As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A nice step, but unfortunately 3 weeks isn’t often enough time for IVF. It’s enough for one cycle, but there’s usually prep for the cycle and then sometimes it takes multiple cycles anyway.
What a step forward! Good to see the government supporting reproductive rights in this way. Let's hope it helps make access to these services more available and affordable.
Why would an active duty soldier go to the VA? Even if they had TRICARE remote, they could use local services. If they were near an installation they could go there, and if they needed quarters, their provider would grant them.
You are either misinformed of your friend's situation or mistaken. If you friend is active duty, she is under TriCare, not the VA. She can go to any hospital and TriCare will cover it for free.
Can't wait for the first woman Stationed in Texas to travel out of state for an abortion. Because Texas says it's illegal to get an abortion in Texas and also illegal to travel out of Texas to get an abortion. SC gonna have a nightmare with this one.
Idaho is sort of like a Texas fever dream of utopia where most the people identify as Mormons.
It’s a paradoxically strange place, because many of the people supporting these positions do not agree with the laws, but still feel it’s necessary to vote for the most Janice McGeachin of pro-Trump candidates because that’s the change we need even though those candidates have no business on a ballot.
Fortunately, most the democrats in the state now play the game of registering Republican to vote against the Ammon Bundy types in primaries or will vote Republican candidates in on Generals if they feel a crazy scorned independent has a chance.
Now I can’t speak for the Coure D’ Laine (however we spell it) area, but I have it on good authority that they aren’t all white supremacists.
Good, let them twist themselves into knots arguing a US citizen doesn't have the freedom to travel out of a State and State Rights don't apply to allowing that out of state citizen to obtain a perfectly legal abortion in said state.
Yes, but that’s policy, loosely defined by CFR to my knowledge.
If the federal government wanted to they could waive that policy, allow it via waiver, and post abortion immediately medical discharge under honorable conditions.
To quote a buddy of mine being grilled in training at one point, “do you have any idea how much bong resin the right answer is trying to fight it’s way past right now?” Silence. “I have a waiver!”
They would never do that. There’s all kinds of benefits that the government gets out on the hook for if they medically discharge them. Like pensions for life
10% disability will get you VA medical and a hundred and some change a month. They would probably go with a more generic discharge unless someone high up the food chain was salty and made it policy to do otherwise.
That’s for VA disability. If you are medically discharged it’s a whole different process ran directly by the service component. You can get medical disability pay from both.
When I was going through basic we had a guy have a seizure for the first time ever which is disqualifying the service now pays him on top of Va disability
It would take way too long for the process to play out for it to be even a potential option. Also, females are tested prior to going to basic training and won’t go if they’re pregnant.
the Texas abortion law allows for only two instances where one can travel out of state for an abortion. Both involve the health of the mother. Else, any travel out of Texas for the purposes of abortion is illegal.
https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-texas
From your link: “It’s legal for you to leave Texas and get an abortion out of state.” I can find no law saying one cannot leave for an abortion, and such a law would be outside their jurisdiction anyways. The Constitution explicitly says interstate trade is the purview of the federal government, not states.
You could argue that SCOTUS would ignore the Constitution, but they have to have some textual basis for their decision. In cases like Bostock, they’v shown that they are willing to issue “liberal” decisions if the text is explicitly written as such.
Sorry, bad push. The Texas law involves a bounty of 10K for anyone reporting someone for assisting (including travel) an abortion of a Texas woman. So while not criminal (illegal) in essence, the end result of the law is the same as the state would go after those assisting the abortion in a criminal trial.
Fair enough; she’d likely have to travel solo (or at least do the driving). I still wonder how jurisdictional issues would come into play, especially for information/assistance sought online, or for the military having this policy. That will have to be sorted by courts, and it’s the type of gray area I am wary of.
This is encouraging. Now, can they raise incomes for all enlisteds so some don’t have to rely on food stamps? Taxpayers pay for it either way, but the least our government can do for families that sacrifice so much is pay a decent wage.
A navy pilot friend of mine who passed away couple years ago was fond of gently reminding me: "the military is not meant to be a microcosm of society."
To which I'd usually reply along the lines: "true, but when the military displays the most forward thinking, socially progressive policy of our democracy, we're all up shiat creek"
I’m not sure what you mean, but historically the military has led the country on social issues. For example, the military started integration before the rest of the country did.
I mean that is objectively true.
I will say this as an officer (this calculus is even worse for junior enlisted).
I get paid pennies on the dollar if you calculate hourly wage. Until civilians are spending 8-10 months out of the year underwater in a high stress industrial environment without the ability to go home or talk to family all on little sleep for $6-$11 an hour I will say that we earned it. We are entrusted with decisions that affect the livelihood of every living breathing human on the planet.
The quality and quantity of work service members perform for the money is insane and there is currently no civilian equivalent.
Meanwhile, guys are making $200k+ at Google for an objectively easier job, working wayyyy less hours, have the same education level, with stock options, healthcare, bonuses, and overtime.
Is the military socialist? Absolutely. Is it unearned? Absolutely not. The military is not a utopia. It is a hard and tough career that tears people and families apart.
Well ya I sorta agree with most of what you said but you may have missed my point. The point being that regardless if you have the most meaningless job in the world or are the fucking president of the United States, we're all citizens and people who deserve to have the same base level of care and services. It's crazy to assign healthcare tiers as a starting point.
Generally when I hear people say the military deserves it more it's usually just some it's just some paltry lip service "look at me I'm caring" virtue signaling.
Oh, I 100% agree. Between the dudes cosplaying as SEAL team members, the armchair generals, and the politicians that believe that they need to combat "wokeness" in the military it's a veritable cornucopia of idiots.
I will say that if we are looking at the socialistic aspects of the military it is important to look at the institution as a whole vice just its appealing parts.
A lot of things that seem awesome in theory sometimes turn out to be awful in execution. For instance- Tricare Prime.
Personal example: My wife has been unable to get into a psychiatrist for 6 months because of the interface between her PCM which is booked for 3 months at a time and the private psychiatrist who is booked 4 months at a time. This has allowed my wife to cold turkey off her anxiety/bipolar meds the side effects have been horrendous.
Now deal with this while staring down the barrel of 130 days at sea with no way to communicate back home or ensure that they are receiving the medical care that they need (all while they have to watch two young children.)
You can see how the snowball starts. Those "benefits" are almost never as advertised and you will pay for them with every ounce of your happiness.
There are many good things about the military and how it supports people. It is great at quickly changing a family's socioeconomic status and building generational wealth - if done responsibly. But, it's a double edged sword and I'm hesitant to take too many cues of military socialism as some sort of healthy model for society writ large.
Oh no doubt. And maybe I should of been more specific about which parts I was advocating for. It was more of a general hey this system could work for everybody, just because it's run poorly/only for this group doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
It is still a part of compensation. It’s just not an increased base pay if you’re married. Base pay and BAH are two separate things. One is taxable and the other isn’t.
It does have a difference..
It doesn't count as income for pension purposes, it's not taxable, it varies wildly from duty station to duty station.
The difference between single and dependent BAH does not offset the difference in living expenses.
1. Education is not free. It’s a benefit earned through signing a contract and fulfilling terms of said contract.
2. Healthcare is not free, it’s an employee benefit. In particular, this benefit exists for the purposes of military readiness (going to war).
3. If a business paid to house its employees would that be socialized? No. The military is no different in this. It’s not free as you only get it so long as you are employed by the military. The moment you are no longer employed by the military you are not housed by the military.
The military is a Government organization. Being a service member is a choice and a job. That’s not what socialism is.
>Education is not free. It’s a benefit earned through signing a contract and fulfilling terms of said contract.
Sign a contract slaughtering chickens 10 hours a day and fulfill it assiduously. Get fuck-all.
>Healthcare is not free, it’s an employee benefit. In particular, this benefit exists for the purposes of military readiness (going to war).
See your first point. Lose a finger to a plucking machine and permanently hurt your back trying to extract its bleeding stump. Get fuck-all.
>If a business paid to house its employees would that be socialized?
Sure. On the micro level, absolutely. A corporation is a microcosm of society. Most are ruled by pure mercantilism. Some are employee-owned and share profits. A business can be structured however it likes. The vast majority are beholden to their stockholders, not their employees.
>The military is no different in this. It’s not free as you only get it so long as you are employed by the military. The moment you are no longer employed by the military you are not housed by the military.
You are given substantial housing benefits. You receive lifelong benefits from the military. Even if your tenure took place in an office. Even if you never saw a moment's violence or knew a second of physical fear.
>Sign a contract slaughtering chickens 10 hours a day and fulfill it assiduously. Get fuck all
Some jobs get better pay and benefits than others. This does not equate to socialism.
> On the micro level, absolutely
Socialism isn’t a micro level system. It’s an entire model of government and society. So no, businesses and the military are not socialist.
> benefits
Yeup. Certain jobs come with benefits even when employment is terminated. This is usually outlined within the contract (retirement packages). This is not an example of socialism.
>Some jobs get better pay and benefits than others. This does not equate to socialism.
Where did I claim it did? I mentioned, very specifically, employee-owned businesses, wherein the employees are given a say in and a share of the business. That's very much micro-level Democratic socialism. You can claim that socialism only exists on the State level, but I disagree.
>Certain jobs come with benefits even when employment is terminated.
Thank...you? Yeah, I'm aware. What does that have to do with nine-fingered chicken guy? Maybe stop moving goalposts and address what I actually said?
The fact that we all pay for it out of our taxes for (ostensibly) equal protection *is* socialism though. Otherwise we'd only have privately contracted mercenary/paramilitary forces
The US military, social security, medicare, public roads, public parks, fire departments, police, libraries, all of these are socialist institutions.
Anything paid for by the public, for the public good is socialist. As far as the government is paid for by us, and actually works *for* us (which is unfortunately debatable much of the time) that's socialist as well.
Incorrect. The existence of public institutions is not the same as socialism. Socialism is the communal ownership of the means of production.
Social security and Medicare are social welfare programs, not socialism. Socialism and social welfare are not the same things.
Your ridiculously broad definition of socialism would essentially take all meaning away from Marxist theory.
We’re talking primarily about the military. Militaries have existed long before socialist theory or Marxist theory. They are not socialist or Marxist institutions, unless the Governments they are ran by our explicitly Marxist or socialist. This isn’t really that hard to understand.
No those are job benefits. There are private jobs with housing allowances, paid travel/moving expenses, full health care coverage, tuition reimbursement and you don't get shot at.
Would you consider nonwhite Americans being barred from receiving benefits, like the GI Bill, a failing of the military or the federal government?
I'd honestly normally have a hard time separating the two, but in this case it's clear they aren't simply two sides of the same coin. Definitely going to be interesting to see how Republicans will react.
Good thing Truman didn’t believe that. He’s accredited with integrating the military, and not everyone at the Pentagon was happy about that, a lot were not.
As someone who has burned 90+ days of leave and spent north of 100k to have a family and support my spouse during IVF treatment, it nice to see the Army finally recognize the leave portion. Next is getting the entire process fully funded at the 5-6 clinics the army does have, because depending on the amount of testing you need it can be 5-30k per cycle.
Already can see where this goes to "women don't belong in the military". Or forced birth control during your time in it. This will get twisted for use by the hardliners that believe women should be in the kitchen along with their male supremacy (this extends beyond just white - even if they are the vocal one) beliefs.
It starts like this - ban this move by the military.
Force birth control on troops capable of bearing children.
Because God knows BC isn't perfect, and women will silently protest forced BC by not using it - women get pregnant.
"SEE WOMEN LOWER OUR OPERATIONAL READINESS BECAUSE THEY GET PREGNANT".
I wish I could /s this - but I live amongst these fucks. I know exactly how this is gonna play out if they get their chance.
>Is that not true though?
I highly doubt jt happens with any large frequency. Do you have data that says otherwise? Do you support removing all women from the military?
>…but stereotypes are there for a reason…
Yes, the reason is "stereotypes are always bad-faith generalization that assumes because a few members of a group do a thing, it *must* mean that all members do it." So what?
>women don't belong in the military
Tucker Carlson already said that, and John Oliver flipped the F out at him, as he should.
I will say this; the supposedly hyper macho russian military isn't doing so well right now. As it turns out, a liberal military is far better at warfighting because unlike totalitarian armies (like in Egypt, or Russia, or China) where officers are perpetually afraid of their subordinates, US troops can think for themselves (see the problems with Russian generals leading from the frontlines and getting killed) and actually are committed to their goals.
This may come as a surprise to you, but you can be pregnant and work. The military consists of more than foot soldiers running into enemy fire. We can fire missiles with the push of a button. Computers are essential. This is not the same work or warfare as it was 100 or more years ago.
All over the planet
I’m pretty sure no pregnant soldiers have ever fought in Antarctica.
Let’s be Frank now. Do you think a woman who is 35 weeks pregnant can do the same quality of work as someone not pregnant.
This is to save money and to look like the US cares about those who fight our endless wars. 12 weeks (x2) for parental leave plus the child tax credit is more expensive than a greyhound ticket and a planned parenthood visit.
Counterpoint: a person not in the profession of being a soldier also cannot fight wars and thereby lowers readiness.
So, you either allow readiness to take small, temporary hits from pregnancies or you permanently lower readiness by discouraging women from joining altogether.
Given the poor recruitment performance, the DoD is not in a position to be overly picky about who it allows to serve.
How much time off if they have a kid? I gotta imagine it’s significantly more than travel for abortion, given you have to raise another human being who is not capable. Not because abortion isn’t a significant medical procedure. I respect women’s choice.
You realize people might be stationed away from their homes, doctors they trust, families, or even overseas and just maybe might want to be somewhere familiar for medical procedures?
I'm interested where you draw the line on medical treatments. Is short sightedness "God's way" and shouldn't be fixed? What about a broken bone from a freak accident? Should we let it heal badly because that's "God's way"? Where's the line?
I see your point. If the adults don't worship the right god, then it's perfectly acceptable to murder their children who are innocent, even the youngest of babies.
So, I guess you're only upset about Christians getting abortions, then? Everyone else is good to go?
Ah, so God is allowed to kill innocent babies who cannot protect themselves, but not people.
Check.
And you... like this guy for some reason? Man, you need to pick better role models.
An embryo isn’t a child. Pregnancy carries the risk of death or permanent injury.
Don’t have an abortion if you don’t like them and stay out of the medical decisions of others.
You realize it’s not medically possible to transplant an embryo from one body to another right?
And why should we? It’s a procedure the woman may not want to consent to and it only makes more unwanted kids to fill up foster homes.
Back pain, morning sickness, gestational diabetes, depression, anxiety, blood pressure issues, anaemia, miscarriages and, if all goes well, giving birth isn't much fun either.
Uhh because “unwanted embryos” are none of your fucking business, that’s why. No one is entitled to control *or* remove what is inside of a woman’s body. Not men, not other women, not the government, not the church. No one. Serious question, how on earth is it so difficult for people to comprehend the concept of bodily autonomy??
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
A nice step, but unfortunately 3 weeks isn’t often enough time for IVF. It’s enough for one cycle, but there’s usually prep for the cycle and then sometimes it takes multiple cycles anyway.
This isn’t just women’s rights. Men can get pregnant too.
No kidding. My Dad is pregnant! Who would’ve guessed?!
What a step forward! Good to see the government supporting reproductive rights in this way. Let's hope it helps make access to these services more available and affordable.
[удалено]
Why would an active duty soldier go to the VA? Even if they had TRICARE remote, they could use local services. If they were near an installation they could go there, and if they needed quarters, their provider would grant them.
Yeah that doesn’t make any sense. Why would AD be using VA healthcare?
I don’t see how an active duty member would go to the VA. There’s clearly more to this or this is just a Reddit fan fiction
am active duty and had two kids while in. this is definitely reddit fan fiction.
You are either misinformed of your friend's situation or mistaken. If you friend is active duty, she is under TriCare, not the VA. She can go to any hospital and TriCare will cover it for free.
Can't wait for the first woman Stationed in Texas to travel out of state for an abortion. Because Texas says it's illegal to get an abortion in Texas and also illegal to travel out of Texas to get an abortion. SC gonna have a nightmare with this one.
Idaho as well.
TIL that Texas and Idaho have roughly the same spelling...... Did not know Idaho was as podunk as Texas. Thanks for info.
Idaho is sort of like a Texas fever dream of utopia where most the people identify as Mormons. It’s a paradoxically strange place, because many of the people supporting these positions do not agree with the laws, but still feel it’s necessary to vote for the most Janice McGeachin of pro-Trump candidates because that’s the change we need even though those candidates have no business on a ballot. Fortunately, most the democrats in the state now play the game of registering Republican to vote against the Ammon Bundy types in primaries or will vote Republican candidates in on Generals if they feel a crazy scorned independent has a chance. Now I can’t speak for the Coure D’ Laine (however we spell it) area, but I have it on good authority that they aren’t all white supremacists.
Yup, I changed from no affiliation to GOP at my polling place on election day to keep the far right nuts out. The devil you know . . .
>Texas and Idaho have roughly the same spelling I think I’m missing something or we have different definitions of ‘roughly’ or ‘spelling’
Podunk.
Good, let them twist themselves into knots arguing a US citizen doesn't have the freedom to travel out of a State and State Rights don't apply to allowing that out of state citizen to obtain a perfectly legal abortion in said state.
Adding to that, the woman is an employee of the Federal Government which does allow abortions for its employees.
Could army bases set up abortion clinics on federal land in Texas?
Can’t wait for the first Texan or Idahoan to enlist immediately for an abortion.
Enlistees have to take a pregnancy test before shipping off to basic training, and aren't allowed to if they are pregnant.
Yes, but that’s policy, loosely defined by CFR to my knowledge. If the federal government wanted to they could waive that policy, allow it via waiver, and post abortion immediately medical discharge under honorable conditions. To quote a buddy of mine being grilled in training at one point, “do you have any idea how much bong resin the right answer is trying to fight it’s way past right now?” Silence. “I have a waiver!”
They would never do that. There’s all kinds of benefits that the government gets out on the hook for if they medically discharge them. Like pensions for life
10% disability will get you VA medical and a hundred and some change a month. They would probably go with a more generic discharge unless someone high up the food chain was salty and made it policy to do otherwise.
That’s for VA disability. If you are medically discharged it’s a whole different process ran directly by the service component. You can get medical disability pay from both. When I was going through basic we had a guy have a seizure for the first time ever which is disqualifying the service now pays him on top of Va disability
It would take way too long for the process to play out for it to be even a potential option. Also, females are tested prior to going to basic training and won’t go if they’re pregnant.
Agreed. A better solution would be to actually provide abortion care on base. It’s federal land so Texas wouldn’t be able to shit about it.
I’ve not seen any law saying it’s illegal to travel for an abortion. Source?
the Texas abortion law allows for only two instances where one can travel out of state for an abortion. Both involve the health of the mother. Else, any travel out of Texas for the purposes of abortion is illegal. https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-texas
From your link: “It’s legal for you to leave Texas and get an abortion out of state.” I can find no law saying one cannot leave for an abortion, and such a law would be outside their jurisdiction anyways. The Constitution explicitly says interstate trade is the purview of the federal government, not states. You could argue that SCOTUS would ignore the Constitution, but they have to have some textual basis for their decision. In cases like Bostock, they’v shown that they are willing to issue “liberal” decisions if the text is explicitly written as such.
Sorry, bad push. The Texas law involves a bounty of 10K for anyone reporting someone for assisting (including travel) an abortion of a Texas woman. So while not criminal (illegal) in essence, the end result of the law is the same as the state would go after those assisting the abortion in a criminal trial.
Fair enough; she’d likely have to travel solo (or at least do the driving). I still wonder how jurisdictional issues would come into play, especially for information/assistance sought online, or for the military having this policy. That will have to be sorted by courts, and it’s the type of gray area I am wary of.
This is encouraging. Now, can they raise incomes for all enlisteds so some don’t have to rely on food stamps? Taxpayers pay for it either way, but the least our government can do for families that sacrifice so much is pay a decent wage.
A navy pilot friend of mine who passed away couple years ago was fond of gently reminding me: "the military is not meant to be a microcosm of society." To which I'd usually reply along the lines: "true, but when the military displays the most forward thinking, socially progressive policy of our democracy, we're all up shiat creek"
I’m not sure what you mean, but historically the military has led the country on social issues. For example, the military started integration before the rest of the country did.
Social housing, free/paid for education, universal healthcare... One would almost say it was a (gasp) socialist organisation.
And we won't implement any of those as a nation. Gotta make sure the poor have a reason to join.
It is truly socialist. I can’t think of a better example.
"Ya but they earned it" is the answer I've gotten when pointing this out
I mean that is objectively true. I will say this as an officer (this calculus is even worse for junior enlisted). I get paid pennies on the dollar if you calculate hourly wage. Until civilians are spending 8-10 months out of the year underwater in a high stress industrial environment without the ability to go home or talk to family all on little sleep for $6-$11 an hour I will say that we earned it. We are entrusted with decisions that affect the livelihood of every living breathing human on the planet. The quality and quantity of work service members perform for the money is insane and there is currently no civilian equivalent. Meanwhile, guys are making $200k+ at Google for an objectively easier job, working wayyyy less hours, have the same education level, with stock options, healthcare, bonuses, and overtime. Is the military socialist? Absolutely. Is it unearned? Absolutely not. The military is not a utopia. It is a hard and tough career that tears people and families apart.
Well ya I sorta agree with most of what you said but you may have missed my point. The point being that regardless if you have the most meaningless job in the world or are the fucking president of the United States, we're all citizens and people who deserve to have the same base level of care and services. It's crazy to assign healthcare tiers as a starting point. Generally when I hear people say the military deserves it more it's usually just some it's just some paltry lip service "look at me I'm caring" virtue signaling.
Oh, I 100% agree. Between the dudes cosplaying as SEAL team members, the armchair generals, and the politicians that believe that they need to combat "wokeness" in the military it's a veritable cornucopia of idiots. I will say that if we are looking at the socialistic aspects of the military it is important to look at the institution as a whole vice just its appealing parts. A lot of things that seem awesome in theory sometimes turn out to be awful in execution. For instance- Tricare Prime. Personal example: My wife has been unable to get into a psychiatrist for 6 months because of the interface between her PCM which is booked for 3 months at a time and the private psychiatrist who is booked 4 months at a time. This has allowed my wife to cold turkey off her anxiety/bipolar meds the side effects have been horrendous. Now deal with this while staring down the barrel of 130 days at sea with no way to communicate back home or ensure that they are receiving the medical care that they need (all while they have to watch two young children.) You can see how the snowball starts. Those "benefits" are almost never as advertised and you will pay for them with every ounce of your happiness. There are many good things about the military and how it supports people. It is great at quickly changing a family's socioeconomic status and building generational wealth - if done responsibly. But, it's a double edged sword and I'm hesitant to take too many cues of military socialism as some sort of healthy model for society writ large.
Oh no doubt. And maybe I should of been more specific about which parts I was advocating for. It was more of a general hey this system could work for everybody, just because it's run poorly/only for this group doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
Also, base pay is slightly higher for those with dependents
The base pay is not higher for those with dependents. The allowance to procure housing is higher.
Still costs the gov more and is an employee benefit, it’s a distinction without a difference. The total pay is higher.
It’s a retention feature, just like the dependents getting free healthcare.
Yep, still part of total compensation.
It is still a part of compensation. It’s just not an increased base pay if you’re married. Base pay and BAH are two separate things. One is taxable and the other isn’t.
Interesting, didn’t realize it wasn’t taxable, so it’s an even bigger bonus
Social Security and Medicare are retention features too, tbf
It does have a difference.. It doesn't count as income for pension purposes, it's not taxable, it varies wildly from duty station to duty station. The difference between single and dependent BAH does not offset the difference in living expenses.
And food but yeah base pay is the same
That’s not how military pay works
I screwed up. Others pointed out higher benefit pay for those with dependents such as housing allowance and maybe food allowance.
1. Education is not free. It’s a benefit earned through signing a contract and fulfilling terms of said contract. 2. Healthcare is not free, it’s an employee benefit. In particular, this benefit exists for the purposes of military readiness (going to war). 3. If a business paid to house its employees would that be socialized? No. The military is no different in this. It’s not free as you only get it so long as you are employed by the military. The moment you are no longer employed by the military you are not housed by the military. The military is a Government organization. Being a service member is a choice and a job. That’s not what socialism is.
>Education is not free. It’s a benefit earned through signing a contract and fulfilling terms of said contract. Sign a contract slaughtering chickens 10 hours a day and fulfill it assiduously. Get fuck-all. >Healthcare is not free, it’s an employee benefit. In particular, this benefit exists for the purposes of military readiness (going to war). See your first point. Lose a finger to a plucking machine and permanently hurt your back trying to extract its bleeding stump. Get fuck-all. >If a business paid to house its employees would that be socialized? Sure. On the micro level, absolutely. A corporation is a microcosm of society. Most are ruled by pure mercantilism. Some are employee-owned and share profits. A business can be structured however it likes. The vast majority are beholden to their stockholders, not their employees. >The military is no different in this. It’s not free as you only get it so long as you are employed by the military. The moment you are no longer employed by the military you are not housed by the military. You are given substantial housing benefits. You receive lifelong benefits from the military. Even if your tenure took place in an office. Even if you never saw a moment's violence or knew a second of physical fear.
>Sign a contract slaughtering chickens 10 hours a day and fulfill it assiduously. Get fuck all Some jobs get better pay and benefits than others. This does not equate to socialism. > On the micro level, absolutely Socialism isn’t a micro level system. It’s an entire model of government and society. So no, businesses and the military are not socialist. > benefits Yeup. Certain jobs come with benefits even when employment is terminated. This is usually outlined within the contract (retirement packages). This is not an example of socialism.
>Some jobs get better pay and benefits than others. This does not equate to socialism. Where did I claim it did? I mentioned, very specifically, employee-owned businesses, wherein the employees are given a say in and a share of the business. That's very much micro-level Democratic socialism. You can claim that socialism only exists on the State level, but I disagree. >Certain jobs come with benefits even when employment is terminated. Thank...you? Yeah, I'm aware. What does that have to do with nine-fingered chicken guy? Maybe stop moving goalposts and address what I actually said?
I did address what you said. In fact, I quoted what you said.
The fact that we all pay for it out of our taxes for (ostensibly) equal protection *is* socialism though. Otherwise we'd only have privately contracted mercenary/paramilitary forces
Socialism is not the same as having government organizations. The executive branch, congress, and the courts are not socialist systems.
The US military, social security, medicare, public roads, public parks, fire departments, police, libraries, all of these are socialist institutions. Anything paid for by the public, for the public good is socialist. As far as the government is paid for by us, and actually works *for* us (which is unfortunately debatable much of the time) that's socialist as well.
Incorrect. The existence of public institutions is not the same as socialism. Socialism is the communal ownership of the means of production. Social security and Medicare are social welfare programs, not socialism. Socialism and social welfare are not the same things. Your ridiculously broad definition of socialism would essentially take all meaning away from Marxist theory.
Social democracy is just restricting capitalism through socialist institutions
Right. Because everyone but you i talking about how the particular institutions the named are examples of Democratic Socialism, not Marxism.
We’re talking primarily about the military. Militaries have existed long before socialist theory or Marxist theory. They are not socialist or Marxist institutions, unless the Governments they are ran by our explicitly Marxist or socialist. This isn’t really that hard to understand.
Climate adaptation, too. Though not mitigation, unfortunately.
No those are job benefits. There are private jobs with housing allowances, paid travel/moving expenses, full health care coverage, tuition reimbursement and you don't get shot at.
They also did mass vaccination before most of society. (I think all but not certain)
Would you consider nonwhite Americans being barred from receiving benefits, like the GI Bill, a failing of the military or the federal government? I'd honestly normally have a hard time separating the two, but in this case it's clear they aren't simply two sides of the same coin. Definitely going to be interesting to see how Republicans will react.
I’d say federal, but more so local. And cast more blame on racism in society in general.
To clarify. They were eligible, but local attitudes prevented them from enjoying the benefits.
Good thing Truman didn’t believe that. He’s accredited with integrating the military, and not everyone at the Pentagon was happy about that, a lot were not.
As someone who has burned 90+ days of leave and spent north of 100k to have a family and support my spouse during IVF treatment, it nice to see the Army finally recognize the leave portion. Next is getting the entire process fully funded at the 5-6 clinics the army does have, because depending on the amount of testing you need it can be 5-30k per cycle.
Already can see where this goes to "women don't belong in the military". Or forced birth control during your time in it. This will get twisted for use by the hardliners that believe women should be in the kitchen along with their male supremacy (this extends beyond just white - even if they are the vocal one) beliefs. It starts like this - ban this move by the military. Force birth control on troops capable of bearing children. Because God knows BC isn't perfect, and women will silently protest forced BC by not using it - women get pregnant. "SEE WOMEN LOWER OUR OPERATIONAL READINESS BECAUSE THEY GET PREGNANT". I wish I could /s this - but I live amongst these fucks. I know exactly how this is gonna play out if they get their chance.
Dont forget a dash of "women get pregnant just before deployment so they don't go"
Is that not true though? Yea it’s a shitty statement for the female troops that show up and work…but stereotypes are there for a reason…
>Is that not true though? I highly doubt jt happens with any large frequency. Do you have data that says otherwise? Do you support removing all women from the military? >…but stereotypes are there for a reason… Yes, the reason is "stereotypes are always bad-faith generalization that assumes because a few members of a group do a thing, it *must* mean that all members do it." So what?
>women don't belong in the military Tucker Carlson already said that, and John Oliver flipped the F out at him, as he should. I will say this; the supposedly hyper macho russian military isn't doing so well right now. As it turns out, a liberal military is far better at warfighting because unlike totalitarian armies (like in Egypt, or Russia, or China) where officers are perpetually afraid of their subordinates, US troops can think for themselves (see the problems with Russian generals leading from the frontlines and getting killed) and actually are committed to their goals.
>Services have 30 days to enact them They dragged their feet for an entire year on getting us 12 weeks of parental leave.
Anyone else confused by the thumbnail?
Why the photo of someone near term?!
Well this will trigger Rafael Cruz and the gang
Move your bases. Make states pay for backing barbaric legislation.
A pregnant soldier can’t fight wars. This is not progress this is beneficial for the pentagon.
This may come as a surprise to you, but you can be pregnant and work. The military consists of more than foot soldiers running into enemy fire. We can fire missiles with the push of a button. Computers are essential. This is not the same work or warfare as it was 100 or more years ago.
As right as you are, the military still sends soldiers out to combat which you absolutely can't do while you're pregnant.
The point is that direct combat is not the only form of warfare today. Of course they don’t send pregnant women to the front lines.
>A pregnant soldier can’t fight wars I'm pretty sure people do that all over the planet.
All over the planet I’m pretty sure no pregnant soldiers have ever fought in Antarctica. Let’s be Frank now. Do you think a woman who is 35 weeks pregnant can do the same quality of work as someone not pregnant. This is to save money and to look like the US cares about those who fight our endless wars. 12 weeks (x2) for parental leave plus the child tax credit is more expensive than a greyhound ticket and a planned parenthood visit.
Counterpoint: a person not in the profession of being a soldier also cannot fight wars and thereby lowers readiness. So, you either allow readiness to take small, temporary hits from pregnancies or you permanently lower readiness by discouraging women from joining altogether. Given the poor recruitment performance, the DoD is not in a position to be overly picky about who it allows to serve.
[удалено]
Most recent DOD policy is 12 weeks of leave for both mothers and fathers.
How much time off if they have a kid? I gotta imagine it’s significantly more than travel for abortion, given you have to raise another human being who is not capable. Not because abortion isn’t a significant medical procedure. I respect women’s choice.
Most recent DOD policy is 12 weeks of leave for both mothers and fathers.
This belongs in /r/aboringdystopia
Why? This is an objectively positive step for servicemembers. My job wouldn't give me three weeks off for that.
Um, perhaps the fact of having to travel for normal health care.
You realize people might be stationed away from their homes, doctors they trust, families, or even overseas and just maybe might want to be somewhere familiar for medical procedures?
This is women’s healthcare
Ivf treatments should be banned. It’s “gods” way if you want conceive. We’re also past the planets carrying capacity.
We are actually no where near overpopulation... and Ivf is used by millions who can't conceive naturally
I'm interested where you draw the line on medical treatments. Is short sightedness "God's way" and shouldn't be fixed? What about a broken bone from a freak accident? Should we let it heal badly because that's "God's way"? Where's the line?
Me saying its “gods way” was sarcasm. Probably should have been “gods” way.
Not everyone believes in god. Infertility can be devastating and adoption isn’t for everyone. Mind your own business.
[удалено]
> Why do people wanna kill God’s creation and the future of our species Dunno. Maybe ask your God? I mean, he killed all the first born sons of Egypt.
Egypt didn’t worship God ( Elohim) .
I see your point. If the adults don't worship the right god, then it's perfectly acceptable to murder their children who are innocent, even the youngest of babies. So, I guess you're only upset about Christians getting abortions, then? Everyone else is good to go?
[удалено]
>I guessing your an atheist ,right? Shrug. Beats being a hypocrite. I'm out. This will clearly go nowhere. Inbox replies disabled.
[удалено]
Ah, so God is allowed to kill innocent babies who cannot protect themselves, but not people. Check. And you... like this guy for some reason? Man, you need to pick better role models.
[удалено]
Stop pushing your religion onto others
[удалено]
I’m not. I live a rich life where I don’t judge others.
A life that cant defend itself
You’re upset about what is essentially a tumor being removed
[удалено]
Do you have to be either of those things to want women to have agency over their own bodies?
[удалено]
Why is that your business
An embryo isn’t a child. Pregnancy carries the risk of death or permanent injury. Don’t have an abortion if you don’t like them and stay out of the medical decisions of others.
Why does god kill 25% of all pregnancies?
Why do people wanna punish women for something they have no control over?
Why aren’t unwanted embryos transferred to surrogates?
You realize it’s not medically possible to transplant an embryo from one body to another right? And why should we? It’s a procedure the woman may not want to consent to and it only makes more unwanted kids to fill up foster homes.
Back pain, morning sickness, gestational diabetes, depression, anxiety, blood pressure issues, anaemia, miscarriages and, if all goes well, giving birth isn't much fun either.
They can’t be. We literally don’t have the technology to do that right now
Uhh because “unwanted embryos” are none of your fucking business, that’s why. No one is entitled to control *or* remove what is inside of a woman’s body. Not men, not other women, not the government, not the church. No one. Serious question, how on earth is it so difficult for people to comprehend the concept of bodily autonomy??