Public TRICARE military health plan most popular in South

[Life_Long_Dem!]

In this year's health reform debate, Congressional Democrats quickly took proposals for a single-payer system off the table, claiming it was "unrealistic."

But more than 9 million people in the U.S. have already signed on to a single-payer system that's proved both workable and popular: TRICARE, the Department of Defense's program for active-duty military and retirees.

Even more interesting: According to a Facing South analysis, nearly half of TRICARE beneficiaries live in the South -- states where Congressional leadership has been most vocal in opposing public involvement in health care.

Last week, a top-rated diary at DailyKos by a person claiming to be "an active duty obstetrician/gynecologist in a major medical facility on the East Coast" noted that:

9.2 Million active duty and retired uniformed service member and their families receive their healthcare from the federal government. My family and I receive free healthcare from the federal government ... I am struck however that nobody has brought up the simple fact that the government already provides free healthcare in a single payer model to over 9 million of its population.

I decided to look into where TRICARE beneficiaries were located. According to my analysis of TRICARE data, 47% -- nearly half -- of the 9.2 million using TRICARE are based in 13 Southern states:
Overall, six of the 10 states with highest number of TRICARE beneficiaries are in the South. This makes sense given the high number of military bases in Southern states, as well as the concentration of active-duty and retired military in states like Virginia.

The high Southern enrollment in government-run TRICARE, where the military pays private doctors in a single-payer system, seems at odds with the vocal opposition of Southern lawmakers to anything smacking of public involvement in health care.

Take South Carolina: The Palmetto State has the 8th-highest TRICARE enrollment in the nation, nearly a quarter-million people. But South Carolina's overall population ranks only 24th nationally -- meaning that the share of South Carolinians using TRICARE's single-payer, government option is one of the largest in the country.

Contrast TRICARE's popularity in South Carolina with these words from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) last week, who has led the Republican party's attempts to torpedo health proposals that involve the government:

"[Democrats] think we're stupid," said DeMint. "They think that you don't know that government does not work well, that the same people who cleaned up after Hurricane Katrina are the ones who can really run our health care system with that personal touch that we all want ... They're talking about a government plan that can do things that no government plan has ever done."

The 233,725 people who chose to use TRICARE in DeMint's home state likely disagree.


SOOOO apparently whats good for the military people ISNT right for the rest of us...I see!






http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/07/single-payer-tricare-military-health-plan-popular-in-southern-states.html

[SeniorChief]

SOOOO apparently whats good for the military people ISNT right for the rest of us...I see!



You got that right, you troop hating numb-nuts.

[MintJulep]

You got that right, you troop hating numb-nuts.:lmao2: :lmao2:

[Life_Long_Dem!]

You got that right, you troop hating numb-nuts.
happy 4th to you as well asshole!:banghead:

[SeniorChief]

Fucking troop hater http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=109062&postcount=27

The government also "runs" the United States military? You want a piece of that too?

Dial 1-800-USA-ARMY and enlist.

Idiot.

Comparing TRICARE to nationalized healthcare.

About the stupidiest Goddamned thing I have ever read on the Internets.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

As I have stated in the past SEVERAL times I always have had the utmost respect for the people of the military, I have uncles and grandparents that fought and my father in law is a veteran. Despite what YOUR simple idiotic mind thinks there Senior you can support the military but not everything they do. As far as your healthcare goes...YES I agree you earned it for your years of service but haven't I heard you state before that it is an entitlement to you? Funny but isnt a entitlement considered socialism...something you conservatives are against?

[SeniorChief]

As I have stated in the past SEVERAL times I always have had the utmost respect for the people of the military, I have uncles and grandparents that fought and my father in law is a veteran. Despite what YOUR simple idiotic mind thinks there Senior you can support the military but not everything they do. As far as your healthcare goes...YES I agree you earned it for your years of service but haven't I heard you state before that it is an entitlement to you? Funny but isnt a entitlement considered socialism...something you conservatives are against?

What military retirees receive are earned benefits following a career of serving the nation - not something handed to us for free for doing nothing - like food stamps, like you receive.

[SeniorChief]

As I have stated in the past SEVERAL times I always have had the utmost respect for the people of the military....


Really?? - http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.ph...2&postcount=27

[bluejunk44]

can't have it both ways. if regular folks haven't "earned" to be saved medically then they haven't earned to be saved from anything else that tax funded programs save them from.

i look forward to a republican putting forth a bill that privatizes fire & rescue, police forces, water treatment, and everything else.

if socialism is bad then it's bad.

[MintJulep]

Despite what YOUR simple idiotic mind thinks there Senior you can support the military but not everything they do. Sorry, but you can't "support the troops" if you don't support their mission.

[MintJulep]

can't have it both ways. if regular folks haven't "earned" to be saved medically then they haven't earned to be saved from anything else that tax funded programs save them from.

i look forward to a republican putting forth a bill that privatizes fire & rescue, police forces, water treatment, and everything else.

if socialism is bad then it's bad.The police, fire and rescue are on state levels, not a federal one. Let healthcare be the same. Let the states decide and pay for it. It should be voted on anyway.

[Zebulon0351]

TRICARE is shit. I was under TRICARE insurance for a good time period while I served. You are assigned one primary care physician who usually works in one of those doc-in-a-box places. If your PCP is not working on a certain day, you are screwed. You can't even go to a doctor who also covers TRICARE patients. I tore my rotator cuff about two years ago, and I could not get an appointment set up with my doctor until he returned from his vacation, which was a week in the future. I went to the ER just for the pain management but I couldn't get any formal diagnosis and thus appropriate treatment until my doctor got back from the Florida Keys.

I am for universal healthcare, but if the TRICARE system is what it is going to be, I won't hesitate to criticize.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

Sorry, but you can't "support the troops" if you don't support their mission.
I disagree with you ll7 as do many I know...my wife who's father is a military veteran supports the military and tried to get in but all branches turned her down cause of health issues. She supports the troops but has been against the iraq war for a long time.

[Zebulon0351]

Sorry, but you can't "support the troops" if you don't support their mission.

Who are you to make such a statement? I have been adamantly against the way Bush approached The War on Terror since 9/11, especially the way he handled Iraq. I had two tours in that operation as well.

I have the utmost respect for those who answer our Country's call, and will forever support those who fight in any of our wars, justified or not.

And please tell me LL, what exactly have you done to support our troops other than tossing a $1.99 yellow-ribbon magnet on the back of your car?

[bluejunk44]

The police, fire and rescue are on state levels, not a federal one. Let healthcare be the same. Let the states decide and pay for it. It should be voted on anyway.

yes, there are plenty of both state and national programs funded by tax money that helps people and saves lives

[SeniorChief]

TRICARE is shit. I was under TRICARE insurance for a good time period while I served. You are assigned one primary care physician who usually works in one of those doc-in-a-box places. If your PCP is not working on a certain day, you are screwed. You can't even go to a doctor who also covers TRICARE patients. I tore my rotator cuff about two years ago, and I could not get an appointment set up with my doctor until he returned from his vacation, which was a week in the future. I went to the ER just for the pain management but I couldn't get any formal diagnosis and thus appropriate treatment until my doctor got back from the Florida Keys.

I am for universal healthcare, but if the TRICARE system is what it is going to be, I won't hesitate to criticize.

How could you, on active duty, ever had an opportunity to use Tricare? Your wife, maybe - if married, might have been "Champused" out to have a baby - but active duty folks are treated by active duty Docs.

Please share your story - perhaps they're doing things differently these days.

And your "Doc In The Box" assessment is 100% FALSE. My family and I have enjoyed Tricare and it's outstanding services for over 10 years now, since retirement. Absolutely no bitches. We either see the family doctor we've had for 10+ years now, another doctor in the LARGE family practice, or if additional care is needed (i.e. XRays, a specialist) - we're referred - no problem to another area professional by our doctor and treated like royalty.

Not one complaint - in ten years.

[SeniorChief]

She supports the troops but has been against the iraq war for a long time.

This is where the "spit on the troops" 1960s baby killer attitude comes from. People "Support" the troops - but don't "Support" what they're doing.

Doesn't make sense.

Assinine.

We had a small number (maybe 5?) in Beirut in 83 or sitting off the coast waiting to bomb Khaddafi in 85 who wanted to go home to Mommy - we just blanket partied those assholes and threw them over the side.

The rest of us were mission oriented. And that was 99.999% of us on board. So you can't support 99.999% of the crew by not supporting their mission - because that's what they're there to do.

Get it?

Good.

Resume drooling on yourself.

[Zebulon0351]

How could you, on active duty, ever had an opportunity to use Tricare? Your wife, maybe - if married, might have been "Champused" out to have a baby - but active duty folks are treated by active duty Docs.

Please share your story - perhaps they're doing things differently these days.

And your "Doc In The Box" assessment is 100% FALSE. My family and I have enjoyed Tricare and it's outstanding services for over 10 years now, since retirement. Absolutely no bitches. We either see the family doctor we've had for 10+ years now, another doctor in the LARGE family practice, or if additional care is needed (i.e. XRays, a specialist) - we're referred - no problem to another area professional by our doctor and treated like royalty.

Not one complaint - in ten years.

I spent four years active and four in the reserves. Whenever reservists get off active duty they can elect to receive 3-6 months of TRICARE benefits until the contract of their activation is up. At the time I thought it to be a better choice than trying to receive medical care at the VA. In the end I realized TRICARE involves just as much red tape as the VA does.

I still rate three years of free VA care and have no problem paying for civilian medical insurance.
Why? Because I can afford it.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

from my post about where I stand on issues

this one is a bit confusing even to me...I am pretty much a peace person and am for the most part anti war and military but the war in afgahnastan is ok with me because that is the home of the taliban that attacked us on 9-11.
Even though I am anti military I dont hold any ill towards those in the military, they are very brave in what they do and if that is what they want then I am cool with it, just is not my thing.http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=9016

[Zebulon0351]

from my post about where I stand on issues

this one is a bit confusing even to me...I am pretty much a peace person and am for the most part anti war and military but the war in afgahnastan is ok with me because that is the home of the taliban that attacked us on 9-11.
Even though I am anti military I dont hold any ill towards those in the military, they are very brave in what they do and if that is what they want then I am cool with it, just is not my thing.http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=9016

So are you anti-military or do you just think that the military is not for you?

[MintJulep]

Who are you to make such a statement? I have been adamantly against the way Bush approached The War on Terror since 9/11, especially the way he handled Iraq. I had two tours in that operation as well.

I have the utmost respect for those who answer our Country's call, and will forever support those who fight in any of our wars, justified or not.Sorry, but you know what I'm talking about. That is not the typical leftist view I'm addressing.

And please tell me LL, what exactly have you done to support our troops other than tossing a $1.99 yellow-ribbon magnet on the back of your car?I don't have a "magnet" on my car so save your DailyKooks talking points. I'm a voting American who supports them. I don't have to "do" anything else to voice my opinion.

[SeniorChief]

I spent four years active and four in the reserves. Whenever reservists get off active duty they can elect to receive 3-6 months of TRICARE benefits until the contract of their activation is up. At the time I thought it to be a better choice than trying to receive medical care at the VA. In the end I realized TRICARE involves just as much red tape as the VA does.



You said you were receiving it while serving - I assumed while on active duty.

Wasn't any red-tape for me. I simply signed up for it, called a private practice family Doc prior-to discharge, asked if he accepted Tricare, we were in. Simple as that. That was 1999. Been great ever since.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

So are you anti-military or do you just think that the military is not for you?
I am a peace loving anti violence person, when I was 17 I actually thought about joining the military but was refused for health issues. My change came later in my 20's when my views started to change, I have nothing against those in the military seeing as I have family and friends that served, just not my thing. I have been a supporter of the afgan war because thats where bin laden and those that attacked us on 911 are, have always been against the iraq war because it was run very poorly under Bush and started for the wrong reasons. That is my answer on this issue, take it for what you will.

[Zebulon0351]

You said you were receiving it while serving - I assumed while on active duty.

Wasn't any red-tape for me. I simply signed up for it, called a private practice family Doc prior-to discharge, asked if he accepted Tricare, we were in. Simple as that. That was 1999. Been great ever since.

Im happy that you have had a good experience, but it isn't like that across the board.
The civilian dentist everyone in my Reserve unit went to would make up cavities and other problems just so he could get that free money from TRICARE.

I will agree it is better than nothing, but it is definitely not the best care that our veterans can receive.

[Zebulon0351]

I am a peace loving anti violence person, when I was 17 I actually thought about joining the military but was refused for health issues. My change came later in my 20's when my views started to change, I have nothing against those in the military seeing as I have family and friends that served, just not my thing. I have been a supporter of the afgan war because thats where bin laden and those that attacked us on 911 are, have always been against the iraq war because it was run very poorly under Bush and started for the wrong reasons. That is my answer on this issue, take it for what you will.

You won't get any argument from me. Well put.

[SeniorChief]

The civilian dentist everyone in my Reserve unit went to would make up cavities and other problems just so he could get that free money from TRICARE.

Sounds like a dentist problem, not a Tricare problem.

[mwillman]

Yes Senior Thief the welfare reciepient,
thinks becuase he swabbed decks for a few years the rest of his life should be candy and cake.

The closest you came to risking your life was the first time you tried hitting on your bunk mates.

[Mr. Blue]

Sorry, but you can't "support the troops" if you don't support their mission.

What complete nonsense.

I didn't think the war in Iraq was a prudent choice, that has nothing to do with whether you support the military or not.

Example, while I didn't support the war, I supported funding it, supply the necessary equipment to wage it, and everything in the power of the U.S. to protect those troops that are abroad.

I also didn't like the coverage of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc, because I thought it would put the troops in a more dangerous situation.

Ideally I'd like to see the U.S. Troops brought home to their families, I'd like to see the U.S. Government use a portion of those returning troops to secure the border to the south, and I would like to see the U.S. move more towards an almost Isolationist policy regarding foreign conflicts.

Our Military is our greatest asset, we shouldn't put them in harms way unless it's 100% for American interest in the world. I'm tired of "spreading democracy" to countries who's people are unwilling to fight for that freedom or when they get it they spit in the eye of the people that gave it by electing some radical goon.

So you can support the military and not support a mission.

I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but I believe you can be pro-military and still disagree with a military action.

[MintJulep]

What complete nonsense.

I didn't think the war in Iraq was a prudent choice, that has nothing to do with whether you support the military or not.

Example, while I didn't support the war, I supported funding it, supply the necessary equipment to wage it, and everything in the power of the U.S. to protect those troops that are abroad.

I also didn't like the coverage of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc, because I thought it would put the troops in a more dangerous situation.

Ideally I'd like to see the U.S. Troops brought home to their families, I'd like to see the U.S. Government use a portion of those returning troops to secure the border to the south, and I would like to see the U.S. move more towards an almost Isolationist policy regarding foreign conflicts.

Our Military is our greatest asset, we shouldn't put them in harms way unless it's 100% for American interest in the world. I'm tired of "spreading democracy" to countries who's people are unwilling to fight for that freedom or when they get it they spit in the eye of the people that gave it by electing some radical goon.

So you can support the military and not support a mission.

I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but I believe you can be pro-military and still disagree with a military action.My statement is directed at the anti-war, moonbat left.

To not support the war implies you do not us want to win it. You can either be for the war or against it and intellectual honesty demands you support the cause our troops are fighting for on the war front. If you don't, then in effect you believe the enemy ought to defeat us. You can't have it both ways.


By Dennis Prager

Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.
In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.

A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.

How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.

A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."

Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops.
A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and Communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.

An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed. Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.

[mwillman]

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."


Wow, I think this is the first time you have ever typed a truth.

It is a war for OIL and Haliburton and the fact that you think its anything else just proves what kind of puppet you are.
The troops didnt start the war they are doing what they are paid to do just like all mercenaries.

[Mr. Blue]

To not support the war implies you do not us want to win it. You can either be for the war or against it and intellectual honesty demands you support the cause our troops are fighting for on the war front. If you don't, then in effect you believe the enemy ought to defeat us. You can't have it both ways.

This is a semantics type argument...as I could respond with, "If you support the troops you wouldn't want to put them in harms way for a conflict that has no resolution, no benefits, and no end."

Both Dems and Reps politicized this war. Both sides should be ashamed of what they did and the lies that they put forward.

On the Dems side they kept publicly damning the war, used it to get votes, and then didn't follow through with their ire when it came time for voting on these issues. So, yes, they did have their cake and eat it to on the topic and very few people were willing to point that out. I've pretty much screamed about this topic from day 1.

Also, they did take incidents like gitmo, abu ghraib, and beat it to death...maybe I'm wrong on this topic, I don't know, but I don't think in times of war you do that when we have troops out there. Punish the ones guilty, move forward, don't portray everyone in the military for the actions of a few...I really didn't like that.

On the Republican side, pushing this notion that you can't support the troops if you don't support the war. To me the best way to support our troops is to not put them in harms way needlessly and for something we can't hold onto. I believe when we leave Iraq, even though I think that policy will change and we'll be there even longer, I think the country will not hold onto it's democratic principles or will elect a nut like Ahmadinejad.

I mean how pissed would you be 5 years from now if someone like Ahmadinejad takes power in Iraq and the people voted for him? I don't know about you, but it's going to piss me the hell off.

9/11 should have had this response...find Osama, kill Osama, kill every worm that followed Osama. Right after that we should have...secured the borders, secured the ports, and put an insane push to becoming energy independent so we didn't have to deal with that region of the world. Energy independent by drilling the shit out of every patch of land that might have oil, building nuclear reactors, green solutions, and exploring every possible way to get energy.

To me the middle east is that no one situation...there's no way to deal with theocracy driven countries...you can spread democracy all you want, but it'll only result in ahmadinejad types getting power.