One of the things that really burns my buttons about the military is the fact that a person can not sue for medical malpractice. This means military doctors can get away with outrageous stuff and never have to worry about paying for it later.
The reason for this is called the "Feres Doctrine". I'm fairly sure this law was inacted to prevent the federal government from getting sued for medical malpractice and other types of neglect. For the past 50 years people have been trying to overturn this law to no avail. (Even though a measure to overturn passed the House of Representitives 4 times, only to fail each time in the Senate.)
The problem with this is that it makes it very very hard to keep military doctors and nurses responsible. And from what people can tell (and it's hard to find out because the military refuses to give any real numbers) military doctors are more likely to make mistakes and get away with it than in the civilian world.
The worst part is a lot of times the deaths from malpractice mean that mothers with 2 or more kids are left to live off their husbands retirement money (not enough). They're given no extra financial help and the doctor(s) in question don't get punished.
I think the military needs to take some initive here. Why not set up their own system to deal with malpractice? For instance, a mother with children loses her husband due to malpractice or neglect. This is what I think she should be entitled to:
1: If her husband had 3 years left in the military, she should get 3yrs of full paychecks (that her husband would have provided) and benifits. Or, if he was just about to get out, 1 full year of full paychecks. These paychecks should continue even if she gets remarried within that time frame.
A: It takes time for the "lawsuite" to go through. So I suggest that if the claim is made, this should be immediately activated until proven false.
2: She should be entitled to full retirement paychecks and benifits until she dies. (Currently this is all the widow gets, and even that is taken from her if she gets remarried.)
3: The wife should get a certain amount of money (lets say 20,000$) up front.
4: Each child should get a collage scholorship of at least 2,000$ or more.
5: The doctors or nurses responsible should have a rank reduction, a cut in pay for a period of time, and write a formal apology to the family. (I don't see why they don't do this at least, since even senior airmen caught drinking and driving get a rank reduction. >_>)
6: During the time of their punishment, the doctor or nurse in question should have this malpractice put on public record. Any patient they see will have to sign a piece of paper acknowledging that they know this person has had a malpractice charge brought against them.
The jury that sees malpractice charges should not be completely military. Half the board should consist of civilian doctors. That way the board will not be biased towards the federal government saving money.
I think most of what I've listed is entirely fair. And if the military took this initive they wouldn't have to worry about Feres getting overturned someday and them getting their asses sued off. (Because it'll happen... it'll happen...) They would have complete control over how much money they lose. Plus it would be good for their public image. :P
And that's all I have to say in the matter. I dearly hope I never have to experiance severe malpractice at military doctors hands. This is, btw, part of the reason I'm deathly afraid of going "under the knife" by a military doctor. >_>
Monday, October 17, 2005
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Ah, good to be back!
How frustrating... someone keeps spamming my blog. *shakes fist at them* Now I have to change how comments are made. Gr!
I'm in Japan, moved in, have a new cat (though I still miss my old one), and have my computer up and running. Things are well, but we've missed church again. (It's kinda sad that we've gotten so use to think of Sunday as a day off, instead of a day to go to church..)
If you're a gamer, you've probably heard of a magazine called "Play". Play reviews games. I'm not sure, but I think it must be very popular, especially considering how nice it looks.
The problem with Play is that the people who run it are political idiots. Generally, gamers don't talk about politics unless they're being attacked. I suppose it's for the better, since gamers apparently never studied history, much less payed close enough attention to their representitives. But recently certain government officials and otherwise ignorant parents have been attacking games.
Play recently printed a readers letter concerning these attacks on games/ers. The reader wrote how Puritans fled Europe because they were "whacked-out-nut-cases" and the Europeans couldn't stand their attitude (not because they were being unjustly persecuted). Then this person goes on to say that Hillary Clinton takes after this branch of Christianity and is, in fact, a devotely religious person.
At first I thought it was hystarical, because never ever in my wildest dreams would I think of Hillary as religious. She USES the misinformed who follow religion to garner support, but religious? No.
Then I realized the man was serious. And the magazine people agreed with him! My eyes almost popped out in shock. My husband had apparently read the rest and said they were actually worse so I didn't continue (no point in subjecting my brain to that type of stupidity).
This all leads me to a point: religious folks and conservatives need to stop being hypocrites. There is no point in making such a huge fuss about GTA when there are much much worse things you're allowing your children to watch on TV, theater, and the internet.
All games are clearly labelled with an easy-to-understand rating system. GTA, the game which started this problem, was clearly labelled M+ (for mature). The ratings box even said that the game had sexual situations. No parent has the right to be "outraged" about the game when it's had the contents clearly explained on the box. If the parent was too dumb to take the time to look, the they deserve whatever their children dish out at them.
I also heartily disapprove of this notion that ALL GAMES are for children. The first generation of gamers are no longer children, but are definately still gamers. These gamers are often in their 30s and 40s (with wives, children, and full time jobs). These aren't young adults, these are mature adults, and they want mature games.
Also, the first generation of "hard core" gamers were primarily male. As anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you, men love sex and violence. It's what sells. We see this practiced throughout our entire society and yet not a single peep is heard (except from the "hard core" religious folk). Yet putting these same principles into games is somehow more sinful than other mediums?
No, that absolutely won't work. You can't tell gamers not to have sex, violence, and lewd humor in their games when every other entertainment medium is allowed to do have them. People who think this way get mocked and scorned by gamers.
I dearly hope that Christian groups are staying out of this "fight". By joining in, especially with people like Hillary Clinton as their ally, they are making fools of themselves. I, for one, would not endorse a Christian group that uses so little common sense that God gave them with.
There are deeper issues to deal with. Like why are parents allowing, and often buying them knowingly for, children who should not be playing them? At least gamer parents have enough sense to censor what their children play!
I'm in Japan, moved in, have a new cat (though I still miss my old one), and have my computer up and running. Things are well, but we've missed church again. (It's kinda sad that we've gotten so use to think of Sunday as a day off, instead of a day to go to church..)
If you're a gamer, you've probably heard of a magazine called "Play". Play reviews games. I'm not sure, but I think it must be very popular, especially considering how nice it looks.
The problem with Play is that the people who run it are political idiots. Generally, gamers don't talk about politics unless they're being attacked. I suppose it's for the better, since gamers apparently never studied history, much less payed close enough attention to their representitives. But recently certain government officials and otherwise ignorant parents have been attacking games.
Play recently printed a readers letter concerning these attacks on games/ers. The reader wrote how Puritans fled Europe because they were "whacked-out-nut-cases" and the Europeans couldn't stand their attitude (not because they were being unjustly persecuted). Then this person goes on to say that Hillary Clinton takes after this branch of Christianity and is, in fact, a devotely religious person.
At first I thought it was hystarical, because never ever in my wildest dreams would I think of Hillary as religious. She USES the misinformed who follow religion to garner support, but religious? No.
Then I realized the man was serious. And the magazine people agreed with him! My eyes almost popped out in shock. My husband had apparently read the rest and said they were actually worse so I didn't continue (no point in subjecting my brain to that type of stupidity).
This all leads me to a point: religious folks and conservatives need to stop being hypocrites. There is no point in making such a huge fuss about GTA when there are much much worse things you're allowing your children to watch on TV, theater, and the internet.
All games are clearly labelled with an easy-to-understand rating system. GTA, the game which started this problem, was clearly labelled M+ (for mature). The ratings box even said that the game had sexual situations. No parent has the right to be "outraged" about the game when it's had the contents clearly explained on the box. If the parent was too dumb to take the time to look, the they deserve whatever their children dish out at them.
I also heartily disapprove of this notion that ALL GAMES are for children. The first generation of gamers are no longer children, but are definately still gamers. These gamers are often in their 30s and 40s (with wives, children, and full time jobs). These aren't young adults, these are mature adults, and they want mature games.
Also, the first generation of "hard core" gamers were primarily male. As anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you, men love sex and violence. It's what sells. We see this practiced throughout our entire society and yet not a single peep is heard (except from the "hard core" religious folk). Yet putting these same principles into games is somehow more sinful than other mediums?
No, that absolutely won't work. You can't tell gamers not to have sex, violence, and lewd humor in their games when every other entertainment medium is allowed to do have them. People who think this way get mocked and scorned by gamers.
I dearly hope that Christian groups are staying out of this "fight". By joining in, especially with people like Hillary Clinton as their ally, they are making fools of themselves. I, for one, would not endorse a Christian group that uses so little common sense that God gave them with.
There are deeper issues to deal with. Like why are parents allowing, and often buying them knowingly for, children who should not be playing them? At least gamer parents have enough sense to censor what their children play!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)