G'day guys,
As part of future history fluff I tend to collect odd ball news reports
so I can one day do the kind of media ad-libbing Indy does for the GZG
verse. In this vein I just came across the following, can anyone comment as to
how real this is or has the ABC (and its sources) gone completely off the
rails media style this time round?
"Bigger breasts offered as perk to US soldiers
The United States Army has long lured recruits with the slogan "Be All You Can
Be" but now soldiers and their families can receive plastic surgery, including
breast enlargements, on taxpayers' money.
The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26 edition that members of
all four branches of the US military can get face-lifts, breast
enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free - something the
military says helps surgeons practice their skills.
"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr Bob Lyons, chief of plastic surgery
at the Brooke Army Medical Centre in San Antonio told the magazine, which said
soldiers needed the approval of their commanding officers to get the time off.
Between 2000 and 2003, military doctors performed 496 breast enlargements and
1,361 liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents, the magazine
said.
The magazine quoted an Army spokeswoman as saying, "the surgeons have to have
someone to practice on".
--Reuters"
Cheers
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day guys,
As a matter of fact this *does* make sense. Severe burn and trauma cases
need reconstructive surgery. The plastic surgeon practicing on cosmetic cases
may someday have to do a full reconstruction for a badly injured soldier. It's
kind of like ordering submarines you don't *really* need to keep the shipyard
open and the highly specialized workers together. The skills have to be
available, they have to be practiced, so they have
to be used. It's just that these particular skills have some moderately
frivolous peacetime applications.
Also, Ken Burnside put together a "how to adapt a news article" guide for the
10 Worlds group. It's 10 Worlds specific, but not onerously so.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ten_Worlds_Development/files/
(Yahoo membership required for that URL, this should be a case where asking
nicely does the trick)
And no jokes about the poor woman involved in the torture scandal...
From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> As part of future history fluff I tend to collect odd ball news
Aw, the media. Since there main goal is making money by entertainment
(although they claim it's reporting news) they always manage to spin it to get
attention to aspects that titillate, excite, offend, and stir the proverbial
waste matter. The logical reality has already been posted. But let me say this
about odd aspects of the military. It's long been recognized that a vital rule
exists in the military. If it's odd
sounding but it works then it's not stupid. If things help entice
intelligent and trainable young people to enlist in the military then from a
military sense they work. If it gives people skills they will need to obtain
success in military goals (while being transferrable to civilian life is a
bonus) then it works. Anything that allows people to recover from the horrors
of war in some degree is something that 'works'
in a military/societal sense.
But it does make a great article to use in a game or game fluff.
Gracias, glenn
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:44:47 +1000 <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> writes:
So you could knock yourself out? Or at least your enemies with a giant
frontal assault. Anyone seen Woody Allens - Everything you need to know
about sex (but were afraid to ask)?
That has one giant deadly mammary gland at the end of the film. I am surprised
no one has used it in a tabletop game.
R
> From: Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com>
www.rottenlead.com
Part of the 'reality check' is to look at the numbers: Between 2000 and 2003,
military doctors performed 496 breast enlargements and 1,361 liposuction
surgeries on soldiers and their dependents, the magazine said.
The listed procedures tend to be a relatively small number, I think, put into
context: how large a population does the US military AND dependents represent?
How do the numbers compare with total procedures in the population of the US?
Can you see special reasons for military wanting these, whether dependent
daughters being especially hard pressed to 'fit in', or aging soldiers having
more and more difficulty keeping weight off in spite of a physical culture,
and being more desperate because of it.
Hell, if I were to try to be in the military, I'd need the whole Six Million
Dollar Man treatment to be near up to regs.
I sometimes wonder a similar statistical thing when I hear of casualty
reports. It's decidedly morbid, but the stateside mortality rate for the age
groups involved hardly would be zero, in spite of the relatively healthy,
competent, and conscientious sample involved.
> Aw, the media. Since there(sic) main goal is making money by
That's a given... ;->=
The_Beast
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
Not sure of the second number, but there are something like 1.1 million people
in US Military, active duty
only. Figure probably 1.5-2 million dependants.
> I sometimes wonder a similar statistical thing when
What you need to look at are statistics for
alcohol-related deaths, training mishaps, and vehicle
accidents per 10,000 troops. What you find is that Desert Storm actually
inflicted fewer casualties than would have been lost in peacetime (on average)
and that Iraq is only marginally more dangerous than Fort Hood.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> "Bigger breasts offered as perk to US soldiers
That's an exaggeration. It is not being used as a pull to recruit nor is it
advertised widely. However, if a soldier asks, there are a variety of medical
services available. I was, before I came down on PCS orders, on the waiting
list for one of those "unnecessary" surgeries, laser eye surgery.
> The United States Army has long lured recruits with
"On tax payer's money"???
BS. The money is already spent. The cost of a
medical procedure is almost entirely invented--you are
paying for the surgeon's time and hospital fees. You're paying for med school
loans and malpractice insurance and a part of the purchase price of the MRI
machine and so forth. Well, the surgeon is on salary and the hospital is
already purchased, as well as the equipment. It costs the government more or
less the same whether it is being used or sitting idle in a corner.
> "Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr Bob
BAMC has one of the best burn wards on the planet. Right now, that's where
they send most serious burns from Iraq once they are stable enough to move.
Now, I'm pretty sure that you've seen a good burn victim or
pictures--say 90%+ of the skin destroyed. Or you can
imagine it.
The Army has an explicit obligation to treat casualties and return them to as
close an approximation of "normal" as is possible. Part of the treatment is
extensive reconstructive surgery. Little things like building a face for these
guys. Hardly "frivolous" in my mind, but then again I'm pretty damn biased on
the subject.
Now, the cosmetic surgeons aren't needed full time for this. Thankfully we
don't have that many casualties. So why not let them use their skills for the
benefit of the military?
One wonders how many of those "breast enlargements" were battle damage repair.
Wonder what an IED does to boobs? Probably isn't fun.
> At 7:42 AM -0700 7/22/04, John Atkinson wrote:
Yeah, think of it this way. The Plastic surgeons do elective stuff on their
down time and reconstructive work on soldiers injured in training or worse, in
combat. They're military surgeons (or contractors) their work is paid for no
matter what.
If it means we have a good set of plastic surgeons in the system able to do
good work on injured troops when they're not making their wives look prettier,
I have no problem with my tax dollars going to that.
> BAMC has one of the best burn wards on the planet.
Medical capacity in this case is very much like industrial capacity. You use
it or you loose it, in this case if they have lots of time playing with
elective procedures and then turn around and have lots of good staff for when
injured troops come back, all the better!
> Now, the cosmetic surgeons aren't needed full time for
Heck, Training accidents can be a problem. Then there's the breast
reduction procedure where things are re-arranged and the overall mass
is made smaller. I wonder how many career Army Women elect to have this done.
If taking better care of the troops and giving them more perks keeps more of
the well trained, well motivated soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines in
service then all the better. As a friend in Australia says, the Military is
competing with the civil sector. The more benefits the Military offers and
less BS they feed the troops, the more good staff they'll retain.
G'day,
Thanks guys. I had thought of the reconstructive surgery side of it but wasn't
so sure how much that would involve chests given the vests etc worn today.
Cheers
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
I read an article in the early 1990's that the death rate for soldiers in the
1991 Gulf War was less than the rate for them when stateside in the preceeding
years, big reason: 90% reduction in traffic fatalities.
J
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
I have been led to uderstand that the
shock-wave/blast-effect/overpressure causes extensive soft tissue
damage, even if body armor prevents penetration traumas by fragments and other
debris.
Israeli doctors claim to be able to tell how large a blast was and how close
to it a given patient was by looking at damage to lungs and other organs
caused by the pressure.
J
From: "Doug Evans" <devans@nebraska.edu>
> I sometimes wonder a similar statistical thing when I hear of casualty
The mortality rate for US soldiers in Iraq is less than the mortality rate
amongst the general population in the USA by about 20%.
Factor in the better average health and fitness, the age group, the
male:female ratio etc and it becomes about 2 times higher than the same group
in the US.
Factor in the dangers of a military career (driving heavy vehicles, skydiving,
handling explosives etc) and it becomes comparable with the same occupation in
the US. I can't find enough data to say whether less than or greater than.
> From http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013521.html
The latest casualties brings to 656 the number of US troops killed in action
in Iraq
The total number of deaths is higher, because over 350 have been killed in
auto accidents, died of natural causes etc.
To put things into perspective, the age-adjusted death-rate for the US
population as a whole for 2001 was 854.1 per 100,000, or over
From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> Thanks guys. I had thought of the reconstructive surgery side of it
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of US servicepeople all dead or dying
from cancer caused by DU rounds. Or at least, that's what John Pilger says.
Most of the plastic surgeons on the planet must be working for the US army
doing reconstructive work on them.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> I have been led to uderstand that the
Very much so, yes. That's why thermobaric warheads (essentially a kind of
fuel-air explosives, but with a less politically-incorrect name) are
becoming so popular nowadays; it is a lot harder to protect against their
blasts than against shrapnel from normal HEF warheads. I guess Storm
Trooper-style fully enclosed armour would be able to protect against the
shock wave, but we're not quite there yet...
> Israeli doctors claim to be able to tell how large a blast was and how
> organs caused by the pressure.
Both the size *and* the distance? Hm. That's impressive - lung damage
depends fairly predictably on the strength (ie., energy density) of the shock
wave, but that in turn diminishes with the distance so I would've guessed one
*or* the other... but then again, they've got a lot of
experience with blast damage :-(
Later,
For everything new technological change the rule of unintended consequences
applies.
Not that i am sure of where the 'truth' lies with DU rounds. Between that,
application desired and cost I assume that DU rounds aren't the only thing
fired.
My kids will be one of the first families in our 'family tree' to not have
children who served in the military. Kind of strange but somehow satisfying.
Like that line in Lion King, "slimey but satisfying.' Sometimes I feel...
well, not exactly guilty but close... and then I feel not exactly relieved but
close...
Well, I'm getting both OT and Maudlin. Time to finish getting ready for work.
Gracias, Glenn
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:41:04 +1000 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@webone.com.au> writes:
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
wrote:
> From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Different sources, so I don't know if it's one or the other, or both
simultaineously.
> Hm. That's impressive - lung damage
similar to spherical wave propogation, right?
> so I would've guessed one *or* the other... but then again, they've
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >>Israeli doctors claim to be able to tell how large a blast was and
OK. The reason I asked was that part of my job is to study the effect the
back blast of shoulder-launched support weapons have on the gunner when
firing from enclosed spaces; lung damage is one such effect I definitely
*don't* want to see but have to watch out for.
(If you attempt to fire a Carl Gustaf indoors, you most likely will hurt
your lungs... at least until we get the CGCS ammo - "Carl Gustaf
Confined
Space" - into production. Until then, if you absolutely have to fire one
of our weapons indoors make sure it is an AT4CS; it is specifically designed
for that purpose.)
> >Hm. That's impressive - lung damage
As long as you're not in some kind of confined space (building, tank, narrow
alley etc.), yes. If you are in a confined space all bets are off
-
they can act both as wave traps and as wave guides depending on the exact
geometry :-(
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
And increase the malpractice insurance by an order of magnitude. Ends
up a zero-sum or losing proposition.
> Indeed, a believer in free-market economy might ask why the long-term
1. A major or colonel makes a LOT (LOT LOT LOT) less than a family GP in the
US, let alone a specialist.
2. The doctors, nurses, etc. for what you call "urgent in theater cases" are
A) still on payroll and B) have to keep up their skills doing something.
J
You are incorrect. The United States Army does not have "long haired
recruits". The National Guard DOES give it's part time soldiers leeway as they
have civilian occupations and do not (or are not supposed to) serve for long
periods of time. National Guard units belong to the state of origan, not the
federal goverment. As they will be returning to civilian life
soon -
being part time, and since in many cases their hair is part of their civilian
occupation, this makes sense.
Since the uniform is essentially the same, it can be confusing.
And yes, they are paid by the state, which is reimbersed by the feds. The
United States is often less a single nation than 50 petty little fiefdoms.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:59:23 -0400 "Mike Hillsgrove"
> <mikeah@cablespeed.com> writes:
<snip>
> The
And perversely proud of it. The South fought a war about Secession, the New
England states threatened to secede during the early years (President
Jefferson? Madison? somebody,) California toyed with it at one point IIRC
although that, like dividing the state at the Tehacapis {spelling?},
is/was more an intellectual exercise then likely reality, and there are
several groups under surveillance who want [fill in state or region] to secede
from the union.
Gracias,
Texas, California, and Alaska have active Succesionists movements.
If it were Louisiana I would say let it go.
LOL! I wish D. C. had a secessionist movement.
And I think the California thing about dividing at the Tehacapis (Spelling??
Aarrgh, why can I never spell that without a dictionary or atlas?) always
flounders when the new Californians find out where their
water comes from... This native Los Angeleno knows - from the Snow Melt
of the Sierra Nevadas. Split the state and the North could get rich selling
water to the South.
Can't speak for Texas or Alaska but if California left it would be the 6th
richest nation on earth (last time I looked.) And Mexico might start building
a real army...
Gracias, Glenn
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:17:49 -0400 "Mike Hillsgrove"
> <mikeah@cablespeed.com> writes:
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> And I think the California thing about dividing at the Tehacapis
> (Spelling?? Aarrgh, why can I never spell that without a dictionary
Some water but not as much as you think, Most of LA's water still come out of
Owen's Valley and the Colarado River.. Most of the water from the
north ends up iragating the central valley southern croplands.
> Can't speak for Texas or Alaska but if California left it would be the
So would we.... Use those wacos from PRB to barracade the border, might as
well get some use out of them.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:02:56 +0100 Infojunky <infojunky@ceecom.net>
writes:
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
<snip>
> Some water but not as much as you think, Most of LA's water still come
1) which frees other water for drinking, industrial use and (God help us)
watering the grass.
2) if Secession and division... shudder. I think The US would cut that off and
distribute CA's% of Colorado water to the other states (or even,
Mexico, well maybe not Mexico) per treaties/water sharing agreements.
Same way Quebec would have to re-negotiate any Canadian-US treaties (as
my anti-separation French Canadian wife loves to point out.) The Sierra
Nevada water would become an issue...
> Can't speak for Texas or Alaska but if California left it would be
Prounciation help: "Whack-o's" or "Way-co's" as in Branch Dravidians
redux?
Maybe you could hire Texas Mercenaries. <grin> The Free Cal-Tex
Rangers... Come to think of it Tejanos have fought Mexicanos before.
Have been out of CA (except for 5 days 10 years ago, 2 days 2 years ago, and 5
days this summer) pretty much since 1986 when I changed careers from healing
people to making sure people would get hurt if needed and
moved to Saint Louis - so the 'local nut' data base is out of date - who
is PRB?
Probably same people under a different name...
Gracias,
> On 25 Jul 2004 at 23:00, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch) wrote:
> First, there must be some costs directly associated with the
True, but that expense is well worth it in order to keep the surgeons in
peak performance.
> Second, and probably more important in terms of Dollars, the
Not likely, for several reasons.
The U.S. health care system is a morass of competing health insurance
companies. Most health insurance companies have hospitals and doctors that are
"in system" and those that are not. It costs you, the patient, a lot more of
your own money if you go to a hospital that is out of system. In order for the
army's surgeons and hospitals to accept money from health insurance companies
they'd have to add a whole level of bureaucratic infrastructure that they
don't currently have to worry about. This is not insignificant. It's likely,
though, that the army would still be "out of system". I really can't see the
army wanting to get into this mess.
You could allow people to walk into an army hospital and pay out of their
own pocket. I suspect most people have visions of _MASH_ in their heads
and wouldn't consider going to an army surgeon if they were paying the total
cost themselves. If you can afford to have a procedure out of your
own pocket, you can afford to go to the Mayo Clinic, or John Hopkins, etc, so
why go to the army? The army could charge less for the services,
but if they did that you'd see all sorts of political pressure from the large
health care lobby, because it would hurt the profitability of nearby
hospitals.
If you don't let the army surgeons treat soldiers' families, you'd have to
offer soldiers some form of health care insurance to cover their families.
This means the soldiers would have to pay for it. (I don't know of any company
that pays their employee's health care here in the U.S.; usually the best you
can hope for is that your employer offers some sort
of insurance that you can buy into.) That means the soldiers would end up
being paid less, and thus it would be less of an incentive to join. They
could increase the pay for soldiers to cover the cost of the plan, co-
pays, deductables, etc. but I suspect that it's actually cheaper to give
soldiers and their families free health care from army doctors, plus you
get the benefit of the doctors using the treatment as practice. You also
don't get into the hassle of "pre-existing conditions" and other issues
where insurance companies try to wiggle out of paying for treatment.
> Indeed, a believer in free-market economy might ask why the long-term
Oh, my, you really don't know how expensive U.S. health care is, do you?
Could you imagine the insurance premiums on soldiers? My wife had a minor
procedure (removal of a lymph node for a biopsy) and the whole thing topped
well over $3000. I shudder to think of what it would cost the government, at
regular hospital prices, to do major reconstructive surgery. Probably $500,000
and up. Believe me, it's more efficient for the government to do it themselves
with army doctors than to go to private hospitals. (No, I don't work in the
health care industry. My wife does, though. She's a Medicaid Analyst for the
State of Louisiana.)
In fact, the U.S. Army would probably be better off using their surgeons
in a charity hospital, giving their services away for free to the under
privileged. I'm guessing that there aren't enough of them to cover army
families and help out the poor.
---
> "Mike Hillsgrove" <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> If it were Louisiana I would say let it go.
Since I live in Louisiana, I can understand the bad rap it gets. Anyone having
to suffer driving on a Louisiana road, for example, is allowed to
complain.
That having been said, Louisiana is no longer the armpit of the nation (it's
more like that spot on your back that you can't touch). It's first
in the nation at reducing it's debt. While most states have been increasing
debt while the rates are low, Louisiana has been dropping its
public debt over the last 10 years. (Texas, in comparison, has tripled its
debt over the same timeframe).
Its Medicaid program is being studied (and not as "an example to others"!) by
other states as one of the most progressive in the country.
And you're forgetting: Louisiana has the _best_ food in the Union, if
not the entire continent!
"Louisiana: At Least We're Not Mississippi"
---
> In fact, the U.S. Army would probably be better off using their
FWIW
Hmmm... IIRC I read an article a few months ago (or more I suppose) discussing
how the Army has a number of Drs. Working in Trauma Wards across
the nation - specifically mentioned was Miami-Dade - just so they get
good,
hands-on experience working in high-stress emergency situations, and
often get to deal with things like gunshot and stabbing wounds...