Politics 2017 Part 3

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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

It's a treatment of last resort for people diagonsed by multiple health professionals. Honestly if it wasn't for muh tranny degeneracy and something like say treating bipolar disorder or whatever then we wouldn't have had 3 pages about it.

 

And to get down to brass tacks, trans are like what, less than 1 percent of the population? So a minority of that percent that is too extreme to treat with the various other treatments and the minoroty of that minoroty who works for the California goverment will have their treatment paid for in their benefits package. As far as **** being done by state governments, I find this much less of an issue than paying for cops to harass people or the payrolls of elected officals to **** hookers have meetings with various corporate interests, both in magnitude and taste.

[213374U]

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!

That the treatment isn't 100% guaranteed to work and may in some cases make things worse is a valid objection, but not necessarily an argument against it being publicly subsidized, and in no way justifies putting it on the same level as cosmetic surgery. You'd have to dig into medical literature and meta-analyses -provided there are any- to get an accurate picture of the effectiveness of the treatment. I haven't read the NatGeo issue you linked, but from what I've read/watched it's not the kind of publication that deals with topics that way (not a diss, it's just not a scientific journal).

 

People getting chemotherapy end up like **** 100% of the time... provided they survive, which often they don't. Sometimes, it's going to make a cancer patient's last days a living hell. Doesn't mean insurance shouldn't cover it.

Edited February 22, 2017 by 213374U

[ShadySands]

Did he say insurance shouldn't cover it?

 

I'm only half following these political threads these days so forgive my ignorance

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, I think the point is that "elective" is a misnomer. If I understand correctly, in medical terms elective is simply every surgery that is planned in advance rather than surgery required due to emergency situation. Most country's departments of health consider any surgery that can wait for more than 24 hours to be elective, not sure about the US though. Scheduling a hernia or cataracts surgery, or an angioplasty is life-changing health-related surgery that should be covered. It's also "elective", as in it can be scheduled around the patient's and surgeon's convenience.

 

EDIT: This was in response to numbers up there, got ninja'd. Shady: That's what I understood from his argument, that state subsidies for insurance coverage should not extend to this specific case - gender reassignment surgery - because the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for elective surgery. His later statement that elective surgery is "surgery you don't need" shed a different light on it for me, namely that his definition of elective in medical terms is simply incorrect, which seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding. Still not sure how that's alum's fault, though.

Edited February 22, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Did he say insurance shouldn't cover it?

 

 

I'll let the man's own words answer that question:

 

 

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

 

In fact, he feels so strongly about the issue, he wouldn't let a single penny go towards that purpose.

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[213374U]

Did he say insurance shouldn't cover it?

 

I'm only half following these political threads these days so forgive my ignorance

 

Chemotherapy? No, that was a bare bones analogy I made, based on how both aren't always successful and sometimes even detrimental.

 

Originally we were talking about how the State of Cali shouldn't "subsidize vacations for the poor" and then that got lumped together with SRS being covered as part of employment benefits for public workers in California, and then boob jobs...

 

It's one of those tangents here in WoT. I don't complain, it's either this or nazis/commies.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I don't complain, it's either this or nazis/commies.

 

you misspelled stalinists

[Hurlshort]

What if the nose job is for a deviated septum?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't complain, it's either this or nazis/commies.

 

I'll do all 3, the People's Republic of California is pushing transexual surgery for poor people in order to further the National Bolshevik agenda of pushing middle class white families off the beach. Will not accept anything but academic sources or Breitbart as evidence against this.

[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.

 

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

 

 

It's considered happiness in the north.

[Gromnir]

another myopic move by the administration

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-22/trump-s-immigration-crackdown-likely-to-bring-lawsuit-flood

 

going big and doing things smart is rare the same.

 

edit: bloomberg has a couple more articles worth reading

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-22/trump-deportation-threats-to-constrict-already-tight-job-market

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-22/why-trump-s-immigration-crackdown-could-sink-u-s-home-prices

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 22, 2017 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

Where did they get the millions number? And actually enforcing the law is myopic now, because anti-law groups might sue?

[Gromnir]

Where did they get the millions number? And actually enforcing the law is myopic now, because anti-law groups might sue?

is myopic 'cause there is no infrastructure to handle what is effective a mass deportation.  don't have facilities to house.  don't have any agreement from mexico and other nations 'bout their willingness to accept deportees.  don't have anywhere near the court resources to handle deportation hearings. nor is there any plan for dealing with the economic burdens large number o' deportations will be causing in many industries.  is not simple construction jobs being unfilled, but actual the housing market itself is likely to suffer as a goodly number o' undocumented and documented workers is gonna stop purchasing homes. 

 

and trump already suggested millions.  watch the video referencing job market specific if you can't be bothered to read.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

The priority is still on deporting criminals, so there is no mass deportation. No one is automatically immune now, that's true, but that's what the law says. Edit: Apparently expedited removal applies only to illegals who've been here less than 2 years, and to criminals presumably.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Volourn]

'Undocumnted immigrants' ie. illegal immigrants ie. criminals. Citizens need to follow laws o should immigrants. If you are an 'undocumnted' go get your documents. Case closed. There are tons of immigrants who went through legal channels to get their citizenship/visitor documentation. Just. do. it.

 

I mean, in Kanada, we have citizens going to prison/being fined because they caught a couple extra fishes that they were allowed... yet, somehow it is evil to  enforce immigration laws? LMAO

[Gromnir]

and the fact that nobody is safe is precisely why there will be a chilling effect on housing sales.  the fact o' nobody being safe is also why bloomberg and aclu and others is predicting considerable and costly lawsuits as leaving so open is necessarily placing greater pressure on all those new ice agents to meet legal standards which only immigration lawyers and federal judges genuine understand fully.  etc.

 

again, similar to the travel ban (but moreso,) this is not a well-considered move.  the President wants to make a show o' doing something significant, but he is going 'bout it complete wrong and it is gonna be an expensive mistake.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

'Undocumnted immigrants' ie. illegal immigrants ie. criminals. Citizens need to follow laws o should immigrants. If you are an 'undocumnted' go get your documents. Case closed. There are tons of immigrants who went through legal channels to get their citizenship/visitor documentation. Just. do. it.

 

I mean, in Kanada, we have citizens going to prison/being fined because they caught a couple extra fishes that they were allowed... yet, somehow it is evil to  enforce immigration laws? LMAO

No kidding. I posted a few pages ago a woman right here is Tennessee is facing six months in jail and fines for giving horses massage therapy for free because she isn't a veterinarian. But an illegal immigrant can work in the stable the horse lives in, pay no taxes and that's all ok? 

 

Personally I think it's all ridiculous but it's so much worse when the government chooses to hammer some folks but ignore others. I'd say leave everyone alone but failing that how about some consistency. 

[Gfted1]

How do they know how long an illegal immigrant has been here? Weird. Anywho, we should just....*BOOM*...."everyone currently in the country is now a citizen. Heres your SSN, now get to tax payin." Cost us more to root them out and deport them at this point.

[Gromnir]

 

'Undocumnted immigrants' ie. illegal immigrants ie. criminals. Citizens need to follow laws o should immigrants. If you are an 'undocumnted' go get your documents. Case closed. There are tons of immigrants who went through legal channels to get their citizenship/visitor documentation. Just. do. it.

 

I mean, in Kanada, we have citizens going to prison/being fined because they caught a couple extra fishes that they were allowed... yet, somehow it is evil to  enforce immigration laws? LMAO

No kidding. I posted a few pages ago a woman right here is Tennessee is facing six months in jail and fines for giving horses massage therapy for free because she isn't a veterinarian. But an illegal immigrant can work in the stable the horse lives in, pay no taxes and that's all ok? 

 

Personally I think it's all ridiculous but it's so much worse when the government chooses to hammer some folks but ignore others. I'd say leave everyone alone but failing that how about some consistency. 

 

am actual in favor o' reforming undocumented alien policies.  'course the problem isn't simple the executive's desire to make changes.  once again, the President appears to have an unclear notion o' the powers o' the presidency.  just 'cause a piece o' paper is signed, it don't warp reality.  woulda' thought the appeals court taught him a lesson. Congress has apparatus which allows for careful and meaningful deliberation o' problems and it also, in theory, has means o' considering options and solutions to problems. well, at least Congress once had such, but they has kinda voluntarily stepped away from their responsibilities.  

 

am not certain what it is the President is doing with these grand actions which ignore any sorta consideration o' implementation or actual impact.  perhaps trump saw a documentary on fox regarding illegals?  so many illegals. bad. ok, that is kinda a starting point, but where is the actual plan?  leave vague and all you do is guarantee that the courts is gonna smack you 'round, again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

I don't complain, it's either this or nazis/commies.

Or both.

[Bartimaeus]

What if the nose job is for a deviated septum?

 

Not even that - how about for body dysphoria? It's not as though body dysphoria is only limited to sex changes, so if somebody has extreme enough body dysphoria over their nose...or any other number of things...should the taxpayer pay for that? If body dysphoria is good enough for a sex change, it should be good enough for a "nose job", right? ...In practice, I'm not sure as to the answer of this. The cases like that SHOULD be extremely rare...but that's not the point - it is, as Guard Dog said, the principle of it: what kinds of things should or shouldn't be covered by health insurance, particularly publicly-funded health insurance (or whatever you'd call the equivalent)? Again, I'm not totally sure of the answer to it: it's a very complicated subject and problem.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

How do they know how long an illegal immigrant has been here? Weird. Anywho, we should just....*BOOM*...."everyone currently in the country is now a citizen. Heres your SSN, now get to tax payin." Cost us more to root them out and deport them at this point.

 

I would not make them citizens. However I would give them work permits. The problem is keeping them illegal not only deprives the community of tax on their wages, it enables exploitation of them because they can't complain. Particularly the agricultural workers are paid less than minimum wage. If you put a stop to treating them as little better than slave labor not only do we gain the benefit of tax dollars, they get a better wage and working conditions, and it because it now costs more to hire and manage them the demand for their services will likely shrink which, long term, will reduce the number of immigrants working here. Three birds with one stone.

[Elerond]

 

What if the nose job is for a deviated septum?

 

Not even that - how about for body dysphoria? It's not as though body dysphoria is only limited to sex changes, so if somebody has extreme enough body dysphoria over their nose...or any other number of things...should the taxpayer pay for that? If body dysphoria is good enough for a sex change, it should be good enough for a "nose job", right? ...In practice, I'm not sure as to the answer of this. The cases like that SHOULD be extremely rare...but that's not the point - it is, as Guard Dog said, the principle of it: what kinds of things should or shouldn't be covered by health insurance, particularly publicly-funded health insurance (or whatever you'd call the equivalent)? Again, I'm not totally sure of the answer to it: it's a very complicated subject and problem.

 

If psychiatrist/s chosen by state tells that best way to ensure person mental well being means that they need nose job then I personally would be okay for state to cover such surgery for their employees from taxes. If state do not trust to recommendations that said doctor/s gives then they of course should replace said doctor/s with new one/s.

 

I mean my principle is that I am not medical professional with enough expertise to judge what is necessary and best way and what is not to ensure somebody's well being, which is why I and so many other people pay to people that have actually studied subject in such extent that they can call themselves as experts. So question should not be what procedures government subsidies for their employees but how critical the need for medical treatment need to be it to be important enough that it will be subsidized. It is also worth to note that one effective way to save in state's health care costs is to minimize need for long term care. So if one nose job will prevent person needing years worth of psychiatric care/medication that has even lower change to work then it would be wasting tax payers money not to give that nose job for that person. Of course there is of course the question should state employees even receive subsidies that other state's residents don't receive.

[Hurlshort]

I would love to see a serious overhaul of the immigration system. All we've really been doing for the last couple decades is throw up roadblocks to citizenship. That seems to be kicking into overdrive under Trump.

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

What if the nose job is for a deviated septum?

 

Not even that - how about for body dysphoria? It's not as though body dysphoria is only limited to sex changes, so if somebody has extreme enough body dysphoria over their nose...or any other number of things...should the taxpayer pay for that? If body dysphoria is good enough for a sex change, it should be good enough for a "nose job", right? ...In practice, I'm not sure as to the answer of this. The cases like that SHOULD be extremely rare...but that's not the point - it is, as Guard Dog said, the principle of it: what kinds of things should or shouldn't be covered by health insurance, particularly publicly-funded health insurance (or whatever you'd call the equivalent)? Again, I'm not totally sure of the answer to it: it's a very complicated subject and problem.

 

If psychiatrist/s chosen by state tells that best way to ensure person mental well being means that they need nose job then I personally would be okay for state to cover such surgery for their employees from taxes. If state do not trust to recommendations that said doctor/s gives then they of course should replace said doctor/s with new one/s.

 

I mean my principle is that I am not medical professional with enough expertise to judge what is necessary and best way and what is not to ensure somebody's well being, which is why I and so many other people pay to people that have actually studied subject in such extent that they can call themselves as experts. So question should not be what procedures government subsidies for their employees but how critical the need for medical treatment need to be it to be important enough that it will be subsidized. It is also worth to note that one effective way to save in state's health care costs is to minimize need for long term care. So if one nose job will prevent person needing years worth of psychiatric care/medication that has even lower change to work then it would be wasting tax payers money not to give that nose job for that person. Of course there is of course the question should state employees even receive subsidies that other state's residents don't receive.

 

 

A reasonable stance. I think how seriously we (the U.S.) treat mental health (or rather, don't treat mental health) factors into this argument a bit. Here in the U.S., we have a lot more of a "your brain and your mental issues are just that - yours" attitude about these kinds of things. For reasons pointed out by many, including you and TrueNeutral et. al., this doesn't seem like the best way to go...and yet, at the same time, I feel like I can sympathize with the mindset of not treating some mental issues as seriously as others...probably because I sometimes have difficulty understanding the WHY behind people so severely affected by body dysmorphia and other issues...but the fact remains that people do, to the best of the people we call experts on the subject's knowledge, appear to be severely affected, and that's probably something we should be treating a little more seriously.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Bartimaeus