-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Place your bets!
- Thread starter Goodfou
- Start date
I have been a pretty faithful commissary shopper ever since I commissioned, mostly out of convenience (I'd rather go grocery shopping on my way out of work on friday than spend Saturday morning doing it), and certainly for budget reasons, and in general I am a happy shopper there. With that said, I think it would be far more cost effective to bump up BAS and adjust it for the area a little more like COLA.
Edit: I see some posts have gone up about this proposal. I will be reading them.
Edit 2: the Stripes article is blocked on OneNet... (going back to speaking of our IT services...)
Last edited:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Having to involve the CO isn't really much better.
My overall point is that we could make significant improvement by allowing servicemembers to see licensed psychologists or psychiatrists without referrals. For many people, seeking mental health professional help can be an embarrassing moment, and having to go through people that are not mental health professionals makes it worse. Right now a sailor's self referral options are a priest or someone's wife working at fleet and family.
The CO is going to be informed and become involved regardless, so that makes zero sense.
There are ways for a Servicemember to seek out mental health solutions and the CO won’t find out. It’s called militaryonesource, providers can recommend it, and it’ll never appear in a medical record. The Servicemember will have access to licensed psychologists/psychiatrists. The frustrating thing is that most people don’t know this benefit exists.
If the provider gives a hard recommendation to a specific provider, not sure how that works wrt CO.
If the provider gives a hard recommendation to a specific provider, not sure how that works wrt CO.
If a servicemember is seen by an MTF, or referred by one, that MTF must notify the command. If that servicemember freelances their own care, then all bets are off. There's a conflict between getting servicemembers the care they need (which I support) and COs having full knowledge of potentially serious issues that affect those under their command - issues which could have an impact of the safety of others. While I respect people's desire for privacy, the CO also needs to be able to make informed decisions on that person's fitness to work on or fly in aircraft/handle classified materials/employ deadly force/etc.
It's a conundrum and there's no easy answer. Curious as to what others have seen/experienced on this issue.
The ‘freelance’ aspect, or more accurately helping sailors avoid it, is why I’m a big fan of MilitaryOneSource. It’s actually a DoD funded program and can get the sailor mental health care without requiring them to just point to a random dr in the yellowpages. It also helps avoid the MTF stigma.
As CO, could you compel a flight doc to tell you something about one of your sailors, or does that violate HIPAA? I would imagine it would be more along the lines of ‘doc, should initiate a fit for duty on Seaman Timmy?’
I do agree with you here. And I really wish that I had access to mental healthcare while going through the FRS. Perhaps my outcome would have been different, perhaps I wouldn't have struggled when I did. I know for a fact that there are times when I had no business being in an airplane, especially by myself, learning something new. Most of those time's I SOD'd. The boat was a big part of this. But most everyone here is tired of hearing my sob story.
The big thing I'll say on this is that it takes more than just the CO's buy in. If we let it get to the CO level it's too far. You need DH buy in, you need Sr JOPA buy in. You need guys who won't tell their low time -2 when they get a terrible call as they're walking to flight, "Suck it up and compartmentalize, you'll have to do it while deployed." But at the same time, I don't think the CO knew about that until my FFPB. Why? Because he was just the guy in the big office that you saw fly FCFs and take traps with the CQ phase guys.
I've seen an MFLAC, (a couple of them) and they run the gamut from really damn good, to really not as good. They're like seeing the trainer- they help you with the stuff hopefully before it gets so bad that you have to call in the MDs. And if you do need to call in the MDs- bring that guy back. Losing your flight status is a really shitty experience, especially when it's something you love to do, and you've worked really hard to earn. Aircrew already wifely hide physical medical issues to stay in the cockpit- but at least we talk about those. Mental health... Not so much.
From my viewpoint (3 x Chaps and 1 x Psych on staff) -
1) Ours Chaps have all done tough tours - BOG IZ/ AF, nuke school / sub tour and do better relating to the sailors. Chaps, from that experience, knows when to give the buck up speech and when to take another approach. Psychs have been great but they are very new to the Navy. They barely understand basic shipboard ops.
2) Chaps and Psych work very closely.
3) We need to do better on screening at commission source/boot camp. Bandwidth taken due to pre-service issues take away from bandwidth that Chaps and Psych can spend elsewhere.
4) Chaps is on the deck plates looking for problems- and trying to get ahead of the problem, to include senior officers/enlisted. Psych waits for the problems to come to them.
If I had to vote - kill the Commissary and up BAS, let enlisted pay for meals in port and cut ship food bills, and kill the gas stations since Wawa is cheaper and better.
1) Ours Chaps have all done tough tours - BOG IZ/ AF, nuke school / sub tour and do better relating to the sailors. Chaps, from that experience, knows when to give the buck up speech and when to take another approach. Psychs have been great but they are very new to the Navy. They barely understand basic shipboard ops.
2) Chaps and Psych work very closely.
3) We need to do better on screening at commission source/boot camp. Bandwidth taken due to pre-service issues take away from bandwidth that Chaps and Psych can spend elsewhere.
4) Chaps is on the deck plates looking for problems- and trying to get ahead of the problem, to include senior officers/enlisted. Psych waits for the problems to come to them.
If I had to vote - kill the Commissary and up BAS, let enlisted pay for meals in port and cut ship food bills, and kill the gas stations since Wawa is cheaper and better.
HIPPA seems to be a gray area that good docs know how to tip toe around. There are times when they need to talk about a little more with a CO (or OIC) than they would with others. And yes, there's also times where things along the lines of your second question can come up in some way. I had one guy that we knew had some serious issues going on upstairs (long-term, not immediate rifle from the book suppository stuff), so it became a, "hey, we need to hear from you officially (ie, in writing), medical, that he's still fit for high-risk training 6 months after the last time you said he was." Or something to that effect. You get the idea. It forced medical to reexamine the patient and also forced the patient to go back to medical to truly get some help.
I don't have to compel the doc; it's by instruction and completely routine/normal to do so. Technically, anything that happens at medical (with very few exceptions, like a restricted SA situation) is supposed to be briefed to the CO. Common sense applies and most Docs know what reaches that threshold. The CO has a backdoor through HIPAA, but has a responsibility to protect that information.
It was explained to me by a doc that non-medical personnel can't violate HIPAA by the sheer fact they're not medical personnel. That of course doesn't mean the info shouldn't be protected, as you said.
There was recently an article I read on commissaries versus the DOD budget. It said the commissary was the most cost effective long term benefit for military members both on active duty and as incentive to remain until retirement. It states for every $1 in federal money received, the commissary saved each military member and retiree $2. Since not all use the commissary, it obviously saves more for those who actually do use the benefit.
It also said commissaries are necessary at overseas bases and many remote U.S. base locations. For instance, service members in Hawaii save significantly due to the high cost of living and it would take a very huge increase in BAS to make up the difference.
Like medical care for life, commissaries are a lifetime benefit promised service members. Just like when DOD tries to end retirement medical benefits for those over 65, there would be lawsuits from every veterans and retiree associations. In the medical instance, DOD lost in court and Tricare for Life came into existence to ensure this promise was kept. The is a good chance DOD would lose a court battle over this too.
Finally the report stated that eliminating CONUS commissaries would adversely affect the entire system and increase cost for the remaining part of the system significantly, wiping out the $2 for $1 benefit from above and pushing it in the opposite direction.
It also said commissaries are necessary at overseas bases and many remote U.S. base locations. For instance, service members in Hawaii save significantly due to the high cost of living and it would take a very huge increase in BAS to make up the difference.
Like medical care for life, commissaries are a lifetime benefit promised service members. Just like when DOD tries to end retirement medical benefits for those over 65, there would be lawsuits from every veterans and retiree associations. In the medical instance, DOD lost in court and Tricare for Life came into existence to ensure this promise was kept. The is a good chance DOD would lose a court battle over this too.
Finally the report stated that eliminating CONUS commissaries would adversely affect the entire system and increase cost for the remaining part of the system significantly, wiping out the $2 for $1 benefit from above and pushing it in the opposite direction.
Just a contrarian view here; I haven't made up my mind whether I agree with you or disagree on this point.
Recruiting is a numbers game. Mental health is an inexact science. So where do we draw the line?
Just to pick on Ritalin as an example, if you've ever been prescribed it then you're probably screwed for a lot of military specialties- and that is just one drug that has been over-prescribed on today's military-age generation (by pill happy docs or by doc shopping parents who are at their wits end, who knows).
Maybe that's just me being suspicious of childhood drugs and how conventional wisdom has evolved when it comes to dealing with bad kids nowadays compared to 20, 30, or 50 years ago.
I think it's a risky game to restrict the recruiting pool even more. Recruiting is tough enough with how many young people are fatties who can't pass a PRT (partly their own fault, partly their sedentary parents' generation's fault for harebrained ideas like getting rid of recess at school and having the school bus stop every thirty yards to pick up little Johnny and little Suzy from their very doorstep).
Again, just a contrarian point of view and asking the questions.
And I'm working hard on my curmudgeon qual, in case anybody is wondering.