http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?040726ta_talk_schaler
I don’t know how I should react to this article.
I’m in total disbelief that they went ahead and granted this… “perk.”
Issues such as this really gets me thinking. When is “enough” enough? Exactly how much benefits must one be entitled to, to sacrifice one’s life? Is the sky the limit? Though bold and valid, doesn’t that claim seem economically insane?
If the USA can afford to bleed the taxpayers’ money to fund $100,000 worth of cosmetic surgery to a single soldier. Why can’t they allot more budget in other fields such as disease research, or simply giving homeless people a permanent place to stay?
Imagine that. One-hundred thousand dollars on a single person. That’s just for the heck of it – it’s not like she tripped on a mine and blew her breasts off. And there’s no limit to the number and types of surgery one soldier can avail of, according to the article.
But then comes the main point of the soldiers: “We are risking our lives everyday. We desreve it.”
I will not question how or why soldiers risk their lives for their countries. I will not even deny the fact that they are probably risking their lives, so that people less deserving may continue living useless lives (enter the drug lords, terrorists, etc). I also, will certainly not put a price tag to quantify one’s life.
But really now, does one deserve THAT [cosmetic] type of benefit? Granted, cosmetic surgery does improve self-esteem. But wouldn’t anyone agree that a soldier’s self-esteem would be better off knowing that he donated $100,000 worth of food to people suffering in other countries.
I have nothing against soldiers having benefits. In fact it’s not the price but the purpose that matters.
For years, the military has offered its recruits free tuition, specialized training, and a host of other benefits to compensate for the tremendous sacrifices they are called upon to make.*
I’m pretty sure that these cumulative costs are way above your typical cosmetic surgery. However, regardless of the cost, you will not hear me complain, since they are useful perks… they can even be considered neccessities. Education, medical insurance, and the other benefits are very much justifiable in any social context.
The only time I see cosmetic surgery as valid in the army, is IF the soldiers appearance change because of the service.
If a bullet hits their noses, fine… fix them! If they lose their arms, give them the latest mechanical arms worth billions of dollars for all I care!
But, like education or medical insurance, give it to them because they need it, and not just because it will “increase morale.”
Once the governement has solved other more important problems (such as cures for diseases, homelessness, and the like) then they could spend all the taxpayers money for trivial benefits to increase “morale” till kingdom come.
After having said that. I’m thinking why do I even bother? The USA isn’t my country, but I won’t be surprised if the Philippine one day takes them as an example. After all, all faults included, the USA is still a better country than this place.
Having a bunch of people in the Philippine government not knowing their asses from their heads, they might not be convinced that the USA is currently run by a similar arse, and follow his lead nonetheless.
And I’ve been thinking about the article stating it’s good practice for surgeons. Meaning that they are actually doing to as a service rather than a commercial endeavor. I mean if they’re offering it for free anyways, why would we challenge that act of generosity?
So I guess it’s not that bad. But still, it may prove to be a sensitive point in the social context.