when being delivered to the ambulance station of a hospital with a military doc. :)

I might be more inclined to believe it was "general medical training" related if they were "partially subsidized" boob jobs/ face lifts, rather than free of charge.

(On the other hand, maybe the boob jobs are morale boosters!)

America's new, top-secret, elite "Enhanced-Female Terrorist Interrogation Squad" (EFTIS)
;)

I don't see this as being all that big of a deal. It gives you a lot of training with regards to covering up cuts (since breasts with with surgery scars aren't really all that cosmetic), and there's a decent number of people out there who would be interested in the surgery.

What the Army would REALLY benefit from is sending people to John's Hopkin's Shock Trauma center, where the system is actually based off experience gained in wartime. Better yet they could subsidize similar ST-type centers in other cities, with Army doctors getting trained there.

Call it what you will, practice is practice.

The only thing I disagree with is the free aspect of the procedure. If the surgery is unwarranted it should cost money. I.E. just to make a women more attractive.
The assertion that this procedure provides no benefit to the surgeon and consequently has no place in the military is pure and utter drivel.

Can any service members (past or present) comment on this? Does the military routinely provide services for free or low cost to families of soldiers? It would make sense due to the ultimate cost they may pay for our country.

The military routinely provides medical services for members and their direct family members. It hasn't before provided unnecessary treatments, however, free of charge.

Isnt it just as easy to get practise on real burn victims? Isn't the war in Iraq providing enough "walking wounded"? both Iraqi civilian and military?

Interesting Side Note:

We were told in Basic that if our spouses wanted to get plastic surgery (boob jobs, etc) that they had to have us sign a form authorizing the procedure.

No signature fron the active duty SO = surgery was not allowed.

Don't know why or where this came from, juts remember it being interesting.

I've read that cosmetic surgery and reconstructive surgery are two separate specialties. So, practicing breast augmentations isn't going to help you much when a soldier loses a breast in battle. (See Newyorker article here ). Though, the reconstructive/cosmetic distinction may also be a load of BS. My wife worked for a plastic surgeon for awhile after college. He did both cosmetic and reconstructive surgeries.

That being said, I'm not sure that I'm against free cosmetic surgery for the military. Different jobs have different benefits. Free cosmetic surgery might be good for recruitment. (Though do you really want a soldier that joined just for the plastic surgery?)

I support the plastic surgerory for soldiers who have suffered battle scars and such. Its ok to me if they use our tax money to improve the life of soldiers who have been "changed" by war. However a boob job is not something tax payers should have to pay for, unless the officer in question lost theirs in service of their country.

sapiens,

To your last question:

yes, might've improved the scenery a bit *wink*

Similiar to what Dragonlich stated; military physicians need training just as civilian docs do. Also another point to consider- the SO of servicemembers are just as important. The familiy structure can sometimes be directly related to the morale of troops. Keeping them high has many benefits.



This was the first image I had
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QQAAACMUA6BM5tLC9s5Jje9eK1Tkq42UwcpBhG8oVCVGsVcLtOPRbCbW7u**fv6scWEQHyfKKB89XGt1E8owe9R!OTozU5CEGvzGJQYWEZI/girls.jpg?dc=4675481689502719463[/IMG]

Not sure how this found its way into tfpolitics, but it is absolutely true. I don't have a problem with it, as I am soon to be a beneficiary.

<--- on the waiting list for PRK, a close relative of LASIK

There is little similarity between doing liposuction and treating a gunshot wound or chemical burn.

I have no objection to military and their families receiving medical benefits as many who work in the private sector do, but plastic surgery? Surely if you are going to use "the docs need to practice" as a reason, aren't there more truly needy people out there who would benefit more?

I attended BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition School) in 1995. Certain eye problems are disqualifications for entry into the program. There was a student awaiting in the preclass phase until he had completed PRK for both eyes; the military was flipping the bill on this one. While it may be obvious that he knew someone just by the fact he was stationed at the Naval Special Warfare Center with a disqualifying physical situation; its even more suprising that the Navy was paying for it. That was back then. Are you stating that currently the military is not sponsering that operation?

I understand your and view and some of the reasons for of why; but here's a couple things to consider:

1. Unless we are talking about a military dependent checking into a military ER; it's going to be the first responders that deal with the initial treatment and stabilization of the combat or hazardous duty type injuries you mentioned. (Navy Corpsmen; Army medics; and in extreme cases Air Force Pararescue) The complex operations would then be carried out in the rear Battalion Aid Stations or Life-Flighted to the nearest Hospital or Hospital Ship.

The military physicians usually owe time; which is how they got their educational costs paid for. With reguard to plastic surgeons- my view is this; alot of this can happen that can negatively change the appearence of a servicemember. In some cases actually be physically disabilitating. If priority patients have been taken care with; why not upgrade surgical skills?

I guess really the only way to truly evaluate something like this is to compare the cost of supplies the COSMEDIC procedures cost the government (because the time factor becomes less as military pesonal are actually on the time clock 24/7) vs the social benefit military families and even service members themselves would reap.

I do know that being out of standards (ie--- being to overweight) will get a person discharged from service. And yet there are instances where operations are done to preserve the ability to stay in. It would be hard for me to see lipo being done for such a reason.

I have to investigate this more before I could make a better founded comment.

I know for a fact the Navy foots the bill for PRK (many of my friends with less than perfect vision have/are having it). But the paperwork is a mountain that you have to go for, only through approved doctors, and a mountain of after-physicals to go through.

Lasik is still not allowed as G-Forces tend to make the flap flip back and make you temporarily blind.

Yeah, USAF is footing my bill, whenever they finally get to me *yawns while he waits*. And they have recently started doing LASIK for non-pilots/navs. (all free by the way...)

Considering the amount our soldiers are paid for what they do, some free plastic surgery doesn't really bother me.

I think this is just another way to rope in more recruits with benefits.

I'm all for bigger boobs.

I don't care where they come from or who pays for them.

Letter from an Army doc speaking on anonymity....found it on NRO Corner(http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp)

Jonah,
I apologize for the anonymity, but as I am a military doc I would prefer to lay a bit low. If you want, I can provide bona fides separately.

However, there are some points of contention regarding the fact impaired New Yorker-via-Reuters story you referenced. I don't have access to the New Yorker article, but have seen it summarized on line. From these, I would like add some facts that make the story pretty dang benign and hardly the shocking waste of taxpayer dollars the spin of the article seems to be. The tenor that Sergeant Baggadonuts and/or Mrs. Major Zotz can just waltz over to the nearest military hospital and get nipped, tucked, vacuumed, or pumped up, is both bogus and irksome. I am a little weary of lies and misdirection regarding the military.

1. The Army, Navy, and Air Force have teaching hospitals.

2. These hospitals have plastic surgery programs.

3. For these programs to be accredited, the residents must perform the same procedures their civilian counterparts perform.

4. To become board certified and maintain currency, military plastic surgeons must perform the same procedures as their civilian counterparts.

4. The article mentions that between 2000 and 2003, there were 496 breast enlargements and 1361 lipos done on "soldiers" (only Army personnel are Soldiers) and their dependents. Assuming they were done at a constant rate, that is a whopping 165 breast enlargements and 457 lipos per year.

5. There are about 1,400,000 active duty military, and about an average of 3 dependents/servicemember. Completely disregarding eligible reserve component personnel and their dependents, as well as eligible retirees, that makes an eligible population of over 4, 200,000.

Do the math, and as you can see, this falls damn short of a cosmetic surgery stampede. Show me any U.S. city of 4.2 million in which the plastic surgeons only do 165 breast enlargements and 457 lipos a year, and I'll show you a town with starving plastic surgeons, or with only one moderately busy. Show me a town of 4.2 million with only one plastic surgeon, and I'll show you a town outside of the U.S. I won't bore you with the hoops and wickets one has to go through to get someone one a rare referral for these or other "elective cosmetic" procedures - trust me, it isn't the same pulling out the Yellow Pages, turning to the physicians pages, picking an ad, and calling up old Dr. Young for an appointment - there has to be some kind of justification other then "I want it".

In addition, as odd as it may seem, military and their dependents do get sick and injured - if a spouse or a soldier needed, for example, a breast reconstruction after mastectomy, I think most sentient persons (I know that whittles the pool down a fair bit) would agree that docs who have actually performed a few cases, even if those were strictly cosmetic, would be preferred over those doing OJT. Same thing goes for nose jobs or any other "elective cosmetic" procedure - the bottom line is that skills maintained by doing these procedures are helping heal servicemembers injured in combat, past and present.

End of rant - your military medicine guy (haven't seen one of those).

Thanks for the good find Kinky!

I wasnt aware of the fact ( and it seems neither was the guy from NewYorker/reuters) that it wasnt all that easy to get one of those surgeries.

Coming from a country with a relatively small military force i didnt take into account how many people actualy are eligible for those surgeries.

In the light of those two facts, that were unfortunately omitted in the reuters story, the whole thing seem hardly noteworthy.

sorry to have robbed your time, move on, shoo shoo, nothing to see :p ;)

Reuters has a habit of spinning there articles towards the negative.

Good post Kinky. I dont care what they say about Military Docs I'd choose one over a Civilian anyday.

Just October I had surgery on my back for a herniated disk (so bad I litterally couldnt walk). The very next day I was walking for the first time in 4 months, and didnt even need pain killers because of the pain I had been in before I had simply gotten used to. Very professional, very friendly, and it kept me in the military.

While I don't have anything great to say about military doctors, I don't have anything really bad to say either. Most of the ones I knew on base in Yokosuka Japan weren't all that great, but that's just one hospital out of the many US military hospitals in the world. I knew there was something missing from this arguement, and I thank you Kinki for bringing in that missing link.