Posted on Jul 28, 2017
3
3
0
Besides these 5 there is weight loss for dependents and lasik for them as well just to add a couple more.
5 Seemingly Frivolous Medical Expenses The Pentagon Covers
Posted from taskandpurpose.com
LGBTQ+
Transgender
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Weight loss is sort of understandable, given that it improves health overall and stands a good chance of reducing long-term health care costs. LASIK? Not so much. I get it for the warfighter, for various reasons... chief of which is gas masks. Not having to deal with lenses steaming up and all that. Dependents? No reason for it.
As far as the list goes... Methadone better be coming with discharge papers at the very least. Veneers... are you kidding me?! ED, we all know the general consensus there, that's a play issue, pay for it out of your own damned pocket. But the other two... vasectomies/ligations do at least make sense. That's reducing the chances of another dependent. And tobacco cessation is good for health in general and reduced long-term care costs. Not to mention if someone develops lung cancer in service and get it as an SCD... and now you're talking disability payments.
As far as the list goes... Methadone better be coming with discharge papers at the very least. Veneers... are you kidding me?! ED, we all know the general consensus there, that's a play issue, pay for it out of your own damned pocket. But the other two... vasectomies/ligations do at least make sense. That's reducing the chances of another dependent. And tobacco cessation is good for health in general and reduced long-term care costs. Not to mention if someone develops lung cancer in service and get it as an SCD... and now you're talking disability payments.
(5)
(0)
SSgt Ryan Sylvester
1SG Harold Piet - So, here's the thing I have about combat readiness. We have all sorts of non-deployable billets out there. I had one for 9 years (it was supposed to be a 4 year controlled, turned into 9 because I got lost in the paperwork shuffle). I don't know what's involved with reassignment surgery, how long the process is and all of that, but I can't imagine that it would stretch longer than a 4 year controlled. And, some of these billets are tough to fill. I remember our call list when we were trying to find bodies... up and down that list, we had maybe 5 that showed any interest and none of them actually bit. So there's a possibility of saying look, you want the surgery? Here's a controlled billet you can fill.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jacey R.
I had a dentist that wanted to put veneers on me. I found out later that they have to be get replaced every so many years; the government would have had to foot the bills twice for that before I hit 20.
Weight loss I can understand if it is for a person that needs it for health reasons, a spouse in their 20's and other wise good health, but wants it for self image not as as much.
Lasik for the war fighters most definitely. That can be great other than I saw someone reup so they could get it and less then a year later get their self booted.
Weight loss I can understand if it is for a person that needs it for health reasons, a spouse in their 20's and other wise good health, but wants it for self image not as as much.
Lasik for the war fighters most definitely. That can be great other than I saw someone reup so they could get it and less then a year later get their self booted.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Ryan Sylvester
SSG Jacey R. - Even those that are otherwise in good health, excess weight can lead to problems later on, and so even if it's a body image reason, it's still a long-term health reason to help a person shed excess pounds. The earlier, the better, as younger people have an easier time with weight management.
(1)
(0)
1SG Harold Piet
SSgt Ryan Sylvester - I do not claim to have all the answers, but I know that as a 1SG I was required to have a certain number of people deployable at all times or my unit was deemed not combat ready, I had key positions, such as NBC NCO that alone would make my unit nondeployable. Once I had the maximum number of non deployables and all but 3 were pregnancies. 1 was medical chapter, 1 was air assualt accicdent and 1 was chapter case. combat readiness needs to stay the number one focus.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
This article is a bunch of red herrings. Trans surgery and treatment has nothing to do with any of the treatments listed in this article. Each has a benefit to the military that may save much more money in the future than what the initial treatment costs.
1) ED treatment: Maybe this one won't directly save money in the future but including retirees costs and comparing them to what it would cost active duty doesn't make sense. Besides if a service member has a service related injury that requires them to use Viagra it is in the military's best interest to provide that treatment. If they did not it could lead to lower recruiting numbers in the future because if the military is to willing to treat one service related issue because it looks like a waste to some what other procedures may they decide to stop performing in the future?
2) Vasectomy and tubal ligation: Children cost the military a lot of money. Providing on-base housing, medical care, costs associated with PCSing. All of these costs when added up most likely far surpass the initial cost of a vasectomy or tubal ligation. This is not to mention lost work time due to OBGYN appointments for new pregnancies or pediatric care for newborn children. Also don't forget missed work time by female service members while they are pregnant and their post-partum leave.
3) Dental veneers: Bad dental hygiene has been associated with many non-dental health issues so this is again in the military's best interest to avoid medical costs in other areas further down the line.
4) Smoking and Tobacco Cessation: After all the discussion over the past 20 years is this really a complaint that the military would want to help service members quit using tobacco? How many other costs are associated with medical care due to health problems associated with tobacco use? In the long run this saves the military money.
5) Methadone: Again, addiction. The military has gone overboard prescribing opioids to service members since the war began which has led to an increase in opioid addiction. This is the issue as mentioned in ED treatment. It is vital that the military provide treatment for service connected issues otherwise they could lose potential recruits in the future if they are not willing to take care of those that were injured due to their military service. The last sentence in this portion is hilarious, "you can be a drug addict in the military, but you can’t be transgender." Actually you cannot be an addict that is why the military the military offers methadone treatment. If you fail the treatment you are discharged.
If you are going to argue that transgenders should be allowed to serve and argue against those that use the cost as a reason why they shouldn't come up with a better debate strategy that doesn't depend on pointing out costs in other areas not related to transgender care that can have legitimate reasons for treatment and save money for the military in the long run.
1) ED treatment: Maybe this one won't directly save money in the future but including retirees costs and comparing them to what it would cost active duty doesn't make sense. Besides if a service member has a service related injury that requires them to use Viagra it is in the military's best interest to provide that treatment. If they did not it could lead to lower recruiting numbers in the future because if the military is to willing to treat one service related issue because it looks like a waste to some what other procedures may they decide to stop performing in the future?
2) Vasectomy and tubal ligation: Children cost the military a lot of money. Providing on-base housing, medical care, costs associated with PCSing. All of these costs when added up most likely far surpass the initial cost of a vasectomy or tubal ligation. This is not to mention lost work time due to OBGYN appointments for new pregnancies or pediatric care for newborn children. Also don't forget missed work time by female service members while they are pregnant and their post-partum leave.
3) Dental veneers: Bad dental hygiene has been associated with many non-dental health issues so this is again in the military's best interest to avoid medical costs in other areas further down the line.
4) Smoking and Tobacco Cessation: After all the discussion over the past 20 years is this really a complaint that the military would want to help service members quit using tobacco? How many other costs are associated with medical care due to health problems associated with tobacco use? In the long run this saves the military money.
5) Methadone: Again, addiction. The military has gone overboard prescribing opioids to service members since the war began which has led to an increase in opioid addiction. This is the issue as mentioned in ED treatment. It is vital that the military provide treatment for service connected issues otherwise they could lose potential recruits in the future if they are not willing to take care of those that were injured due to their military service. The last sentence in this portion is hilarious, "you can be a drug addict in the military, but you can’t be transgender." Actually you cannot be an addict that is why the military the military offers methadone treatment. If you fail the treatment you are discharged.
If you are going to argue that transgenders should be allowed to serve and argue against those that use the cost as a reason why they shouldn't come up with a better debate strategy that doesn't depend on pointing out costs in other areas not related to transgender care that can have legitimate reasons for treatment and save money for the military in the long run.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity - because abstinence has worked so well for the government in the past. If it involves married couples they should be able to have sex as that is one of the tenants of being married to ask them not to is just a non-sequitur from the conversation this thread is about. You can also ask female service members to stop having sex so that the military doesn't have to pay for their birth control but that is not even anywhere near to being discussed because of women's rights. Why should it be any different for married couples?
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity - Smoking is a legal habit and cannot be outright banned by the military. It can be curtailed by not allowing it in certain areas but as long as it is a legal activity cannot be banned so tobacco cessation makes sense.
(1)
(0)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity
Smoking is legal but is definately not a force multiplier. Does a service member need to do it? No.
I know it seems rediculous to ask people to abstain from sex...how would it be enforced? Do women need birth control options? They could absolutely say no.
We are asking transgendered people not to be themselves. Where would people who are serving openly as trans go? Who is their advocate? They are still deserving of dignity and respect.
I just don't know that there was a fair assessment of of transgendered people currently serving. Nor have we evaluated the full effects of a ban. If the military doesn't want to support reassignment surgery so be it. Allow soldiers who may be transgendered to continue to serve their country.
I know it seems rediculous to ask people to abstain from sex...how would it be enforced? Do women need birth control options? They could absolutely say no.
We are asking transgendered people not to be themselves. Where would people who are serving openly as trans go? Who is their advocate? They are still deserving of dignity and respect.
I just don't know that there was a fair assessment of of transgendered people currently serving. Nor have we evaluated the full effects of a ban. If the military doesn't want to support reassignment surgery so be it. Allow soldiers who may be transgendered to continue to serve their country.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity - If smoking is legal it cannot be banned for service members. This was looked at for motorcycle ridership back in the early 2010s when the Marine Corps was having a lot of motorcycle fatalities. From a legal standpoint it just is not viable. Is it a force multiplier? Depends on what you mean by that? Does it allow some to alleviate some of the stress they get while in the military? Yes, in that way it is a force multiplier.
Service members are already told they cannot have sex while on deployment to combat areas or on ships but females constantly are sent back to the US due to getting pregnant. I read an article last week that this costs the US Navy $115 million a year. Maybe females should be banned from military service or at least deploying due to this cost? When CentCom was looking into how they could punish service members for getting pregnant while deployed five years or so ago, the left had a fit over how it would negatively effect more females than males even though when the father was known he would also have been charged so it was never implemented.
Cost is an irrelevant factor in whether or not a transgendered person should be allowed to serve. The real question is how will them serving benefit the military? Will it aid to the military's war-fighting capability?
Service members are already told they cannot have sex while on deployment to combat areas or on ships but females constantly are sent back to the US due to getting pregnant. I read an article last week that this costs the US Navy $115 million a year. Maybe females should be banned from military service or at least deploying due to this cost? When CentCom was looking into how they could punish service members for getting pregnant while deployed five years or so ago, the left had a fit over how it would negatively effect more females than males even though when the father was known he would also have been charged so it was never implemented.
Cost is an irrelevant factor in whether or not a transgendered person should be allowed to serve. The real question is how will them serving benefit the military? Will it aid to the military's war-fighting capability?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This has been brought up several times. Arguing that we should cover A because we cover B is completely faulty logic when neither A nor B should be covered. The whole "it doesn't matter in the big budget" argument should stop. Let's have a discussion about the merits and demerits of the actual issue.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Ask a company commander who had a transgender soldier like CPT Mark Gonzalez that question. Personally I am fine with them serving prior to or post transition so long as all medical and psychological care have been completed. I see it as the same as any preexisting condition.
(1)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
The epidemiology shows that the condition does not live in a vacuum. If considering associated conditions many would be disqualified based on these conditions that impact readiness. An underlying problem is that we do not have more stringent screening procedures prior to entry that increase the quality of applicant across the board.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google