NEWS Sen Tuberville and Appointment Delays

[Brett327]

Call it whatever you want,

I understand that grouping it with elective procedures is rhetorically convenient for you. I’m not sure it’s a good fit in terms of taxonomy. As an example, IVF and other fertility treatments are not covered by the government, yet travel expenses are reimbursed (just like other reproductive health). Do you consider this an elective procedure? If so, do you object to the government paying for TDY costs?

 

[number9]

You're right, breaking the law is not what we're talking about. I said skirting. As in, you don't medically need an abortion, and the state has decided that prematurely ending the lives of babies in the womb because you don't like the consequences of your actions is illegal, so we (the DoD) are going to help you get around the state law by paying for your travel to another state for this morally debatable (and politically sensitive) elective surgery.

Do you think the DoD should pay for travel for breast augmentation, or is this the only elective procedure they should care about?

It is as medically necessary as breast augmentation or hair implants is my point. All things that should not be the taxpayers burden to finance.

I am completely uninterested in moral and political concerns when it comes to the healthcare needs of my spouse. I am even less interested in those concerns when coming from a sexagenarian who has never served and seemingly broke his very public promise to donate his Congressional salary to veterans' organizations. (Edited to add: I will give him a benefit of the considerable doubt on the family history stuff.)

Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, the maternal mortality rate in Colorado is 15.2 deaths per 100,000 child births. The maternal mortality rate in Alabama is 41.4 deaths per 100,000, which is almost double the national average (23.5). In which state does the Senator think I'd rather be stationed with my wife: Alabama or Colorado?

 

[Sonog]

Is it me, or is going out of your way to call abortion an elective procedure another way of saying "I am not pro-life, I am Forced-Birth". In other words, "without shouldering any risks myself, I will force you to take all the risks, body deformation, and ensuing mental health damage for a pregnancy you do not want." Sounds a little bit like "quiet part out-loud".

(https://www.wsj.com/articles/mother...ession-7b548f43?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1)

 

[Mirage]

Is it me, or is going out of your way to call abortion an elective procedure another way of saying "I am not pro-life, I am Forced-Birth". In other words, "without shouldering any risks myself, I will force you to take all the risks, body deformation, and ensuing mental health damage for a pregnancy you do not want." Sounds a little bit like "quiet part out-loud".

(https://www.wsj.com/articles/mother...ession-7b548f43?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1)

I understand that grouping it with elective procedures is rhetorically convenient for you. I’m not sure it’s a good fit in terms of taxonomy. As an example, IVF and other fertility treatments are not covered by the government, yet travel expenses are reimbursed (just like other reproductive health). Do you consider this an elective procedure? If so, do you object to the government paying for TDY costs?

Can y'all explain how it is not an elective procedure? It is optional (elective) and a procedure. Why does acknowledging that we are talking about non medically necessary procedures trigger you?

And the pro-life stance, which we were asked not to debate, is not forcing women to get pregnant and assume those risks. They made that decision themselves. Just because they don't like the consequences of their actions does not mean they get to end a life prematurely (which as I argued already, is the very reason why we all agree murder is wrong). I hate that it will carry negative repercussions for the woman. I really do. This is one of life's problems with no good solution. But I choose a woman who, in the vast majority of cases, got pregnant because she didn't properly use birth control, dealing with slight body transformation and a 0.1% chance of death, to murder. It sucks. Give the kid up for adoption. There is a huge market and waiting list of people who want to adopt healthy babies. I was on one for years with no luck.

 

[number9]

Can y'all explain how it is not an elective procedure? It is optional (elective) and a procedure. Why does acknowledging that we are talking about non medically necessary procedures trigger you?

And the pro-life stance, which we were asked not to debate, is not forcing women to get pregnant and assume those risks. They made that decision themselves. Just because they don't like the consequences of their actions does not mean they get to end a life prematurely (which as I argued already, is the very reason why we all agree murder is wrong). I hate that it will carry negative repercussions for the woman. I really do. This is one of life's problems with no good solution. But I choose a woman who, in the vast majority of cases, got pregnant because she didn't properly use birth control, dealing with slight body transformation and a 0.1% chance of death, to murder. It sucks. Give the kid up for adoption. There is a huge market and I waiting list of people who want to adopt healthy babies. I was on one for years with no luck.

I disagree with your opinions strongly enough that I don't think you and I will find common ground on this, but I respect your opinion enough not to want to attack each other over it. I'll bow out.

 

[Swanee]

It is as medically necessary as breast augmentation

There are plenty of cases in which augmentation is used to correct a defect, and reconstruction is also necessary for many women. Some women even have mastectomies because of a genetic marker that says that they might develop breast cancer in the future- they aren't medically necessary at the time.

And not every woman who wants to have plastic surgery on their breasts are doing it to be, or look like, a porn star.

Also, why do you care? How does this affect you or your job? Why shit on a good deal recruiting tactic that doesn't hurt you in any way? This is like SWOs shitting on pilots for getting flight pay. I'm sorry someone gets a better deal than you in one very small, very specific instance.

 

[Mirage]

There are plenty of cases in which augmentation is used to correct a defect, and reconstruction is also necessary for many women. Some women even have mastectomies because of a genetic marker that says that they might develop breast cancer in the future- they aren't medically necessary at the time.

And not every woman who wants to have plastic surgery on their breasts are doing it to be, or look like, a porn star.

Also, why do you care? How does this affect you or your job? Why shit on a good deal recruiting tactic that doesn't hurt you in any way? This is like SWOs shitting on pilots for getting flight pay. I'm sorry someone gets a better deal than you in one very small, very specific instance.

Again... what are you talking about? Re-read my posts or something. I literally said I support free military breast augmentations to keep our doctor's proficient... and the reason our doctor's need to be proficient is because, as you said, sometimes it is necessary to make someone whole. I couldn't care less if women get boob jobs or what their reasons are. What I would take exception to is if someone were deployed or stationed somewhere that doesn't offer breast augmentation, and the military decided to put that someone on paid TDY with travel to get breast augmentation for non-medical reasons (or hair implants/removal, as I mentioned and you ignored).

 

[Brett327]

Can y'all explain how it is not an elective procedure?

There are risks and complications (including death) associated with pregnancy and birth… risks statistically much higher than abortion, or not being pregnant. On balance, it is safer to not be pregnant than it is to carry a child to term. Someone may decide that those risks are not worth incurring. This is why its different than, say, a purely cosmetic procedure.

Lots of other examples, like prophylactic mastectomy, which isn’t treating a symptom or disease, simply mitigating future risk. Is that elective? Yes and no. These things aren’t as black and white as they first seem.

Still curious to know whether you think IVF leave/TDY costs should be covered.

 

[taxi1]

Call it whatever you want, but most abortions are not medically necessary...Everyone in the military is subject to laws that vary by state.

How do you propose we implement this in a military setting? Who is the gatekeeper that vets travels out of state? Do they vet every trip involving medical care for everyone?

What if they travel out of state for reproductive care, and they find out that they (patient and care team) need to terminate the pregnancy. What then?

If a service member, man or woman, gets orders to a state that blocks care, should they be allowed to turn them down?

 

[Sonog]

Can y'all explain how it is not an elective procedure? It is optional (elective) and a procedure. Why does acknowledging that we are talking about non medically necessary procedures trigger you?

And the pro-life stance, which we were asked not to debate, is not forcing women to get pregnant and assume those risks. They made that decision themselves. Just because they don't like the consequences of their actions does not mean they get to end a life prematurely (which as I argued already, is the very reason why we all agree murder is wrong). I hate that it will carry negative repercussions for the woman. I really do. This is one of life's problems with no good solution. But I choose a woman who, in the vast majority of cases, got pregnant because she didn't properly use birth control, dealing with slight body transformation and a 0.1% chance of death, to murder. It sucks. Give the kid up for adoption. There is a huge market and waiting list of people who want to adopt healthy babies. I was on one for years with no luck.

yikes my man

 

[Mirage]

There are risks and complications (including death) associated with pregnancy and birth… risks statistically much higher than abortion, or not being pregnant. On balance, it is safer to not be pregnant than it is to carry a child to term. Someone may decide that those risks are not worth incurring. This is why its different than, say, a purely cosmetic procedure.

Lots of other examples, like prophylactic mastectomy, which isn’t treating a symptom or disease, simply mitigating future risk. Is that elective? Yes and no. These things aren’t as black and white as they first seem.

Still curious to know whether you think IVF leave/TDY costs should be covered.

I agree it is not always as black and white. But it often is. There is a 99.97% that a woman will survive a pregnancy. Much better odds still, I'd bet, among the military, as the infirm and 40+ populations are greatly underrepresented. The odds that a life will be ended prematurely if an abortion happens are 100%. In most cases, that's awfully black and white.

As for IVF, no I do not think taxpayers should cover travel for that, any more than if I wanted hair plugs. IVF is not an entitlement or covered under TRICARE. It is a personal decision, in no way necessary, and all costs should be born by the member, in my opinion. Just like if I want to go buy a ticket to see a movie. Why should the taxpayer be involved.. just because it involves reproduction?

How do you propose we implement this in a military setting? Who is the gatekeeper that vets travels out of state? Do they vet every trip involving medical care for everyone?

What if they travel out of state for reproductive care, and they find out that they (patient and care team) need to terminate the pregnancy. What then?

If a service member, man or woman, gets orders to a state that blocks care, should they be allowed to turn them down?

We already vet every TDY, involving medical care or not. What do you mean?

If someone is out of state for "reproductive care" while pregnant, that is not seeking an abortion, and the care team decides it is medically necessary to terminate the pregnancy, that is a completely different scenario than we are talking about. Medically necessary abortions are legal everywhere. If for some reason the member needed care at a specialty clinic out of state, that would obviously still be covered if it ended in an abortion.

SVM's cannot turn down orders because they don't like where they're going, no. Not because they hate California's crazy laws, not because they don't want to go to Bahrain, and not because they are apparently planning to have sex without protection and use abortion as a backup plan. If they want to do that, they still would be able to... they just have to pay for their own travel and use personal leave to do so.

 

[taxi1]

We already vet every TDY, involving medical care or not. What do you mean?

Who decides, because the originating base is in Alabama, that the service member cannot travel for a medical procedure they would be entitled to in Minnesota, because it is not permitted in Alabama? Who adjudicates it?

 

[SteveHolt!!!]

You keep talking about how medically necessary abortions are available everywhere. Are you aware how poorly that works in practice?

and not because they are apparently planning to have sex without protection and use abortion as a backup plan. If they want to do that, they still would be able to... they just have to pay for their own travel and use personal leave to do so.

Just to be clear, you're ok with servicemembers traveling on leave to get an abortion. So, in practice, you just want service members' access to abortion defined by whether they can afford it, have leave, and their chain of command authorizes leave? Don't see any problems with that.

 

[Mirage]

Who decides, because the originating base is in Alabama, that the service member cannot travel for a medical procedure they would be entitled to in Minnesota, because it is not permitted in Alabama? Who adjudicates it?

Nobody is saying they cannot travel. They are saying that you and I will not pay for their travel, but instead respect the local laws and protect the innocent life involved.

You keep talking about how medically necessary abortions are available everywhere. Are you aware how poorly that works in practice?


Just to be clear, you're ok with servicemembers traveling on leave to get an abortion. So, in practice, you just want service members' access to abortion defined by whether they can afford it, have leave, and their chain of command authorizes leave? Don't see any problems with that.

I don't have a NYT subscription, but if there is a problem with how it works in practice, then lets fix that.

I am not "ok" with SVMs getting abortions unless it is medically necessary. I wish I could snap my fingers and treat optional abortions like murder, which the way I reason it is exactly what it is. However, I accept that under current laws SVMs are allowed to get abortions in many places. Whether SVMs take advantage of those laws, and what costs they incur in doing so, should be up to them. Tricare only gives abortions in cases of rape or incest. So the vast majority of the time, we are not even talking about travel for a procedure that will be accomplished under the SVMs healthcare benefits. It is not a burden taxpayers should be forced to bear, especially when so many taxpayers believe they are supporting murder in doing so. Why should we be forcing half our population to support something they are so against?

 

[Brett327]

As for IVF, no I do not think taxpayers should cover travel for that, any more than if I wanted hair plugs. IVF is not an entitlement or covered under TRICARE. It is a personal decision, in no way necessary, and all costs should be born by the member, in my opinion. Just like if I want to go buy a ticket to see a movie. Why should the taxpayer be involved.. just because it involves reproduction?

If that’s your standard, then the government shouldn’t be paying for any expenses related to having children at all, which is 100% a personal decision, right?

There is a 99.97% that a woman will survive a pregnancy.

Per CDC, there is a 16% chance of serious complications during pregnancy, and a 12% chance of serious complications during childbirth.