|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 25, 2004 17:37:54 GMT -5
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The U.S. 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 the taxpayers' dime.
The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. 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 Brooke Army Medical Center 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 25, 2004 19:09:16 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090795074&start=0#0 date=1090795074]NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The U.S. 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 the taxpayers' dime. The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. 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 Brooke Army Medical Center 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. Nice try trying to spin the facts again. Here's a link to an official military site (in this case one from the US Navy) which talks about plastic surgery, when it is authorized, and why it is done for US Servicemembers. www-nmcp.med.navy.mil/Plastics/index.aspIt is not a perk. In just about every case, the plastic surgery would be authorized for such cases as recovery from breast cancer, breast reduction due to undue physical strain, limb replacement, etc. One again, a case where a mainstream media source tried to distort the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 25, 2004 21:14:44 GMT -5
Liposuction surgeries are done as a result of what? www.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/liposuction/army_weight_control.htmlwww.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/liposuction/male_liposuction.htmlThat sounds like a perk of an option, don't you think? Do the before pictures show something that would have prevented the person in question from successfully performing their duties if the surgery hadn't been elected? An army surgeon was the one quoted in the article claiming it was available to anyone in uniform as long as their were given permission to take the time off by their commanding officer. Its not necessarily an bad perk to offer. I doubt many people would join the military for the sake of getting plastic surgery. The people that are in the military go through a lot and don't get paid nearly enough for the risks they take - especially in times of war. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 25, 2004 22:25:24 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090795074&start=2#0 date=1090808084]Liposuction surgeries are done as a result of what? www.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/liposuction/army_weight_control.htmlwww.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/liposuction/male_liposuction.htmlThat sounds like a perk of an option, don't you think? Do the before pictures show something that would have prevented the person in question from successfully performing their duties if the surgery hadn't been elected? An army surgeon was the one quoted in the article claiming it was available to anyone in uniform as long as their were given permission to take the time off by their commanding officer. Its not necessarily an bad perk to offer. I doubt many people would join the military for the sake of getting plastic surgery. The people that are in the military go through a lot and don't get paid nearly enough for the risks they take - especially in times of war. I love it when people who have never been in the military try to interpret things. If you had looked a little closer at both of the links you provided in YOUR OWN POST, you would see that liposuction done on the male abdomen was done to said subject to assist him in meeting the bodyfat standards for the US Army (per regulation). In such case, the subject was not within the bodyfat standard set in Army regulation, which consists of a tape test (most probably similar to what I was tested on in the Air Force, where tape measurements are taken of the subjects neck and waist circumferences, then compared to the standard chart in the regulation). I know firsthand how difficult it can be sometimes for military members of a certain bodytype or bodyshape to conform to regulations. In the case of the subject (who was 5'5" and 172lbs. which is hardly that obese), he probably had exhausted all other means to lose the fat around his abdomen, and had to petition for the lipsuction. The key factor in ALL of these procedures is that it requires COMMANDER APPROVAL. Not just for time off. You make it sound like these plastic surgeries are a matter of convinience, which they are most certainly not. In my 10 years of military service, I know of ONE PERSON who had plastic surgery. That was a nose job to correct a deviated septum, which if left unchecked, would disqualify this person from Combat Crew duty. One other thing, those figures quoted by the (non-military source) New Yorker also include dependents. Dependent care is covered by Tricare, which is the military's version of a healthcare plan which is what they went to when they outsourced their medical services plans. And Tricare is not free for dependents (spouses, children). Military members pay premiums for their dependents to Tricare, just like any other person in the civilian sector pays premiums for healthcare plans provided by their employer. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 25, 2004 23:33:58 GMT -5
As an aside, I found it pretty damn funny that they made the subject dress in what amounted to a string bikini bottom (the female type) for the before/after pictures. Too funny!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 26, 2004 0:06:25 GMT -5
I love it when people who have never been in the military try to interpret things. If you had looked a little closer at both of the links you provided in YOUR OWN POST, you would see that liposuction done on the male abdomen was done to said subject to assist him in meeting the bodyfat standards for the US Army (per regulation). In such case, the subject was not within the bodyfat standard set in Army regulation, which consists of a tape test (most probably similar to what I was tested on in the Air Force, where tape measurements are taken of the subjects neck and waist circumferences, then compared to the standard chart in the regulation). I know firsthand how difficult it can be sometimes for military members of a certain bodytype or bodyshape to conform to regulations. In the case of the subject (who was 5'5" and 172lbs. which is hardly that obese), he probably had exhausted all other means to lose the fat around his abdomen, and had to petition for the lipsuction. The key factor in ALL of these procedures is that it requires COMMANDER APPROVAL. Not just for time off. You make it sound like these plastic surgeries are a matter of convinience, which they are most certainly not. In my 10 years of military service, I know of ONE PERSON who had plastic surgery. That was a nose job to correct a deviated septum, which if left unchecked, would disqualify this person from Combat Crew duty. One other thing, those figures quoted by the (non-military source) New Yorker also include dependents. Dependent care is covered by Tricare, which is the military's version of a healthcare plan which is what they went to when they outsourced their medical services plans. And Tricare is not free for dependents (spouses, children). Military members pay premiums for their dependents to Tricare, just like any other person in the civilian sector pays premiums for healthcare plans provided by their employer. So, before the cosmetic surgeries were allowed those people that are being given liposuction now would have been totally excluded from serving? If that's the case, and the military is making a decision on someone's ability to serve their country effectively because they are slightly off of their bodyfat standards. Some reports I've seen (and yes some from folks currently in the military) stated that the surgeries have been performed for morale reasons not just to meet military guidelines. They also said the operations were being offered as a means of allowing military surgeons gain additional practice / experience. Personnaly all things considered I don't see anything wrong with it being a perk that would be commonly available to anyone in active service. I someone makes it back totally unscathed from a situation like Iraq or Afghanistan and they don't like their nose, breasts, overall shape, or whatever that's not much at all for them to request given that they put their lives on the line. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 26, 2004 0:32:56 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090795074&start=5#0 date=1090818385] So, before the cosmetic surgeries were allowed those people that are being given liposuction now would have been totally excluded from serving? If that's the case, and the military is making a decision on someone's ability to serve their country effectively because they are slightly off of their bodyfat standards. Yes. That has always been the case for all branches of service. When I was first commissioned, it was strictly a weight-to-height comparison. The Air Force went to its current bodyfat measurement in 1992 or 1993, I think. There have always been complaints about the bodyfat measurement system, since it is imprecise. But, it is a quick and cost effective way to measure all troops. If a person is over their bodyfat percentage (20 percent for males under 30, from what I can remember, and graduated by percentage for those above 30 years of age), the commander can request other methods (i.e. hydrostatic measurement or other means). But, basically, it does come to down to the simple fact: stay within your prescribed bodyfat percentage, or you will be put on what we used to call the "fat boy program" of mandatory dietary counseling and 3x a week mandatory fitness programs. If you still can't lose the weight/bodyfat, you are booted from service. The military places demands on all individuals who chose to serve, one of which is to maintain a certain degree of physical fitness and health. One of the indicators of that is weight proportionate to height (or bodyfat percentage as they are using now). It has been proven medically that obesity is a predetermining factor in many illnesses and preventable conditions such as high-blood pressure and cholesterol. Since every servicemember is, in essence, an asset, and the military (and, in turn, every taxpayer) makes a significant investment to train, equip, feed, clothe, and basically take care of said asset, it makes sense that they want to make sure that investment is well taken care of. The other part of that is somewhat cosmetic. The American public does want their military to look professional and fit - they don't want to see guts hanging over beltlines in uniform, or guys that can't even run a mile without having a heart attack or stroke. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 26, 2004 8:51:21 GMT -5
It has been proven medically that obesity is a predetermining factor in many illnesses and preventable conditions such as high-blood pressure and cholesterol. The amount of being overweight that could be attributed to the person in the pictures in the articles I linked would hardly be considered obese. It has not been medically proven that liposucion will improve the effects of obesity on a person's health. my.webmd.com/content/article/89/100118.htm?action=related_link |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 26, 2004 11:54:03 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090795074&start=7#0 date=1090849881] The amount of being overweight that could be attributed to the person in the pictures in the articles I linked would hardly be considered obese. In terms of US Army regulations, he was. Which is all that mattered to him. Which is why he petitioned to have the lipsuction surgery in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 26, 2004 12:59:39 GMT -5
The guidelines did not say he was obese.
They said he was borderline for continuing in the military.
It is a purely cosmetic and elective surgery.
From the same site: "Tumescent liposuction is not a good way to loose weight. Actually very little weight is removed by this operation. Suction lipectomy is a technique to sculpt localized collections of fat. It is a tool of refinement.
With the minimal amount of weight removed by the surgery, if he were considered obese before the surgery he would very likely also be considered obese after the surgery.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 26, 2004 13:10:24 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090795074&start=9#0 date=1090864779]The guidelines did not say he was obese. They said he was borderline for continuing in the military. It is a purely cosmetic and elective surgery. From the same site: "Tumescent liposuction is not a good way to loose weight. Actually very little weight is removed by this operation. Suction lipectomy is a technique to sculpt localized collections of fat. It is a tool of refinement. With the minimal amount of weight removed by the surgery, if he were considered obese before the surgery he would very likely also be considered obese after the surgery. Why do you insist on continuing to argue this stuff? You weren't in the military, how can you speak expertly on this? Bottom line: He was over his bodyfat percentage. If he did not reach a condition where he was under the bodyfat percentage AS REQUIRED BY ARMY REGULATION, he would not be allowed to continue to serve in the military. Liposuction on his waist/abdominal area allowed his measurements to fall within the guidelines. End of story. Let me clue you in on the verbage: Borderline to continue in the military = You're gonna get your ass booted out of the army if you don't lose it, chubby boy Now, if you're a military service member with "X" number of years invested in your career and looking to get to your 20-year point and retirement, AND you've got dependents who are counting on you and your military career, would you not do this surgery to maintain your livelihood? |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 26, 2004 13:25:42 GMT -5
Why do you insist on continuing to argue this stuff? You weren't in the military, how can you speak expertly on this? Bottom line: He was over his bodyfat percentage. If he did not reach a condition where he was under the bodyfat percentage AS REQUIRED BY ARMY REGULATION, he would not be allowed to continue to serve in the military. Liposuction on his waist/abdominal area allowed his measurements to fall within the guidelines. End of story. Let me clue you in on the verbage: Borderline to continue in the military = You're gonna get your ass booted out of the army if you don't lose it, chubby boy Now, if you're a military service member with "X" number of years invested in your career and looking to get to your 20-year point and retirement, AND you've got dependents who are counting on you and your military career, would you not do this surgery to maintain your livelihood? You claimed he was reported as being obese in your response to my comment. He was not. I didn't say I blame him, I've said these are good perks for those in the military for all they do and risk. If being an expert for anything were a requirement then GWB would never have been elected. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 26, 2004 13:34:43 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090795074&start=11#0 date=1090866342] You claimed he was reported as being obese in your response to my comment. He was not. According to whose standards? Yours? Last time I checked, your standard for obesity isn't what is being used to determine if military servicemembers are allowed to remain in the military or are booted out for being "too obsese". As far as qualifications for President, I'm convinced GWB's resume is quite a bit more impressive than yours. But I suppose you could put down "goes to internet message boards and posts anti-Bush political commentary" on your Presidential resume if you wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 26, 2004 13:50:11 GMT -5
According to whose standards? Yours? Last time I checked, your standard for obesity isn't what is being used to determine if military servicemembers are allowed to remain in the military or are booted out for being "too obsese". By the Army's own guidelines. By the minumal amount of weight that he lost from the operation he was still over their guidelines for weight / height after the operation so he should still have been considered obese IF he was considered obese before the operation. I'm not running for president, GWB did. He even called himself unqualified. I hope you have a better argument than that to use as a retort. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2004 13:55:17 GMT -5
I didn't have sex with that woman either.
|
|
