Politics 2017 Part 3

[Chilloutman]

I know, not that trustworthy for some folks but still:

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Two thought experiments to try: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-haters-please-do-these-2-thought.html

[BruceVC]

Two thought experiments to try: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-haters-please-do-these-2-thought.html

I dont hate Trump, its counterintuitive to hate a new president of any country. Objective criticism is fine, I have seen some very good decisions by the Trump presidency around foreign policy but he has made some questionable domestic political decisions. But its far too early to write him off

 

I can answer the link though, I'm confused by the point the link is making? Trump is neither of those options, I can see  positive in both options  but neither is ideal for me. But I dont get the spurious comparisons or what is the expected outcome of answering the questions?

[Malcador]

Dubious depiction of Trump as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Two thought experiments to try: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-haters-please-do-these-2-thought.html

I dont hate Trump, its counterintuitive to hate a new president of any country. Objective criticism is fine, I have seen some very good decisions by the Trump presidency around foreign policy but he has made some questionable domestic political decisions. But its far too early to write him off

 

I can answer the link though, I'm confused by the point the link is making? Trump is neither of those options, I can see  positive in both options  but neither is ideal for me. But I dont get the spurious comparisons or what is the expected outcome of answering the questions?

 

It's just for Trump haters to see if they'd hate him just as much if one or the other alternative is true. It's meant to point out to people that may be the reason they state for hating Trump isn't the real reason.

 

More on the Milo controversy: http://thedeclination.com/the-media-strikes-back-milo-lies-and-videotape/

 

It's clear what he said though, why defend him? https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/20/some-breitbart-employees-set-to-walk-if-milo-not-fired/

[BruceVC]

 

 

Two thought experiments to try: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-haters-please-do-these-2-thought.html

I dont hate Trump, its counterintuitive to hate a new president of any country. Objective criticism is fine, I have seen some very good decisions by the Trump presidency around foreign policy but he has made some questionable domestic political decisions. But its far too early to write him off

 

I can answer the link though, I'm confused by the point the link is making? Trump is neither of those options, I can see  positive in both options  but neither is ideal for me. But I dont get the spurious comparisons or what is the expected outcome of answering the questions?

 

It's just for Trump haters to see if they'd hate him just as much if one or the other alternative is true. It's meant to point out to people that may be the reason they state for hating Trump isn't the real reason.

 

More on the Milo controversy: http://thedeclination.com/the-media-strikes-back-milo-lies-and-videotape/

 

It's clear what he said though, why defend him? https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/20/some-breitbart-employees-set-to-walk-if-milo-not-fired/

 

Okay I see what you mean by the Trump questions

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer?

 

It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it.

 

 

I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way.

 

I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives!

(The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.)

 

*Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that!

 

I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing.

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what is nasty about pointing out that you're quibbling over a tiny fraction of the money you earn while walking from your cubicle to the water cooler, or that SRS has nothing in common with nose jobs and boob jobs. Unless, of course, boob jobs have become a legitimate and strictly regulated way to treat conditions that pose a danger to one's mental health since the last time I checked.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer?

 

It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it.

 

 

I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way.

 

I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives!

(The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.)

 

*Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that!

 

I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing.

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what is nasty about pointing out that you're quibbling over a tiny fraction of the money you earn while walking from your cubicle to the water cooler, or that SRS has nothing in common with nose jobs and boob jobs. Unless, of course, boob jobs have become a legitimate and strictly regulated way to treat conditions that pose a danger to one's mental health since the last time I checked.

 

Still? We don't agree. To continue that conversation we're going to have to dive into the particulars of whether or not Gender Reassignment Surgery is a valid treatment or not, which all leads right back to the thing I KNOW we are not going to find common ground on: who gets to pay for it. It's a long, OT conversation and I'm disinclined to dive into it.

 

So let's agree to disagree.

[Guard Dog]

I have a question. So you say state funded health care should cover ONLY the most necessary operations. Now, that means you will have to decide which operations are necessary. That then of course means you will get to decide which operations the poorest will be able to afford.

 

So instead of working those extra 0.78 seconds (thanks for that number), you instead spend hours dictating what treatment the poor are allowed to get? Seems both logical and fair.

Ben you are missing over half the conversation. Alum & I were discussion a single benefit offered in the employer provided health insurance for public sector employees in California. It's offered as part of their employment compensation benefits. It is not "State Healthcare" in the way you are thinking.

 

My point was whether it is a waste of tax money (that is obviously needed elsewhere, like the Oroville Dam) to offer what might be considered elective surgery on the public dime. Alum's point was that it wasn't really elective surgery and considering the number of state employees it is a benefit that will be used so infrequently as to not be worth getting in a twist over. What you are talking about here is a whole other subject.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Speaking of healthcare, this will determine the course of the American politics over the next few years more than anything: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22/morici-republicans-coming-short-obamacare-repeal-replace/

[BruceVC]

 

I have a question. So you say state funded health care should cover ONLY the most necessary operations. Now, that means you will have to decide which operations are necessary. That then of course means you will get to decide which operations the poorest will be able to afford.

 

So instead of working those extra 0.78 seconds (thanks for that number), you instead spend hours dictating what treatment the poor are allowed to get? Seems both logical and fair.

Ben you are missing over half the conversation. Alum & I were discussion a single benefit offered in the employer provided health insurance for public sector employees in California. It's offered as part of their employment compensation benefits. It is not "State Healthcare" in the way you are thinking.

 

My point was whether it is a waste of tax money (that is obviously needed elsewhere, like the Oroville Dam) to offer what might be considered elective surgery on the public dime. Alum's point was that it wasn't really elective surgery and considering the number of state employees it is a benefit that will be used so infrequently as to not be worth getting in a twist over. What you are talking about here is a whole other subject.

 

GD I haven't been following what you and alum have been saying, I just read the last paragraph or so.

 

I want to share my opinion on this, firstly I can completely understand why you may think that Gender Reassignment Surgery is not a dire medical condition. Many people share you view so you skepticism is not unusual

 

But imagine this, I want to give you one of my famous  " BruceVC  analogies " 

 

When you wake up in the morning and have a shave you look yourself in the mirror. People our age may think "damn I look like my dad more and more "   but end of the day what we see in the reflection is ourselves...older....wiser...but there is no confusion on what we see. We see ourselves as men and despite any problems we have experienced we have never questioned our gender

 

But imagine your entire life when you look at that reflection you always feel something is wrong with the image, how can you be a man when you are women? You think you a  women, emotionally and mentally yet the mirror lies with what you are

 

So for some cases of Gender Reassignment Surgery  the surgery is critical for mental balance, it may not be always life and death like some cancerous growth but the constant mental confusion must be a terrible burden to bear

 

I know this is probably difficult to empathize with but thats the argument for procedures like this being part of any medical aid system and I support that 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way.

 

I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives!

(The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.)

 

*Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that!

I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing.

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what is nasty about pointing out that you're quibbling over a tiny fraction of the money you earn while walking from your cubicle to the water cooler, or that SRS has nothing in common with nose jobs and boob jobs. Unless, of course, boob jobs have become a legitimate and strictly regulated way to treat conditions that pose a danger to one's mental health since the last time I checked.

 

Still? We don't agree. To continue that conversation we're going to have to dive into the particulars of whether or not Gender Reassignment Surgery is a valid treatment or not, which all leads right back to the thing I KNOW we are not going to find common ground on: who gets to pay for it. It's a long, OT conversation and I'm disinclined to dive into it.

 

So let's agree to disagree.

 

 

You were characterizing my post as "nastiness that shouldn't be justified with a response (but I am feeling combative today)". I'm not calling you to debate the issue, I'm asking you to explain why you feel that challenging your viewpoint via a quick and extremely rough cost-benefit estimate based on the prevailing opinion among mental health professionals should be viewed as "nasty" and "not deserving a response".

[Blarghagh]

I'm with alum on this. I take it personally sometimes when people think they know better than trained researchers and mental health professionals. I don't know what gender dysporia feels like, but I know that I ended up almost killing myself several times failing to follow futile advices of 'it's all in your head, you just need to think positively and be happy' when the chemical effects of long term depression on my brain had long rendered me completely incapable of doing either. People with healthy brain chemistry usually can't imagine what it's like when there is a massive disconnect between your mental and physical logic and reality (just look at Bruce's futile attempt to describe it). And when they decide they know better than medical professionals when someone's just being weird and need to 'act normal' and don't need to 'choose' specialized treatment, they don't get how harmful that can be.

[Meshugger]

Ah, the benefits of living in a society where healthcare is payed by everyone and where squabbles like this are moot. On the other hand, the system benefits most if you drink, smoke, do not exercise and die at the age of 55 since then you have payed more into it than what you have gotten out of it.

 

So fellas, light em up, take a drink and tell your fellow trannies to be that "it was my priviledge".

Edited February 22, 2017 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Ah, the benefits of living in a society where healthcare is payed by everyone and where squabbles like this are moot. On the other hand, the system benefits most if you drink, smoke, do not exercise and die at the age of 55 since then you have payed more into it than what you have gotten out of it.

 

Somehow I have a hard time viewing "death at the ripe old age of 55" as an outcome to strive for 

[Guard Dog]

Grrrrrr!!!!

 

You see what you've done Alum? That was the nastiness I was referring to! You made it sound like I had some issue with treating Gender Dysphoria. I don't. I never said anything of the sort. All I said was that it was an elective procedure. And it is. This went from a discussion of whether it should be paid for by the public funded healthcare plans to a discussion on the merits of the  treatment itself. Exactly the conversation I was trying to avoid. And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition.

 

If you want to read some interesting points of view about it check out National Geographic from last month. I read it cover to cover. Just like I do with every other issue: https://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/magazines/special-issues/national-geographic-gender-revolution-special-issue---u.s.?code=SR50004

[aluminiumtrioxid]

And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition.

 

...Which is exactly why the procedure is heavily restricted and only prescribed as a last resort when everything else fails. Compare and contrast with nose jobs and boob jobs (an equivalence you have drawn yourself).

Edited February 22, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Volourn]

"So you think his comments about pedophilia are not uncommon, so please give me an example of someone in the public limelight who had been abused by a child molester and made an utterly reprehensible comment like " I am glad I was abused because thats why I am so experienced at sex " ...and I want actual real comments they made similar to this "

 

Check out  comments from a certain gay Star Trek star on the Howard Stern radio show... And, that guy is LOVED by the Left.

[Blarghagh]

Grrrrrr!!!!

 

You see what you've done Alum? That was the nastiness I was referring to! You made it sound like I had some issue with treating Gender Dysphoria. I don't. I never said anything of the sort. All I said was that it was an elective procedure. And it is. This went from a discussion of whether it should be paid for by the public funded healthcare plans to a discussion on the merits of the  treatment itself. Exactly the conversation I was trying to avoid. And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition.

 

If you want to read some interesting points of view about it check out National Geographic from last month. I read it cover to cover. Just like I do with every other issue: https://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/magazines/special-issues/national-geographic-gender-revolution-special-issue---u.s.?code=SR50004

 

Mastectomy surgery for breast cancer is "elective". So is a live donor transplant surgery. The only thing elective means in surgical terms is not acutely life threatening at this very moment. While the blanket term "elective" does include optional surgery for non-medical reasons, it is not the definition of the term in a medical context. By contrast, you're the one who picked specifically picked only non-medical surgery, such as nose jobs and boob jobs to compare it to - the nasty implications of that may have been unintentional on your part but that doesn't make them alum's fault.

 

Yes, there are other treatment options for trans-people. Again, I don't suffer from it so I can't say how effective they are, but let's assume that this surgery exists and is used (heavily regulated as alum points out) for a reason. Because I can't say from experience how effective those are, I can only draw upon my own experience, which is this: There are also many treatment options for clinical depression. I tried them all and none of them worked, the brain is too complicated for mental health at this point to be an exact science and not every approach works for everyone.

 

Therefore, I ended up opting for elective "electroconvulsive therapy", essentially brain surgery by way of electricity. Without said "elective" surgery, I'd be dead at this point since the other treatment options left me still suicidal (or in the case of some prescribed medications, more suicidal). I'd say more people getting hung up on it being elective because the therapy cost them 0.3% of a penny more in health insurance (a number I pulled out of my ass, but let's be fair, it's nothing) to make sure medical insurance wouldn't cover it would have meant my death, since there was no way I could have afforded said treatment at 18.

 

I'm sure you can understand how I take it a little personally when others try to decide how important mental health related medical care is.

[Guard Dog]

 

And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition.

 

...Which is exactly why the procedure is heavily restricted and only proscribed as a last resort when everything else fails. Compare and contrast with nose jobs and boob jobs (an equivalence you have drawn yourself).

 

The equivalence is they are elective. You don't need to have them. And in the magazine I linked to there is a school of thought in the medical community that the permanence of the surgery complicates the problem rather than relives it. There is also a study from Denmark cited the the leading causes of death in post SRS patients in that country over 20 years are alcohol related illnesses, drug overdose, and suicide.

 

Grrr.... here you do dragging me into it!

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I'm sure you can understand how I take it a little personally when others try to decide how important mental health related medical care is.

 

Which is not what I was doing! This was a discussion about what taxpayers should pay for in one particular place.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Carry on the subject if you wish Gentlemen, I'm out.

[Zoraptor]

 

And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition.

 

...Which is exactly why the procedure is heavily restricted and only proscribed as a last resort when everything else fails.

 

 

You mean prescribed here rather than proscribed- prescribed ~ ordered by a doctor; proscribed ~ banned or very heavily restricted by an order/ law. Wouldn't normally be bothered correcting that since it's an easy mistake to make but using proscribed it means exactly the opposite of what was meant.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition.

 

...Which is exactly why the procedure is heavily restricted and only proscribed as a last resort when everything else fails. Compare and contrast with nose jobs and boob jobs (an equivalence you have drawn yourself).

 

The equivalence is they are elective. You don't need to have them.

Again, not the case.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

...Which is exactly why the procedure is heavily restricted and only proscribed as a last resort when everything else fails.

 

You mean prescribed here rather than proscribed- prescribed ~ ordered by a doctor; proscribed ~ banned or very heavily restricted by an order/ law. Wouldn't normally be bothered correcting that since it's an easy mistake to make but using proscribed it means exactly the opposite of what was meant.

 

 

Edited, thank you for the correction.