Redstate

As a military dependent, don't you get government funded healthcare? In my opinion, you and your husband are earning it, but it is government supported, controlled healthcare nonetheless.

...I think that there is a difference between health care imposed by government fiat and health care offered as part of a recruitment package. Whether it's large enough to matter is another issue, and one I'll have to think about.

Moe

PS: I've also heard enough stories about military health care to suspect that many of the families wouldn't mind finding an alternative vendor.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

if providing a healthcare stipend that military families can use with any healthcare provider and any hospital would improve service and potentially reduce costs to the taxpayers.

benefit quit a bit in the last twenty years.
The retirees have really been screwed, but they have fought back and won.
I'd love a stipend where we could participate in something like what civil service employees have.
Tri-Care is embarrassing. When I opt out of the military treatment facility, my provider gets paid medi-care level re-imbursements for seeing me and my children. I am ashamed at how little they receive for taking care of our nation's finest and their families.
On the plus side, for now, the drug program is good. I only paid $3.00 as a co-pay at a local pharmacy. I could have used the base pharmacy, but it was just easier and more convenient to use a local pharmacy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

and they make great clients because they know exactly what they want and they are willing to pay for it.

Just like commissary, BX, etc... It is a consolation for the salary he gets. About 30-40% less than he would in the civilian sector.

Yes, it is government (DOD) funded. We can use the military treatment facility if available or elect one of the other Tri-Care options. I use Tri-Care prime as an option any time I can opt out of using the military treatment facility.
I have been a military dependent of some sort all but 6 years of my life, so I know the system well.
While there are certainly capable providers, I hate this system. God help us all if the government ever gets to control all health care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

If you think that the premiums for your 3 people are expensive, try paying for cancer treatment for one of them out of pocket. That would bankrupt your business in a jiffy.

As long as we keep giving sloppy wet kisses to doctors and ohter medical professionals who get to continue to raise their prices beyond the rate of inflation, by subsidizing special interest groups with government money for medical care, the rest of us pay the bill.

And cleary the worst possible thing is to expand the subsidies as Clinton, Obama, or Romney would have us do.

End subsidies now!

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

"Here in California, our 70% Democratic Legislature is busily trying to add yet more mandates for health plans. The latest "critical need" is acupuncture coverage. Single men here must buy maternity coverage. Everyone must have coverage for substance abuse and mental health. And, of course, we can't buy from an out of state vendor."

And that, of course, is a good example of part of what we hate about the whole subject of "government health."

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations

Being able to purchase health insurance from out of state isn't going to be the panacea to lower health care costs that conservatives think it is.

I can buy other types of insurance from out of state but they're not particularly cheap. There is national competition in telephone long distance providers and Internet Service providers, but rates aren't so cheap that poor folks can afford them easily either.

Medical care is inherently expensive. Market competition can reduce overhead and profit margins but it can't reduce costs that much.

Fred Thompson suffered from lymphoma. Treatment for lymphoma can cost $100,000 per year. Bill Clinton had a quadruple bypass for his heart. There's no inexpensive way to treat those conditions.

If you really want to reduce costs, doctors will tell you that the best way is aggressive prevention strategies, chief of which is aggressive screening.

Right now, and I can tell you this from personal experience, many health care providers won't pay for such screening tests as colonoscopies even though doctors recommend those for patients at my age. I had to pay for my colonoscopy out of pocket: over $1,000.

Aggressive screening can lower health care costs over the long run. There was a report in the news just last week that the death rate from prostate cancer has declined in the U.S. four times faster than in Britain, due to the aggressive screening tests (PSA blood test, etc.) done here in America. But insurers will often refuse to pay for them because they're trying to save money in the short term even at the expense of the long term.

I don't see any way to fix that without Government mandates.

I shouldn't have been so indirect. My comments were primarily directed at the lack of choice, either for those who want to access other insurers or for those who want to choose either more or less coverage.

Prevention is great. Colonoscopies can detect pre-cancerous polyps before they become dangerous.

If you live long enough, you have a good chance of developing some kind of cancer. Once you get past smoking and morbid obesity, there isn't any preventive behavior that is known to work for all, AFAIK.

Cancer treatment is very expensive. It is also much more effective than the similarly expensive treatments of 40 years ago.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations