Social Question

mazingerz88's avatar

Is the US military really overfunded or not?

Asked by mazingerz88 (22683points) 3 weeks ago from iPhone

Heard it from time to time both statements. Too much money being used in defense and the opposite, dangerous cuts are being made.

What is the cold hard truth?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

79 Answers

Patty_Melt's avatar

Not overfunded, but more accurately funded inappropriately.

There are wastes that could be cut, and that alone would make a substantial difference.

When I was first arrived at my duty station I was put into our division office. That involved status reports, work requests to other divisions, personnel status reports, keeping the expense log current, picking lottery numbers for division officer, and such.

I found a receipt stuck inside the desk where it had gotten wedged from the back of the drawer. It was for about $2k worth of paint, and was never logged. It was about two years old. The deficit carried over month after month, leaving the division overdrawn all that time.

When I brought it to the division officerhe made a new rule. No expenditures without my OK.

There are people trained to do office work, but lots of divisions are considered too small to warrant billeting such specific personnel.

Darth_Algar's avatar

We spend more than the next 12 countries combined on our military. There’s no way it’s underfunded. I know there’s a lot of waste that could be trimmed down to make our military spending more effective, but that’s a different matter.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Short answer is yes.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

I thought that the U.S. military shares research and development discoveries to the world? Maybe they could charge a fee to share info, and make a profit.

hmmmmmm's avatar

Obscenely overfunded. And “defense” is a misnomer.

kritiper's avatar

No. If we were overfunded, the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans and other miscreants would be scared shitless.

flutherother's avatar

Defence spending has gone beyond billions of dollars into the trillions and is used mostly to blow up mud huts in Afghanistan. No country in the world spends more for less.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1 “Maybe they could charge a fee to share info, and make a profit.”

Militaries that operate under a profit motive are called mercenaries, and they have no loyalty except to the next dollar.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper

The United States spends $643 billion on it’s military. The next biggest spender is China, at $168 billion. How on Earth is the US military underfunded?

kritiper's avatar

I didn’t say we were underfunded. We just aren’t overfunded.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

How do you figure we aren’t over funded @kritiper?

Stache's avatar

“Not overfunded, but more accurately funded inappropriately.”

Amid the fall-out from US President Donald Trump’s announcement on Twitter that transgender people will not be able to serve in the US military, one statistic has been frequently raised to draw attention to the comparatively small estimated costs of transgender healthcare.

It refers to the amount the Pentagon spends on erectile dysfunction medication annually: about $84m (£63m), according to the Military Times newspaper.

In contrast, the Rand Corporation think tank estimated last year that gender transition-related health care costs for transgender personnel would increase the military’s active duty health budget by $8.4m per year at the most.

I agree with you @Patty_Melt. Their priorities are ridiculous.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m assuming part of the military spending is healthcare, and I wonder if countries like China and Russia maybe the number doesn’t include healthcare since those countries have socialized medicine for the citizenry already.

I know people who think the money we spend on some of the military perks is unwarranted. I wonder if other militaries get all the perks. The people I’m talking about cite golf courses, free flights, the large pensions, I’m not sure what else.

The US has bases around the world, I don’t know if any other country has bases around the world like us? That costs a lot of money too. Some of the bases are strategic and necessary. Some bases probably could be closed. Some have been closed for that matter.

Let me say, the military perks are great. They help make up for lower pay in some industries compared to the private sector. It keeps the military competitive in the job market.

I would bet military contracts have overspending just like many government contracts. Certainly, the military could use a third party to analyze expenditures.

Edit: I wonder if other militaries give more pay for dependents? I think we still do that.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper

How is the military not overfunded? Do you really think it’s necessary to spend that much?

Patty_Melt's avatar

@jleslie, you make a good point about comparing our military to any other.
Russia – inadequate clothing for winter weather. During WWII many of their personnel died starving and freezing.

Japan – underfed, and sacrificed in kamikaze attacks.

Various countries have sent men to fight unarmed, expecting personnel to use whatever they can find.

Africa – what can I say? OMG.

Also, as touched upon by RDG, we do a lot in our military with tech. We train people in highly specialized areas.
Our officers get college educations.
Our research and development are top of the line.

The problem of waste comes from the fact that our military is massive, so it is tricky to cinch up spending in just the right areas, made even trickier by the ebb of ever-changing status. A base that is crucial today could be all but deserted in a few months.

The Chinese are still far behind in developing their Navy.

I’m not sure how much it has changed, but it used to be that the Chinese military would double as cops. I’m just guessing, but I bet there are many countries that double cops to military.

JLeslie's avatar

@Patty_Melt I wouldn’t be inclined to compare to what other countries did during WWII, because I’m assuming most countries protect their military better now.

Our military basically is in a socialized system for healthcare. They get subsidized housing, even subsidized vacations! When I say this to people some say the military isn’t the same as the government, I just shake my head.

Don’t get me wrong, people who serve in our armed forces, I give them every bit of respect, servicemen and veterans should be taken care, etc. My father was part of the uniformed services, and I specifically wrote armed services, because the risk and sacrifice is much greater.

kritiper's avatar

The waste and greed of everybody needs to be controlled. Remember the $600 toilet seats??

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I know who had to document the pricing and final cost of $999.20 pliers
I see his face every morning in the mirror. It saved taking the engine out of the jet and taking the engine apart; or several thousand dollars each of labor for a fleet of jets.

Darth_Algar's avatar

“They’re multipurpose – not only do they put the clips on but they take them off.”

Impressive.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

My boss came to me on Monday morning, the pliers were mentioned on “60 Minutes” and he was getting phone calls Sunday night.

flutherother's avatar

The big question isn’t do we need the pliers but do we need the jets?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Currently the Government is looking at UAV to replace piloted planes.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@Darth_Algar The states sub contacts some millitary functions to Blackwater. So it is being done.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1

Yes, and that company has been so enmeshed in controversy and criminal charges that they’ve changed their name multiple times in hopes of getting away from their reputation.

Besides, that some departments in the government have contracted with a bunch of disloyal, steriod-pumping, adrenaline-junky, civilian-murdering, guns-for-hire doesn’t have anything to do with my point.

Zaku's avatar

Well according to this (campaign ad and) statement by Tulsi Gabbard the USA is spending 40% more on the Pentagon’s budget than we here at the height of the Iraq war.

Seems like massive overfunding to me – not to others?

What about the underfunding of our non-military needs? As Gabbard says, we could be providing college education, end homelessness in America, and still have about $100 billion dollars left over, even if we just weren’t spending that extra amount.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Actually, the military spends a great amount towards education. Not only is massive schooling provided within the military, there is also college funding for members after leaving. Those who take part in the deal get their college tuition matched dollar for dollar.
At any given time the military trains people, by the tens of thousands for college level areas, and also trade schooling.

The military costs are not all for ships and jets. It is supporting the daily needs for families in housing, education, medical treatment, food.
And, fly for free is not an extra cost. Military can fly free only if they take a hop with a flight which is already scheduled for something. Commercial flights are paid for only when moving personnel on job related travel. They don’t pay for tickets to go see mum when her rhumatiz acts up, and if you want to see Hawaii for free, best get yourself stationed there.
The military is a huge freakin place. If civilians could get a glimpse at what it is, what it does, what it takes to keep it functional, it would be a mind boggle. I can’t describe any of it in such a way to give anyone an accurate sense of its totality.
People who want funding for higher education, medical, housing, ought to consider the great many people who get those things from the military. Sure, there are civilians who don’t have those things, and don’t have joining military as a choice, but there is at least far fewer thanks to the benefits of the military branches.
There is one thing civilians don’t realize what the military does for them. It keeps a huge number of people out of their way. People who would make lines longer at banks, DMV, grocery stores, theaters, toll bridges, Old Navy.
If there are lots of people applying for that job you hope to get, there might be five more applying, except the Air Force has them. Waiting a long time at your hospital’s emergency room? Good thing the navy has some of them out of your way.

The military benefits everyone every single day, even in the civilian world.
Try not to judge too harshly.

hmmmmmm's avatar

The US military is a terrorist organization, and happens to be the most well-funded and powerful one. I suspect we can provide education and trade school training without funneling funds through an immoral, violent institution.

Zaku's avatar

Oh great… so it’s a “super two-fer” deal – buy the world’s most expensive military by a factor of ten, and with it, you get some education and housing and medical care… for the people who join the military… while they’re in the military… but not so much for veterans…

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
JLeslie's avatar

@Patty_Melt I agree that flying for free doesn’t cost more. Well, maybe minimally more for the extra weight in the plane.

In fact, I would guess the healthcare isn’t anywhere near as expensive as on the outside if we take out excessive injuries due to war. When my dad gets an MRI the machine is already there, he schedules as a non-emergency, the salaried tech (who is military also) and radiologist are there anyway 24 hours whether the MRI machine is in use or not. All it costs is the electricity to run the machine. When a scan of some sort is done in the private sector the person or insurance is billed every time a scan is done.

As far as subsidized vacations, I don’t know if they build BOQ’s and golf courses anyway? I wouldn’t say the villa I stayed in on the beach is necessary for the military to keep and maintain. Maybe the properties are owned outright though, and the expenditure made sense when they were purchased or built. I don’t know the circumstances the vacation lodging was built under. Are resorts like Shades of Green at Disney subsidized or built by the military?

Patty_Melt's avatar

I am not familiar with Shades Of Green. Is it army, or all branches?
My only experience with Disney in connection with military was a boot camp visit.
There is an air force base in Orlando, which was occupied by the navy for boot camp. It is where I trained. At the end of training we had one day at Disneyworld. Everyone was loaded on buses. It was during that visit I got my first public standing ovation.
It was a long time ago, but I think those visits were paid for with a small deduction from the pay we received at the end of training, at a group rate.

I believe that base is air force occupied again.

JLeslie's avatar

@Patty_Melt All branches of the unformed services can stay at Shades of Green. My dad can buy his military Disney passes there. I don’t know how much they cost now. About 5 years ago it was something like $130 for 5 days, very cheap, and tax free like most military purchases. He was able to bring me in with him on a military ticket. Something like up to 4 guests can have a military ticket, but must be accompanied by the military person when entering the parks. I don’t know if that still the same.

I don’t know if Disney simply gives that discount, or if the military helps subsidize it. More recently when my dad looked at military pricing for the parks I think it was similar to Florida Resident pricing, which is a little more expensive, but still very good.

I googled and Wikipedia says Shades of Green is part of the military morale, welfare, and recreation program. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_Green_(resort)
https://www.shadesofgreen.org/

Here is the resort website https://www.shadesofgreen.org/

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have recreation for our military, I don’t know what I think about it to be honest. I know that being in the military is like being in a separate world here on the same planet. Commissary, exchange, medical, lodging, etc.

MrGrimm888's avatar

We need to keep in mind, that a LOT of money is tied up in the”, safety,” plain training ,maintenance on our nation’s nuclear arsenal. Many ICBMs, and the silos they sit in, require upkeep.

Disposal of unwanted nuclear materials is also a factor. And monitoring of the sites chosen to store said waste.

Security of nuclear sites is also expensive. And VERY important.

From my understanding, even deconstruction of the US’s vast nuclear weapons would be a monumentally expensive undertaking.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Wow. If only I had known.

Some have skate jobs, but most of the military is very demanding. I was a little hard body, and full of vinegar, but I dragged myself to the barracks lots of days all done in.
It really is a separate world, even when off base and surrounded by civilians.
Good morale is crucial. If military personnel don’t have ways to blow off steam, it makes UPI.

JLeslie's avatar

@Patty_Melt I love being on military bases. My husband would have done great in the military. There is a VA clinic here where I live, I wish he could find a job there.

Stache's avatar

@Patty_Melt I would like to hear your thoughts about Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers.

Patty_Melt's avatar

I think he is right.

First of all, the military is not just a job. It is not even just an adventure. It is an alternate existence. It must not be viewed in the same way as civilian jobs, neighborhoods, or people.

When I joined, it was so the military would have a fully volunteer service. I felt the draft was pulling in men who were not suited to the demands or lifestyle, and that by recruiting women who could manage the life, drafting would not be necessary. I was not there to make a statement for equal rights. I was there to fill a spot so men who could better serve their communities as civilians would be free to do so.

I don’t think the military is the right forum to stage political or social demonstrations.

I think military life being the separate universe that it is, people need to accept certain regulations and guidelines and stop airing personal issues simply to make a point, and don’t try to convince me the topic is anything but.
The military has serious business to tend to, and can’t be bothered with a bunch of personal issues.

If the military were sparse, and having difficulty filling it’s billets, I would say maybe things should be looked at differently.

There are more than just one or two things which might exclude people from the military. People who sleepwalk cannot serve. Rules involving police records fluctuate. When I joined women could take noncombatent roles only. There were no women accepted as fighter pilots.

So that is how I see it. Military is a job with many rewarding attributes, but it also must stick to its purpose and not be dragged into all sorts of social issues.
It isn’t in anybody’s interest to try to force anything on the military branches, because people who create issues sometimes disappear permanently.

Now, The Tuskegee airmen, at the time were quite a controversy. They were housed, trained, and called up separately from white pilots. They were expected to fail, and in a time of war, that meant die.
They proved themselves in grand style, but when the survivors returned home, they still had to deboard the ship apart from the white personnel.

Things have changed a lot since then. One thing which has not changed is the physical properties of metal. Brass just doesn’t bend easily.
Because I know what military life is like, and how people are treated when they try to force something on the military, it really is best to let some issues drop. That is one of those issues.
Now, you asked for my opinion, and there it is. There is no arguement to it. My opinion is one possession nobody can take from me.
I was not invited to debate. If I had been, I would have staunchly declined.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Patty_Melt “When I joined, it was so the military would have a fully volunteer service. I felt the draft was pulling in men who were not suited to the demands or lifestyle”

When exactly did you join? I ask, because the Draft hasn’t been used in this country in 46 years.

Patty_Melt's avatar

In 79 to 81 there was a lot of discussion about reinstating the draft. It looked like they might do it. I voiced against it when our local news did a person on the street segment about it.
I felt very strongly that for a military to adequately serve the people if its nation, it must be voluntary. I still feel that way.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I don’t disagree there, but I do feel that, now that women can serve in combat roles, then they should be made to register for Selective Service as well (for as long as that remains a thing).

Zaku's avatar

@Darth_Algar Why does women being allowed to serve in combat roles imply to you that they should be required to register for Selective Service?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Zaku

Because I’m all about equality.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Actually, I agree, but in reverse. I think nobody should HAVE to. It should be like signing the back of your driver’s license as an organ donor. That way the military has a list of people willing to be called up in time of emergency.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I’m all for abolishing Selective Service, but I feel that as long as we do have it then it should apply to men and women equally.

JLeslie's avatar

I think Selective Service is idiotic to begin with. Don’t all men have to sign up? Why even bother with the paperwork? All men who are 18 and under have social security numbers, the government can find them without them having to fill out a card.

I husband had a hiccup when he was becoming a citizen; the government said he didn’t have all his papers in order, because he hadn’t signed up for Selective Service. He had no idea he was supposed to sign up. He was here on a student visa, and then switched to a work visa, and then a green card when we got married.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Exactly. Making women sign up is a step in the wrong direction. They have everybody accounted for. That is proven by all the letters our hs juniors and seniors get from recruiters.

Just, when kids come in to DMV ask if they want to be an organ donor, and then do they want to be a military option.

Having women forced to sign up just makes the whole thing doubly wrong. That is like throwing a woman in front of a train because some guy got knocked off the platform. Instead, just reach down and pull the guy out.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Patty_Melt Your train of thought and logic, is missing.

Patty_Melt's avatar

No. You just don’t understand things without pictures to help you.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Transgendered people aren’t joining the armed forces to make a political statement.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Patty_MeltMaking women sign up is a step in the wrong direction” because in your opinion it is wrong; no logic required!

Having women forced to sign up just makes the whole thing doubly wrong.” because in your opinion it is wrong; no logic required!

Train of thought , the bogie men want to know everybody by name; they already do know names.

Patty_Melt's avatar

You should not mix alcohol and medications. Your sentences are coming out garbled. Your point is clear though. What I say doesn’t matter to you. You will attack anything I say.

It is not illogical to believe that registering for a draft is unnecessary, and wrong.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Let’s be honest: Selective Service isn’t going anywhere. Yes, with today’s military the draft may be unnecessary, but that may not always be the case. Congress and the DoD are going to want to leave that card on the table in case they need to play it.

So with that in mind there’s no logical reason why women should be exempt from it.

Stache's avatar

@Patty_Melt Transgender people don’t join to make a statement. How sad that you think this and it shows how clueless you are. They join because they are human beings who want to serve. Thousands have served for years without any problems. The only person calling them out and putting them in the spotlight is Trump.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Whatever. Like I said, the military has their guidelines, and I don’t oppose those guidelines.
It isn’t like it used to be okay, then suddenly they said no.
To get them to change regs requires a lot of process, and that just isn’t going to happen unless our government sees a need to make that change.
Maybe if you whine about it they will say, oh yeah, we’ve been so wrong. We’ll get right on that for Ya.

MrGrimm888's avatar

As @Stache said, thousands of transgenders have likely already served. Giving them some respect doesn’t seem like asking for too much.
Women have long been victims of sexual assault, and rape, in the military. Recently, the military is trying to get a handle on that.
Should the military just keep transgenders in the shadows, and stop trying to address the rape issues, or should they “get right on that?”

My point, of course, is that the military must change with the times. One day, it’s likely that people will be discussing the rights of AI’s, in the military. Or cyborgs, or something.

Military is stepped in tradition, yes. But when the latest weaponry is available, they adapt. I don’t see why they can’t adapt to a changing military population…

Patty_Melt's avatar

Civilians are going to be confused by the issue, because there are elements of the military which cannot be imagined by civilians. It is not an existence parallel to civilian life. Without experiencing it, trying to understand is bound to be frustrating.
Just a simple thing like bootcamp is so very different, recruits can go through weeks without comprehending that right on the other side of the wall, there are people chewing gum, throwing the wrapper on the ground, tying a left shoe.

Everything in the military has to fit together like zipper teeth.
Fluther frequently has tech questions. Members attempting to answer the question will approach with questions about servers, year of manufacture, model, updates, etc. The military doesn’t function like that. When someone in this country relays to another country instructions for a maneuver or action, there are no disparities to discuss. Receiving end has no questions because equipment, software, functions are all interconnected.
To introduce a new weapon, or plan is not so simple as you think. Research is done to death. Changes go through Congress. Change of something means that change goes worldwide. GMT general military training gets mapped out down to the letter, and all around the world are people learning this new thing at nearly the same moments.
I was stationed back to back with a research center. We were stuck working with stuff the rest of the navy never saw. Ick! Some of the stupid devices they come up with!

When they started stationing women aboard ships, notices went out worldwide. This head (toilet) on this level, after will now be designated for female personnel. For frigates location will be “X” LSDs it will be located “y” etc. A woman could board a ship anywhere in the world, and for each type the location would be the same, and each one meant one less for the men.
No changes are a simple thing in the military. Changes must be something which is capable of a workable fit no matter what the environment.

For M.A.S.H. fans, remember the episode when they wanted a concrete floor for surgery, in order to cut the incidence of infections? They were denied permission because they were designated as a mobile unit, so everything they had must be able to fill up, pack, and move with them.

I don’t think o can adequately describe to civilians just how huge an ordeal it is for a military branch to institute a change which must take place across the entire entity uniformly.

Changes of acceptance is just astronomical.

It took from Korea until the 80s to make it fully understood that personnel could not get high and pass it off as rigors of the workplace. In the Navy, even as late as the 70s, persons of color would sometimes go missing overnight because unaccepting personnel would dump them overboard, which makes the story of the first black diver all the more astonishing, in that he was actually alive long enough to make master diver.

Some changes are refused not to exclude, but to protect people who cannot be guarded and kept safe everywhere they go.

You can tell a few hundred thousand men they can’t kill negros they work with, but you can’t keep hard working innocent men from disappearing in the south pacific once in a while.

I worked under a chief petty officer who faced lots of that stuff, and his military career was permanently affected by an outburst early in his career. He shielded me, at times, knowing himself what perils existed sometimes for those unwelcome in the Navy. It was the 80’s,but lots of men still wanted women out, and they did things, sometimes really dangerous things, to make women look bad in reports.

If a change is not needed badly enough to risk all the pitfalls, they will fight it, and usually, that is for the best.

Watch Men Of Honor, with Cuba Goofing Jr.
It is watered down, but based on fact.
That behavior is only partly in the past.
The military is very, very, very big.
I think the best civilian comparison is this;
There is a new law which will take effect the first day of June. Beginning that day, everyone in Los Angeles with be Catholic. They don’t have to believe as Catholics, but every Sunday and Wednesday they will attend church services. There will be notices posted instructing everyone where they will go. All holidays and practices must be observed. Anyone found not in compliance will faces criminal charges. In addition to attending masses, confession will also be common practice, and information for that will also be posted.
There will be no exceptions.
Requests to move to another city will be considered on a first come, first served basis.

Imagine that, as an actual possible scenario.
It is not something the population could not do, but convincing them they should, and making the needed changes, do you see how big that would be?
Most would reject the law, saying they should live with their beliefs. There would be those who would insist they should have been told before they moved there. Jails would be over capacity. Things which had actually run smoothly would be in chaos. People willing to comply would be confused.

You can’t just declare to that many people, people on an already set path, that a challenge as she is going to take place, and expect that it will go as planned.

The military HAS to fiction with uniformity. It takes a great deal more to accomplish that than civilians can imagine.

Darth_Algar's avatar

What does any of that have to do with the sudden banning of people who have been serving admirably for ages?

Patty_Melt's avatar

I refer you back to my final sentence.

Not my fault you can’t grasp.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

LAST sentence is just rambling

The military HAS to fiction with uniformity. It takes a great deal more to accomplish that than civilians can imagine.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Patty_Melt

The problem is not that we can’t understand, the problem is that for all your rambling you utterly failed to say anything relevant to the subject. If you have a point, make it.

Stache's avatar

@Patty_Melt None of what you just wrote has anything to do with transgender people serving in the military. They are not ineffective and burdensome. They are equal to all other service members.

This goes back to July 2017, when Trump first tweeted he would ban trans military service.
He argued, “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming … victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

In August 2017, the White House put out the actual policy behind those tweets. According to the administration, Trump would effectively return to the pre-2016 era in which trans troops could not serve openly.

The policy was to take effect in March 2018, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to undo the military’s long-standing ban on openly serving trans troops.

Trump’s ban could lead to some very ugly consequences: trans service members staying in the closet, even when it’s dangerous for their service and their personal health and safety; trans troops being discharged or abused; and trans Americans more broadly receiving yet another signal that society still doesn’t accept or tolerate them.

The rationale for the ban is also baseless. The empirical evidence, based on the experiences of countries from Israel to the UK to Canada, shows that letting trans people openly serve poses minimal to no costs to the military’s budget or readiness.

Today, close to 15,000 transgender troops serve in the military, and President Trump’s ban has been denounced by former military leaders, Members of Congress from both parties, and the American Medical Association. This announcement by the administration reverses those gains and ignores that progress.

Is the US military really overfunded or not. This is the question. Trump’s reasoning to ban transgender people from the military is cost. Transgender care costs the military less than 1% of its health budget since 2016. The military has spent about $8 million on transgender care since 2016 out of its $50 billion overall health care budget.

The real reasons for the renewed anti-trans ban are reportedly more political — about sticking it to Democrats and political correctness — than his public-facing reasons. To Trump, trans troops have just become political pawns for his broader efforts.

I don’t have to be a member of your “club” to understand this bullshit. This is bigotry. Something for Trump’s base to applaud.

My sources are VOX and PBS. This was mostly copy and paste because I doubt you’d read any link I’d share.

Stache's avatar

Too late for me to edit. I get where Patty is going. She’s saying the military is full of bigots and they don’t have the time or energy to protect minorities who serve. sigh

Dutchess_lll's avatar

We cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
I don’t suppose he specified exactly WHAT those costs would be?

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@Dutchess_lll I’m assuming that he means gender reassignment surgery as a medical cost. Being transgendered isn’t an illness that needs to be cured.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Well….I doubt that is something any insurance company would pay for. It’s like a boob job or a facelift. It’s elective ergo you pay for it out of pocket.

Just more trump being a moron.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Australia or New Zealand pays for boob jobs for female troops.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Must be nice.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I assume @Sache was talking about normal healthcare costs, for people who happen to be transgender….

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I read his post to say normal medical cost for transgendered people are no higher than they are for other people. That includes colds, coughs, flu, infection, UTIs, broken bones, stitches, etc. None of that has a thing to do with being transgendered.

Of course that logic means nothing to trump.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Correct. Nor does the logic matter to Trump’s cheering hordes of mouth breathers. And then they wonder why they are perceived as stupid, racist, bigots….

Stache's avatar

Transgendered isn’t a word. They are transgender.

Some insurance does pay for surgery, hormones and therapy.

@Dutchess It’s not considered elective when it concerns transgender people. Some people choose to have surgery and some don’t, but it’s still not considered elective. It’s not the same as a woman wanting bigger breasts or a facelift. Gender reassignment is declared medically necessary by some insurers.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/exclusion-medically-necessary-gender-affirming-surgery-americas-armed-services-veterans/2018-04

Dutchess_lll's avatar

@Stache well then I guess trump had a point when he mentioned the crazy amount of medical money it would cost the armed forces government insurance would be to pick up the tab for insurance for transgendered people to make the physical switch.

BTW I looked into breast reduction surgery. Was denied.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@Dutchess_lll: “well then I guess trump had a point when he mentioned the crazy amount of medical money it would cost the armed forces government insurance would be to pick up the tab for insurance for transgendered people to make the physical switch.”

“Crazy”? How about 0.017% of the military budget, or less than four Mar-a-Logo golf trips, or less than what Jeff Bezos makes in 10 minutes.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I agree totally @hmmmmmm. I was responding to Stache’s comment that sex reassignment surgery is covered by insurance.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther