Ergo, unless society is entirely restructured to look like libertopia, you've got a get-out clause when the policies fail.Originally Posted by Mert
Ergo, unless society is entirely restructured to look like libertopia, you've got a get-out clause when the policies fail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...-medical-care/
Isn't Viagra used by mountain climbers and others that need to function at altitude? I didn't read the article (because I don't really care) but is there a chance that's why they're using it?
You know, rather than them being a load of floppy Merts.
I read it was mostly for veterans. The point is though that framing it as a financial thing is a load of bollocks, they just don't like transexuals.
538 reckon it's possibly part of a deal to get someone onside in the Senate vote.
Which makes you wonder who, given all that they could have asked for, hates the idea of transsexuals serving in the military so much as to make it their thing. The right is really messed up.
In more serious news, these eyebrows, tho....
Every time I think our government are being twats, a cursory glance at this thread reassures me they are in fact a paragon of good practice.
Best argument you'll ever have for our current constitutional settlement.
There are legitimate financial expenditures, and there are illegitimate financial expenditures.
It's a sliding scale, right now it's nowhere even close, but you move the dial far enough and you will get consumer-benefiting competition.
So the emotional well-being of a trans person is an illegitimate expentidure, a.k.a. you don't like them.
And it goes without saying that killing people for your government is unquestionably legitimate.
1. You don't have a right to employment within the army, there are plenty of requirements prior to being allowed to enlist including mental health assessments.
2. There is no evidence to suggest individuals with gender dysphoria actually experience positive changes in their mental state following gender-reassignment surgery. There is evidence to suggest individuals suffering from erectile dysfunction experience positive changes from using viagra.
I personally don't care what trans people do in their own life. But, my taxpayer dollars should not go towards elective treatments for their mental illness, and if their condition detracts from our combat capabilities, I do not want them in the army. It's not about bigotry, it's about what is best for the army, sorry if that conflicts with the emotions of certain people.
I'm fine with you not wanting them in the army, I just think it's lol to dress it up as a financial issue when it's chump change.
If it's purely a financial matter, why not just discontinue funding their treatment. Then they can continue to serve if they so wish.
When you decide to just kick them out of the Army it almost comes across as if you're using it as an excuse.
It's the whole "employer-provided health insurance" thing, right? That whole seething pile of insanity has screwed up the US so badly.
I thought employers over there opted out of all sorts? Especially contraceptives et al?
We still get insurance through our jobs. Ironically, we wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise.
Yes, but if employers can refuse it covering contraception, what is stopping them from not covering hormone replacement pills etc?
It's not really up to the employer, though? It's up to the insurance company what they do and don't cover?
Apologies if I'm missing it?
I thought it was up to the employer which set of benefits they provide, within limits set by the ACA, unless they get special treatment for being religious (re: the Hobby Lobby case).
It's still a pretty messed up system. I don't see what business my employer would have choosing my healthcare provider.
Not that I agree with their system, but if the employer is paying for it you're going to have to accept that some limitations will exist. You can always go and work somewhere else.
If you want to pay for it yourself, then fine.
Ok ya ok that's right. They generally will offer you a few different plans through their group rate, that's true.
100% agree tbh.
You always peddle this. Not everyone is an accountant who can pick and choose jobs and quality of employer.
If I were an accountant I'd want the least health insurance possible.
If I were an accountant I'd kill my family and then turn the gun on myself - by far the most economical long term option.
Perhaps they could start their own company, then, and it won't be a problem.
Not every employer exists so that their staff can hoover up ever increasing amounts of free cash flow in benefits and salary. Most are small businesses, where private individuals have assumed significant personal financial risk. They must be allowed to exercise as much control as possible over how they spend their own money. No staff member is "entitled" to everything they may want, and their redress is to find alternative employment or start their own company.
The rhetoric from some really does overlook that it's the people starting and running private sector companies that generate tax revenues and create the jobs in the first place.
GS is right, people that aren't a) business owners or b) self-employed should have absolutely no rights. Broken leg Roy? Can't afford to feed your kids? Lisa needs braces? Tough shit. Should have started your own business, because there can never be too many freelance window cleaners.
It honestly just annoys me that a lot of this "data" has been (presumably) wildly corrupted for public consumption.
The amount of people that "got on" healthcare benefits because of Obamacare but then subsequently lost said benefits because they never made the first initial payment has to be astronomical considering the amount of said patients I deal with on a daily basis.
But if you put a neat bow on the initial sign up and use that number to come up with the idea that "x million people will lose health insurance!" it sounds a lot better than discussing the actual issues of the Obamacare programs to begin with.
Nevermind the fact most of these folks also opted-in to bronze/silver level plans simply because of the federal mandate/penalty attached to being uninsured. Bronze/silver plans being the cheapest and least comprehensive when it comes to actual coverage.
In all actuality, if people wanted to rail against "BIG BUSINESS!" or whatever they'd assume folks remain uninsured so that hospital corporations have to treat them and subsequently write off large portions of these bills.
For example, the uninsured discount at my facility works out to 87% off of the final bill. 87% ! How the fuck can these billion dollar corporations manage to continuously turn a profit when 87% of the charges can be written off without a blink of an eye?
And I'm sure many of you have heard me pining on about the madness that is "facility/insurer contracts". You can have a 120k bill and the "contractual rate" will leave your insurance to pay a measly 10k whilst you pay a 2k deductible.
What in the fucking world kinda shit is this?!
Anyways.
'The Mooch' seems like quite the geezer.
You would have to be a complete moron for that to be your interpretation. However, employees have no right to demand more and more from their employers.
You ever think of starting your own business, @GS?
It's called exaggerating for effect dear boy.
The military spends five times as much on viagra as it does on the healthcare needs of trans people. In tax terms it's a negligible amount of money.
EDIT - New page, and this has been covered. As you were.
No, but I recognise that requires accepting certain restrictions. Like no mandatory tea breaks.
I'm not trying to be THAT guy but I don't understand how it's a "healthcare NEED" for someone to transition from male to female.
I'd imagine these people WANT to be female. I WANT things in life, too. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm entitled to it?
I just don't really understand how it's the government's job to ostensibly give people the avenue to, for lack of a better word, mutilate their physical bodies and/or chemical makeup?
A woman wants bigger boobs because it makes her feel more like a woman, that's cosmetic elective surgery.
A man wants bigger boobs because it makes him feel more like a woman, that's somehow now the responsibility of the government?
Please don't just bash me, help me understand? I truly do not understand.
They don't want to be women/men, they feel like they ARE women/men. Do you think you'd want surgery if you were born without a dick?
They could use the money currently devoted to attracting women into male jobs.
I feel like a panda bear, does that make me a panda bear or a person with a mental illness?
Again, I'm honestly not even trying to be difficult about it. I just feel like some things you can't just pick and choose.
I can't go around "identifying" as Latino just because I really like Spanish music? Why is "gender" the only thing that we throw out any semblance of logic and go strictly on "feeling" for?
In the sense of having no genitalia whatsoever? I mean what would be the point? So I can feel special? I still wouldn't have a dick, I'd have a prosthetic(?).. ?
Again, I'm really not trying to be difficult. I have the utmost sympathy for these folks cause I don't necessarily believe that it's just some kinda fetish thing and that some folks really, truly believe they are not the gender associated with their body. I just don't know if coddling(for lack of a better word) that desire is the right answer?
It seems like you very much do understand and have already reached your position, but I'm nowhere near arsed enough about the subject to try to convince you otherwise. You asked someone to explain, I did, I'm out.
Let's remember that US companies are required by law to provide health insurance. It's a stupid system, but it's been the system for longer than we've been alive.
The ACA and other health laws have provisions specifying what must be provided under that insurance. Employees have the right under the law to expect their healthcare to meet certain standards. The fact that their employer is on the hook for that is a stupid artifact of a stupid system.
If you've ever met someone who suffers from dysphoria, you'll know it's a lot more than just a want or a feeling. It's likely that there's a whole lot of social conditioning involved, rather than it being necessarily inherent, but there's undeniably something there. Being transsexual is not generally seen as a mental illness, but dysphoria is generally seen as a mental condition, I believe. But in terms of treatment, it doesn't really matter which side of that divide you fall on. The whole point of medical treatment is to deal with the condition, and the easiest way to deal with dysphoria is to align the physical to the mental, rather than the other way around.
If you are prepared to acknowledge that there is some kind of mental condition involved, even if you simply think it's a disorder, the whole point of treatment is to fix it. If someone experiences dysphoria, then it's a legitimate mental condition for which the most successful treatment is to change the body to match the mind, rather than to change the mind to match the body (brains are more complicated than plumbing, unsurprisingly).
'Pissheads should gain weight to increase their tolerance.'
But if we both accept there is some kind of mental condition involved, wouldn't it also make some sort of sense for that person to seek continued treatment in a controlled environment as opposed to seeking continued treatment, let's say, in the midst of a potential deployment or something similar?
Let me also just say I don't agree with the transgender ban on the military. I think if you want to serve this country you should be able to do so, so long as you are physically and mentally fit.
Where transgender folks fall on the "mentally fit" scale though is a serious issue that should be looked at beyond bargaining chips for other bills (as someone mentioned in this thread before).
It's all very fucked and there are no simple solutions but I certainly appreciate the conversation.
Presumably that's why there are professionals who evaluate everyone that signs up to the military. Like many conditions, if it's manageable, then I imagine they'll let you in. All the more so if someone has completely transitioned in the past.
It's not like the entry requirements are a "You Must Be This Tall To Ride" sign and that's it.
If medical professionals have cleared someone, I really don't think we need a second opinion from Donald Trump. I say leave it to the doctors, and stop being busybodies because we're uncomfortable with what people do with their own plumbing.
It's not something I can really weigh in on or comprehend. When you hear transgenders talk about cross-dressing from the age of eight and stuff, it does baffle me as to whether the kid's just experimenting or making a choice. You then have a decade beyond that where puberty actually hits and they start to think more and more about their sexuality. I know sexuality isn't gender but there is no greater shock in a child's body than puberty.
As acceptance grows, the opportunity to talk about it should become easier. As for the ban, it's bullshit. Men and women can shoot. Transgenders fall into both these categories. Bases covered.
Please send me any study which shows that sexual reassignment surgery has a positive effect on mental well-being for transsexuals.
I was just asking a question, no need to be a dick.
Reply With Quote
