President's Plan To Charge Wounded Heroes For Treatment

[BG45]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1810692' date='Mar 18 2009, 04:37 PM']When you look at the mortality rate for soldiers... it's probably a heck of a lot worse than some poor sap who never exercises, smokes two packs a day, eats a box of doughnuts every morning, and is an alcoholic...

Can't be good for families of soldiers. [/quote]

I'd have to agree with you there definitely, heh. If I were in insurance (and I nearly was, I turned down the job because it was comission only) I'd definitely rather insure Joe Schmo with his alcoholism, chain smoking, transfat eating ways than a soldier. Joe could manage due to good genetics and luck to pay me a lot of premiums before ever needing to actually use his policy. For a soldier it's more of a roulette game I'd think; while training and such does play a role in lack of injury or death, it's not a gaurentee. I'd insure the lazy slob over the active person who stands a chance of being shot on the job.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1810692' date='Mar 18 2009, 02:37 PM']When you look at the mortality rate for soldiers... it's probably a heck of a lot worse than some poor sap who never exercises, smokes two packs a day, eats a box of doughnuts every morning, and is an alcoholic...

Can't be good for families of soldiers. [/quote]


If your talking about total casualities of all soldiers to ever venture into Iraq I'd say the number is pretty low and who knows how comparable it is to an unhealthy lifestyle spread out over decades. If your talking about soldiers in Iraq to either operating in dangerous regions of the country or in a combat MOS I'd assume the numbers jumpt up dramatically. So it depends on how you want to ask the question I guess.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1810951' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:08 PM']If your talking about total casualities of all soldiers to ever venture into Iraq I'd say the number is pretty low and who knows how comparable it is to an unhealthy lifestyle spread out over decades. If your talking about soldiers in Iraq to either operating in dangerous regions of the country or in a combat MOS I'd assume the numbers jumpt up dramatically. So it depends on how you want to ask the question I guess.[/quote]
I suppose we'd need stats before we can say either way.

[dairygirl4u2c]

obama isn't against soliders being cared for. it looks like obama's flaw, is that the soliders might have to pay an increase in premiums if they get covered for their wounds by private insurance. ie, obama just doesn't want the government to pay for it, but the unintended side effect is what i said in the last sentence. if the private insurance won't pay, i'm sure he'd be for covering the soliders too. is anyone willing to say seriously that they don't think obama wants them covered at all by anyone etc? that's clearly not the case (even though that seems to be the theme of this thread)
i also think in principle, it's not necessarily the insurnace companies job to insure against this, given they put themselves in the realm of danger. it's at best debataeble, at worst the government's job.
i could see the insurance companies throwing out rhetoric that obama wants the soliders to pay, so that they themselves don't have to. framing it, politically.

from the posts in this thread so far, they may be winning if that's the case.
the real points about premiums and 'who's responsibility' are what seem to be the real issue, yet i don't see anyone addressing them. it's all "obama wants soliders to pay for their own battle wounds" -- missing the real points by far (if they're implied in the posts, then it's just a lousy job of expressing it