Still seeking quality

[Galo]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I think the AF core values are spilling over into the army. What's sad about the next paragraph is that these whoevers get a ton more money than the army surgeons, and are not subject to deployment, rank BS, and well, what type of quality can you expect if the most stringent requirement is having 3 months of experience as a surgeon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Spectrum Healthcare Resources (SHR) has an opportunity for a Full-Time General Surgeon to work at Womack Army Medical Center at Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina. As a General Surgeon with SHR, you will enjoy a Supportive Team Environment where you will find yourself and your skills appreciated, respected and valued. In addition, you will enjoy: • 100% Malpractice Coverage • Excellent Pay • Outstanding Patient Population As a leading organization in the Military Health System, SHR provides medical professionals and management services to over 100 Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) and Veteran’s Affairs (VA) facilities throughout the United States. SHR is constantly on the lookout for qualified professionals to assist the military in their mission of providing the highest quality healthcare to active duty personnel, their families and military retirees. Qualified candidates must have ANY active state license, be B/C or B/E in General Surgery, have at least 3 months experience in the last year, have an active DEA and be certified in both BLS and ACLS

People the military medicine sky is falling!

 

[IgD]

A while back I read a paper written by a consulting firm hired by the government to analyze military pay. As I recall, over 50% of military pay is received post-retirement in the form of a pension, medical care and other benefits. People who are looking for instant gratification don't like the existing system. The paper recommended that the military have a 401k style retirement system instead of an all or nothing pension system. This would reduce post-retirement expenses. The other recommendation was to use the savings to pay personnel more up front.

I would definetly be in favor of both those recommendations. I can manage my money far better than the military pension system.

 

[orbitsurgMD]

A while back I read a paper written by a consulting firm hired by the government to analyze military pay. As I recall, over 50% of military pay is received post-retirement in the form of a pension, medical care and other benefits. People who are looking for instant gratification don't like the existing system. The paper recommended that the military have a 401k style retirement system instead of an all or nothing pension system. This would reduce post-retirement expenses. The other recommendation was to use the savings to pay personnel more up front.

I would definetly be in favor of both those recommendations. I can manage my money far better than the military pension system.

The 401K "system" you speak of, which in most civilian employment has replaced defined-benefit pension plans, has proven to be sadly insufficient for a source of retirement savings for most American workers. We are certainly headed for a real crisis of inadequate retirement income for a large niumber of Americans in the coming decades, more of which we will read about as time passes. 401Ks were supposed to be a supplement to retirement pension benefits, not a replacement, but U.S. businesses have treated their creation as a license to abandon pension plans. This has effectively been a subsidy to many employers who once had to treat pension plan contributions as part of their payroll obligations (and there were some spectacular cases where companies deferred pension plan contributions then went bankrupt, leaving their long-term employees with no pension).

Be careful what you wish for. At least your military pension is guaranteed by an entity that has the lawful authority to print money. That is a kind of security that you cannot buy from any annuity or investment company.

 

[Mirror Form]

The 401K "system" you speak of, which in most civilian employment has replaced defined-benefit pension plans, has proven to be sadly insufficient for a source of retirement savings for most American workers. We are certainly headed for a real crisis of inadequate retirement income for a large niumber of Americans in the coming decades, more of which we will read about as time passes. 401Ks were supposed to be a supplement to retirement pension benefits, not a replacement, but U.S. businesses have treated their creation as a license to abandon pension plans. This has effectively been a subsidy to many employers who once had to treat pension plan contributions as part of their payroll obligations (and there were some spectacular cases where companies deferred pension plan contributions then went bankrupt, leaving their long-term employees with no pension).

You make it sound like the companies are to blame, but unfortunately pensions just aren't an economically feasible thing for today's lifespan. For example, how is GM supposed to compete with honda, when for every car GM sells about 2,000 bucks goes toward people who've retired?

No company except the US government is going to be offering pensions in the near future. So if you want to have a good retirement, better start using that 401k as more than just a supplement.

 

[R-Me-Doc]

You make it sound like the companies are to blame, but unfortunately pensions just aren't an economically feasible thing for today's lifespan. For example, how is GM supposed to compete with honda, when for every car GM sells about 2,000 bucks goes toward people who've retired?

No company except the US government is going to be offering pensions in the near future. So if you want to have a good retirement, better start using that 401k as more than just a supplement.

So-o-o-o-o-o-o, do you mean to say that Japanese auto workers never retire? Last time I looked, Japan actually had a longer expected lifespan than did the US, so there must be at least as great a potential strain on the public and private Japanese systems as on ours, no?

Regardless, I agree with your overall comment that pensions aren't economically feasible, but it's not just due to the lifespan issue; it's also due to the fact that people expect to live to be 85 but still retire in their 50's and then enjoy the same level of living that they had while working. THAT's the real problem, and until there is a major societal attitude adjustment that includes 1) increased savings while working, 2) retirement delayed likely into your 70's and 3) acceptance of a lowered material standard of living, there will be problems. Of course, this brings on it's own conundrums (i.e., if people aren't retiring until they're in their 70s, you can end up with a big unemployment problem in younger age groups . . . ).

As for the other poster's comment about the government being able to print money, yeah, they can, but the more they print the more worthless it becomes. And the current pension system for the military can't survive anyway. Consider the most common scenario: join the military at age 18, stick around for 20 years and at age 38 start collecting a pension FOR THE NEXT 40 to 50 YEARS . . . . Does that sound sustainable? The military is going to either have to go to 401Ks or defer pension payments until age 65 or something like that.

Well, never said I have all the answers , and since I happily cut out long before 20, I don't really care.

X-R-M-D (happily celebrating my 17th day of official freedom -- got my "Honorable Discharge" certificate (suitable for framing!) in the mail last week!