16 ms·

Thank You for Being Expendable

51 points by whyenot 12y ago

klunger 12y ago
"If you want to know what the price of freedom looks like, go to a V.A. waiting room — wheelchairs, missing limbs, walking wounded, you get all of the above." That quote just really drove it home for me.
- icambron 12y ago
  That's actually the price of warfare. We have a habit of just pretending everyone's being killed and mutilated for freedom because it's a lot more comfortable that way. Makes their sacrifice seem worthwhile and not just a horrifying waste. Maybe in some cases it's even true, but it's not true in general, and I'd even go so far as to say it hasn't been true of the last, say, 60 years of US history. We should take care of our vets, but we should also stop making so fucking many of them.
- touristtam 12y ago
  Completely the opposite with me. No matter what those soldier may have thought before enrolling, freedom is not why they have suffered personal losses. Just merely an excuse for an aggressive foreign policy from their government. Maybe this generation will have a bigger impact on the general US population to not support this kind of war during the current century. Or maybe North America needs to have it own internal armed conflict to learn that war is a bad bad thing.
wmgries 12y ago
Why don't we just pay for veterans to go to normal hospitals? Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work?
- Nacraile 12y ago
  The US has the highest per-capita health care expenditure in the OECD, by a substantial margin, despite being the only OECD country which does not provide universal health care. Why on earth would we think that private sector hospitals work any better?
  - wmgries 12y ago
    I've never heard of anyone being forced to wait for weeks for this kind of stuff in a normal hospital in the US. Government run health systems overseas have well documented wait lists. Furthermore, privately run systems should be more efficient because consumers have a choice. Don't like your current doctor? Go get a new one. To be clear, I don't object to government funding these things, just running them. Monopolies are bad.
    - roma1n 12y ago
      Okay, I live in France, the quintessential socialized health-care system. The wait at hospitals is short, I can choose my doctor as I please, and an appointment costs me all of 23 euro. I have nothing against the health insurance being government-run, which does not entail that the whole system is government run. Most GPs, for instance, are independent.
      - roma1n 12y ago
        Adding to my previous comment: the French health "insurance" is a bit of a misnomer. It is as much an insurance as a wealth redistribution mechanism, and the "premiums" are not a function of your health risks but of your income, i.e. it is effectively a tax. If you believe that health-care should be granted at the same level regardless of material status, it makes sense. In other words, the French health "insurance" is meant to at most break even, or run a deficit (which it does).
    - thirsteh 12y ago
      Every country in Europe has a private healthcare industry in addition to the public one. Not only is there no "waiting list crisis", but people still have the ability to choose whatever private healthcare provider they want, provided they can pay for it. As a European who only recently moved to the U.S., it's bizarre to see the rhetoric being used here. The news are littered with "Europe is on the brink of collapse", "Will the Eurozone survive?", and "Healthcare waiting lists longer than ever in Europe", but mention those headlines to most Europeans (at least in Northern/Western Europe), and they'll look at you quizzically before asking what you've been smoking. And indeed, nearly every study into healthcare systems and their effectiveness prove many of those headlines to be wild exaggerations or downright untruths. Consider if you should take what you're reading at face value--very large corporations are heavily incentivized to mislead you. Manufacturing Consent is chillingly relevant.
- gnaritas 12y ago
  > Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work? It's a silly question, why do you assume they wouldn't? Government doesn't equal bad.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Just for a start veterans have specific injuries (both mental and physical) that general hospital will be hard to have the expertise to deal with. We are talking about people that freak out/enter combat mode when they see a garbage can or a box near the road. Why - because for them for 10 years it has been a real and present danger. And those are the very mild cases.
  - seizethecheese 12y ago
    If the VA didn't exist hospitals would have the appropriate resources, especially those near bases.
    - crpatino 12y ago
      Actually, I think the opposite would be truth. If the VA didn't exist limited resources would get spread too thin among regular hospitals, though maybe not as badly in those near bases.
- jotm 12y ago
  They would simply not get insurance because of the high risk of expensive injuries.
- patmcc 12y ago
  >>>Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work? Because lots of nations have successful government-run hospitals?
maxxxxx 12y ago
I don't understand why there is a VA. Just give them Medicare or another health insurance. I can see a need for facilities that can treat combat specific injuries but I guess most veterans can be served by the regular health system.
- zitterbewegung 12y ago
  Name a health care provider that would cover them then? Which health care provider would you want to take that kind of assumed risk?
  - nostromo 12y ago
    > Medicare
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    Medicare for example.
  - gnaritas 12y ago
    > Name a health care provider that would cover them then? Any of them would, it's required by law; there are no more pre-existing conditions.
- rdl 12y ago
  The VA predates the rest of the medical care run by the federal government. When it works, it is actually fairly cost effective. They are actually going the other direction on this -- trying to more closely link active duty and VA care, although there are some commercial providers in the active duty system, especially for dependents.
- yaddayadda 12y ago
  [I have used VA healthcare, I have several friends who work for the VA Health Administration, and I have many friends who use VA healthcare.] When the VA system works it treats the whole person. For example, if you have PTSD it may exacerbate conditions that may appear unrelated. In theory, all care-givers (MDs, therapists, etc) meet about an individual vet's conditions on a regular basis (every 2 weeks if memory serves correctly) to identify and develop longer term treatments for co-morbid conditions (I can only confirm this for one VA hospital). Even if there weren't an attempt to treat co-morbid conditions, there are so many combat specific injuries that it might be a moot point. For example, I have a friend who is a Vietnam Vet that suffers from agent orange related illnesses; these illnesses exasperate more common conditions, namely diabetes. Throw in PTSD and anxiety, and now you have someone dealing with such a plethora of different symptoms - symptoms that are common in the veteran community but not in other communities. Would a typical GP have the expertise to handle this? Most likely not.
analyst74 12y ago
It's strange to me that people still held the view that soldiers fight for their countrymen's freedom. It's not like Vietnam or Iraq were on their way to invade America in any foreseeable future. Wars are fought for profit of the few, lives of soldiers are just part of the expense, which they try to minimize through propaganda and false promise of future care.
- wwwwwwwwww 12y ago
  talk to any soldier about this and they will acknowledge that america's security is not directly threatened in todays world, and believe that the military mostly acts as a "preventative force" to keep it that way.
- chondos 12y ago
  You are taking the term fight for their countrymen's freedom way too literally. Do you think that generals and military surgeons actually fought (as in combat) anyone at any time? Just because an individual did not see combat, this does not mean that they are not considered to be fighting. The spirit of the armed forces is that they their efforts either in training, studying, or actual combat are all part of a unified effort or fight. The for freedom part goes back to the founding. The primary mission of the military is to protect the homeland from invasion and occupation. Though they do other things when there is no direct threat, this is still the primary mission today. Just by their presence we remain free. Do you think if the military was abolished tomorrow that we would be free people 2 years from now? To your examples, Vietnam was fought because communism was seen as in indirect threat to American freedom. Much the same as the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to start a ripple effect of democracy throughout the middle east. Of course with such uncivilized people, with their constant conflicts and bloodshed over religion, stability and prosperity was never realized. The thought though was that democracy and personal freedom (at least in the west) has generally caused countries to become more prosperous, civil and less threatening to other countries freedom and sovereignty.
jseliger 12y ago
Brilliant article. I would add that Tom Ricks's book The Generals is an excellent complement to this piece (I wrote more about it here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-generals-tom-ricks/ http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-generals-tom-ri... ). Since Korea we have developed the habit of lauding generals who lose wars, instead of finding other duties to them. A general or Secretary of Defense who screws up gets sweet six-figure "retirement" and widespread respect. He is at little if any risk of personal harm. A private who screws up, or just gets screwed by the system, dies. It is worth contemplating what that asymmetry means.
- tcopeland 12y ago
  "The Generals" also shows up on the UK Ministry of Defence reading list (in the "partners" section http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/reading_list/19-defense-academy-of-the-united-kingdom#partners http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/reading_list/19-...), so his suggestions are getting some official showing in military circles.
- D9u 12y ago
  "War is a racket" by 2 time CMOH recipient Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (USMC) details how corporate interests profit from warfare. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html When I went through infantry training at Ft Benning I learned that the term "infantry" referred to a nation's ability to field soldiers, which is dependent upon the birth rate. More infants = more soldiers. Thus, by extrapolation, soldiers, especially infantrymen, are considered to be expendable. Sadly, bureaucracy has allowed the care given to our veterans to fall short of expectations, but for many of those with military experience such treatment is par for the course.
ilaksh 12y ago
Kind of a downer man. I'm trying to have a BBQ over here. Maybe talk about depressing things after my day off.
- autodidakto 12y ago
  Please don't be alarmed by the fallout of war. The President (past, present, and future) wants you to go back to shopping and sportsball.

51 points by whyenot 12y ago

"If you want to know what the price of freedom looks like, go to a V.A. waiting room — wheelchairs, missing limbs, walking wounded, you get all of the above." That quote just really drove it home for me.

icambron 12y ago
That's actually the price of warfare. We have a habit of just pretending everyone's being killed and mutilated for freedom because it's a lot more comfortable that way. Makes their sacrifice seem worthwhile and not just a horrifying waste. Maybe in some cases it's even true, but it's not true in general, and I'd even go so far as to say it hasn't been true of the last, say, 60 years of US history. We should take care of our vets, but we should also stop making so fucking many of them.
touristtam 12y ago
Completely the opposite with me. No matter what those soldier may have thought before enrolling, freedom is not why they have suffered personal losses. Just merely an excuse for an aggressive foreign policy from their government. Maybe this generation will have a bigger impact on the general US population to not support this kind of war during the current century. Or maybe North America needs to have it own internal armed conflict to learn that war is a bad bad thing.

wmgries 12y ago

Why don't we just pay for veterans to go to normal hospitals? Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work?

Nacraile 12y ago
The US has the highest per-capita health care expenditure in the OECD, by a substantial margin, despite being the only OECD country which does not provide universal health care. Why on earth would we think that private sector hospitals work any better?
- wmgries 12y ago
  I've never heard of anyone being forced to wait for weeks for this kind of stuff in a normal hospital in the US. Government run health systems overseas have well documented wait lists. Furthermore, privately run systems should be more efficient because consumers have a choice. Don't like your current doctor? Go get a new one. To be clear, I don't object to government funding these things, just running them. Monopolies are bad.
  - roma1n 12y ago
    Okay, I live in France, the quintessential socialized health-care system. The wait at hospitals is short, I can choose my doctor as I please, and an appointment costs me all of 23 euro. I have nothing against the health insurance being government-run, which does not entail that the whole system is government run. Most GPs, for instance, are independent.
    - roma1n 12y ago
      Adding to my previous comment: the French health "insurance" is a bit of a misnomer. It is as much an insurance as a wealth redistribution mechanism, and the "premiums" are not a function of your health risks but of your income, i.e. it is effectively a tax. If you believe that health-care should be granted at the same level regardless of material status, it makes sense. In other words, the French health "insurance" is meant to at most break even, or run a deficit (which it does).
  - thirsteh 12y ago
    Every country in Europe has a private healthcare industry in addition to the public one. Not only is there no "waiting list crisis", but people still have the ability to choose whatever private healthcare provider they want, provided they can pay for it. As a European who only recently moved to the U.S., it's bizarre to see the rhetoric being used here. The news are littered with "Europe is on the brink of collapse", "Will the Eurozone survive?", and "Healthcare waiting lists longer than ever in Europe", but mention those headlines to most Europeans (at least in Northern/Western Europe), and they'll look at you quizzically before asking what you've been smoking. And indeed, nearly every study into healthcare systems and their effectiveness prove many of those headlines to be wild exaggerations or downright untruths. Consider if you should take what you're reading at face value--very large corporations are heavily incentivized to mislead you. Manufacturing Consent is chillingly relevant.
gnaritas 12y ago
> Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work? It's a silly question, why do you assume they wouldn't? Government doesn't equal bad.
venomsnake 12y ago
Just for a start veterans have specific injuries (both mental and physical) that general hospital will be hard to have the expertise to deal with. We are talking about people that freak out/enter combat mode when they see a garbage can or a box near the road. Why - because for them for 10 years it has been a real and present danger. And those are the very mild cases.
- seizethecheese 12y ago
  If the VA didn't exist hospitals would have the appropriate resources, especially those near bases.
  - crpatino 12y ago
    Actually, I think the opposite would be truth. If the VA didn't exist limited resources would get spread too thin among regular hospitals, though maybe not as badly in those near bases.
jotm 12y ago
They would simply not get insurance because of the high risk of expensive injuries.
patmcc 12y ago
>>>Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work? Because lots of nations have successful government-run hospitals?

maxxxxx 12y ago

I don't understand why there is a VA. Just give them Medicare or another health insurance. I can see a need for facilities that can treat combat specific injuries but I guess most veterans can be served by the regular health system.

zitterbewegung 12y ago
Name a health care provider that would cover them then? Which health care provider would you want to take that kind of assumed risk?
- nostromo 12y ago
  > Medicare
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  Medicare for example.
- gnaritas 12y ago
  > Name a health care provider that would cover them then? Any of them would, it's required by law; there are no more pre-existing conditions.
rdl 12y ago
The VA predates the rest of the medical care run by the federal government. When it works, it is actually fairly cost effective. They are actually going the other direction on this -- trying to more closely link active duty and VA care, although there are some commercial providers in the active duty system, especially for dependents.
yaddayadda 12y ago
[I have used VA healthcare, I have several friends who work for the VA Health Administration, and I have many friends who use VA healthcare.] When the VA system works it treats the whole person. For example, if you have PTSD it may exacerbate conditions that may appear unrelated. In theory, all care-givers (MDs, therapists, etc) meet about an individual vet's conditions on a regular basis (every 2 weeks if memory serves correctly) to identify and develop longer term treatments for co-morbid conditions (I can only confirm this for one VA hospital). Even if there weren't an attempt to treat co-morbid conditions, there are so many combat specific injuries that it might be a moot point. For example, I have a friend who is a Vietnam Vet that suffers from agent orange related illnesses; these illnesses exasperate more common conditions, namely diabetes. Throw in PTSD and anxiety, and now you have someone dealing with such a plethora of different symptoms - symptoms that are common in the veteran community but not in other communities. Would a typical GP have the expertise to handle this? Most likely not.

analyst74 12y ago

It's strange to me that people still held the view that soldiers fight for their countrymen's freedom. It's not like Vietnam or Iraq were on their way to invade America in any foreseeable future. Wars are fought for profit of the few, lives of soldiers are just part of the expense, which they try to minimize through propaganda and false promise of future care.

wwwwwwwwww 12y ago
talk to any soldier about this and they will acknowledge that america's security is not directly threatened in todays world, and believe that the military mostly acts as a "preventative force" to keep it that way.
chondos 12y ago
You are taking the term fight for their countrymen's freedom way too literally. Do you think that generals and military surgeons actually fought (as in combat) anyone at any time? Just because an individual did not see combat, this does not mean that they are not considered to be fighting. The spirit of the armed forces is that they their efforts either in training, studying, or actual combat are all part of a unified effort or fight. The for freedom part goes back to the founding. The primary mission of the military is to protect the homeland from invasion and occupation. Though they do other things when there is no direct threat, this is still the primary mission today. Just by their presence we remain free. Do you think if the military was abolished tomorrow that we would be free people 2 years from now? To your examples, Vietnam was fought because communism was seen as in indirect threat to American freedom. Much the same as the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to start a ripple effect of democracy throughout the middle east. Of course with such uncivilized people, with their constant conflicts and bloodshed over religion, stability and prosperity was never realized. The thought though was that democracy and personal freedom (at least in the west) has generally caused countries to become more prosperous, civil and less threatening to other countries freedom and sovereignty.

jseliger 12y ago

Brilliant article. I would add that Tom Ricks's book The Generals is an excellent complement to this piece (I wrote more about it here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-generals-tom-ricks/ http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-generals-tom-ri... ). Since Korea we have developed the habit of lauding generals who lose wars, instead of finding other duties to them. A general or Secretary of Defense who screws up gets sweet six-figure "retirement" and widespread respect. He is at little if any risk of personal harm. A private who screws up, or just gets screwed by the system, dies. It is worth contemplating what that asymmetry means.

tcopeland 12y ago
"The Generals" also shows up on the UK Ministry of Defence reading list (in the "partners" section http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/reading_list/19-defense-academy-of-the-united-kingdom#partners http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/reading_list/19-...), so his suggestions are getting some official showing in military circles.
D9u 12y ago
"War is a racket" by 2 time CMOH recipient Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (USMC) details how corporate interests profit from warfare. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html When I went through infantry training at Ft Benning I learned that the term "infantry" referred to a nation's ability to field soldiers, which is dependent upon the birth rate. More infants = more soldiers. Thus, by extrapolation, soldiers, especially infantrymen, are considered to be expendable. Sadly, bureaucracy has allowed the care given to our veterans to fall short of expectations, but for many of those with military experience such treatment is par for the course.

ilaksh 12y ago

Kind of a downer man. I'm trying to have a BBQ over here. Maybe talk about depressing things after my day off.

autodidakto 12y ago
Please don't be alarmed by the fallout of war. The President (past, present, and future) wants you to go back to shopping and sportsball.