Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Taxpayer-Funded ->-bleeped-<--Care? ObamaCare Could Mandate Free 'Sex-Change' Surgeries

http://americansfortruth.com/news/taxpayer-funded-->-bleeped-<--care-obamacare-could-mandate-free-sex-change-surgeries.html (http://americansfortruth.com/news/taxpayer-funded--%3E-bleeped-%3C--care-obamacare-could-mandate-free-sex-change-surgeries.html)
8/5/09

Transsexual activists like Autumn Sandeen (at left; that's his "female" name — adopted after leaving his traditional role as husband and father) are caught up in gender confusion. For some, this culminates in body-disfiguring operations to "change" into the opposite sex. No American should be forced to pay for these nature-rejecting procedures with his or her tax dollars. Homosexual groups like Human Rights Campaign boast of their support for taxpayer-funded "sex-change" operations in cities like San Francisco.

Sad to say the extreme right wing is going to succeed in killing the health care legislation.

"TRUTH"...

I'm not sure they understand the word.

I think that would be wonderful, as I am transitioning.  Unfortunately, I don't see it happening because Republicans and conservative Democrats will stop it. 

OK, putting on my chain-mail bikini, armor and closing the visor..

I for one really don't want to see the government paying for our surgeries.

I worry that as soon as they control the dollars, they can begin to control the access and set the rules for who "can" and who "can't" be eligible.   My worry is much more against the conservative views, who might use this as a wedge to do to our treatments what the tobacco legislation has done to discourage smoking.

Just my opinion.. now anyone seen my horse?

The A.M.A. is easing up on it, some private insurers have been coaxed into paying as well, so if the feds take over low income insurance, at some point, maybe not right away, there is a very real chance they just may end up paying for them. If it is taken out of the D.S.M. and considered a medical issue corrected by surgery, then it will happen.

I think it's silly to use it as a bargaining tool though. The people saying this act as though there are 5 million of us waiting for it.

It was maybe a year or so ago that I read an article by an AMA spokerperson who said they were encouraging insurance companies to cover GRS because they recognized it as a medical condition.  That's a good thing.

But as for this "Americans For Truth" shell organization, they need to stop creating their "truths" and get educated.  But then again, if they did, they would lose the following of sheep they now have.  And probably their donations. 

Follow the money.

Julie

So true Julie!!!

Ditto Julie.

I am not against help for low income assistance.. I think Insurance companies and personal financing are the better methods on the average (in a perfect world).

I like the co-op idea of healthcare being thrown about now by Senator Conrad ND. Even we, as a community could then build a co-op and farm best pricing and coverage and our dollars would have an impact.

I don't understand why Obama is even listening to these right wing nut jobs; the public spoke last November, we think they suck and we want a change from their policies.

Besides, it's not like they ever listened to the Democrats when they were in power. 

This is utter nonsense like death panels and forced abortions. Nobody who has any sense of reality should believe this crap. I hope that private companies would get to the point of paying for GRS, but right now this a wedge issue used by the liars, scumbags, and psychos in the "opposition" to a fair health plan for all Americans. We progressives, and I hope that anybody posting here would identify as such, should not fall for this. The government is not going to be a gatekeeper for GRS. Right now private insurance is the gatekeeper and the gate is mostly closed. Get over it and get behind our President.

My mom is buying deeply into the conservative negativity towards socialized health care. She's had it her whole life, you know? She's really touchy about the alleged death panels for elderly folks too, and I think it's all nonsense. I've been without health care for about 2 years now. I ended up with a 8,000 USD hospital bill in June, and I can't replace the glasses my sister smashed up, so I'm stuck with super glue to prevent myself from getting migraines when they fall apart.

Have conservatives compared socialized health care to the red scare yet?

It is horrifying to me, to watch all hope for health care legislation fall apart. The democrats in congress are too caught up in being bi partisan, when they really should just grab their balls and realize that they have total control of congress, and really shouldn't waste time arguing when we need health reform right now.
We all know that the final product of this health care reform bill will be totally half assed and will probably fail as a result of democrats listening to conservative input. Then the conservatives will say how, when the final product fails, they were right all along and then we will see aa conservative take over in 2010.
And then we will have to wait until 2012 to try again. The point is, we can not let this opportunity escape us.
The fact is, socialized health care would end up costing the average american probably a little less than what they pay for their own health insurance now. So really, it is sickening and makes me feel like I want to vomit when I watch conservative advertisements on TV concerning health reform, and how much they say it will cost us. When they don't realize we'll be paying about the same we already do, probably less.

They spread their vicious lies and are against anything that will help out the uninsured.  They are against abortion, SRS, mental health, and anything that makes life better.

They are no better than the Klan, White Supremacists or any other hate group.


Janet

I hate anytime someone uses scare tactics, and I triplly hate when people like us are scapegoated in order to do it BUT....

If you guys think you are not getting just as many lies out of the left concerning the realities of national Health care as are coming from the right then your political leanings are betraying you.

Every time the Administration or Congressional leaders make a claim about the cost of this effort to the taxpayers there own non-partisan agencies come out with a study and prove the claims are totally unrealistic.

I am an uninsured person, and in my household RIGHT NOW are untreated (minor) medical issues because we can't afford to get them treated BUT

The plans being proposed, combined with other entitlement spending (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) WILL eventually bankrupt this country.

It's not a question of what procedure is covered and what isn't, it's not a quoestion of what is the ethically and morally right service to provide, it is simply a matter if revenue v. outlay.

It. Can't. Be. Done.

When we try to do it - and I suspect for all the hand wringing in this thread we WILL get a bill - we are simply buying our present comfort at the price of our children and grandchildren having anything at all.

But of course, let's just all default to the knee jerk assumption that conservatives are mean nasty people who hate everyone except the rich rather than actually doing the math.

If there's anything our community should be familiar with, it's the power of stereotypes, right?

SS, Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt the country because they are Ponzi schemes.
I do not believe that health reform will be a Ponzi scheme, as a matter of fact I think that the Obama administration will eventually try to get rid of medicare and medicaid in favor of universal health care.

Quote from: Laura Hope on November 01, 2009, 01:40:27 PMIf you guys think you are not getting just as many lies out of the left concerning the realities of national Health care as are coming from the right then your political leanings are betraying you.
.................................

But of course, let's just all default to the knee jerk assumption that conservatives are mean nasty people who hate everyone except the rich rather than actually doing the math.

Okay. let's do the math...

What percent of Republicans are pro gay?

What percent of Republicans are pro transgender?

What percent of Republicans voted for anti-hate legislation?

What percent of Republicans are for ENDA?

What percent of Republicans are for eliminating DADT?

What percent of Republicans are for eliminating DOMA?
Here's a recent Iowa poll:

Percentage wise, Republicans vote less in favor of LGBT issues, rights and legislation than Democrats, by a WIDE margin.  Democrats aren't perfect but they are a hell of a lot better than Republicans.

And then there's this:

Julie

I can't see what ANY of that has to do with their position on health care reform.

Laying aside the notion that a person CAN have a different view on the issues you mentioned without being "mean and hateful" but I know making THAT case would be a lost cause so I'm not gonna even comment on it.

---

Post Merge: November 01, 2009, 06:01:45 PM

---

Quote from: Mazarine_Sky on November 01, 2009, 03:35:39 PM
SS, Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt the country because they are Ponzi schemes.
I do not believe that health reform will be a Ponzi scheme, as a matter of fact I think that the Obama administration will eventually try to get rid of medicare and medicaid in favor of universal health care.

SS and Medicare are indeed Ponzi schemes -Medicaid isn't. And these are schemes that not ONE Democrat in public office drawing a breath will EVER vote to get rid of or even say a bad word about (and scarce few Republicans)

why on earth should we believe a body politic that can't see what you and I see about those programs will get national health care right?

all the same political forces that keep those bad programs in place are also at work to massaged NHC towards an outcome that suits them, and more besides.

Whether or not NHC will have the Ponzi format of Medicare/SS or not is irrelevant. Medicaid is a perfect illustration of a well intentioned program which is totally unable to accomplish the intentions and costs vastly more than it was projected to in the course of that failure.

the simple economic reality is that government providers skew the market and CREATE higher costs, not the reverse.

Now, I can see the way for a LOT of government directed reform that would work and would suppress the rise in costs and be sure everyone was covered.

the problem is, almost none of those good ideas are IN the plans under consideration. Given the nonexistant margin for error that we have financially, it behooves us to do it right or the day we'll come when we'll all have the health care they have in Hati or some other failed state.

Here's an example - a lot of the overhead for doctors is a result of how much it costs them to get their education and begin practice.

what if the federal government paid for the education of every qualified medical student in total? You could maybe tie it to some sort of "MediCorp" in which graduates would have to spend 5 years or something working at government designated locations, perhaps providing free subsidized preventative care like checkups and screenings before moving on to private practice.

but when they go into practice, they'd be debt free and thus the overhead would be much lower.

What if the Fed provided financing, of the equivilant nature of student loans, in order to help doctors properly equip their clinics? Im not sure about this - it might drive up the cost of the equipment in the same way government meddling in housing created that bubble...but it would be something to consider at least.

Other good ideas are out there, waiting to be seized. Someone explain to me why it is NOT sensible to enact the OBVIOUS reforms that thinkers across the political spectrum agree on and see what kind of results they produce before trying to totally re-invent the wheel?

I suppose I'll have to think about all of your solutions a little more in depth before I can say whether or not they are good, but I will say I disagree on the cause of all of these bad things that have been happening. We can blame the government for the recession and housing crisis and use that as ammo against NHC, but really the root cause of the problem was people buying things they could not afford.
I believe something similar happened in the 20's, and when the market went downhill people were suddenly expected to pay a lot of money they never had in the first place.
It boils down to our own personal responsibility. That was the cause of the problem. So financing a clinic would be a good idea if the doctor in question was wise on what he purchased.
But you also have to realize that countries with NHC are not all failures, in fact many are doing great. I shouldn't have to mention the success of most of Europe and Canada. The only flaw is waiting a few months for relatively small things, not vital surgeries as EVERY conservative in Congress would have you believe.
There's also a point here- I think Olympia Snowe was the only Republican congresswoman to vote for health reform. What does that say? The opposition will not agree to anything the democrats want until the bill is so washed up that it won't even accomplish good NHC in the first place.
I'm not saying that the left hasn't done that in the past. But what I am saying is that the left is trying so hard to boil down the bill for the republicans, actually trying to listen to them, which the republicans of course, have never done on such a huge issue with a democratic minority.
And the republicans in congress still victimize themselves, and still uses an insane amount of scare tactics that I've never seen before in a democratic minority.
All Obama needs to do is sign an executive order, and we will have NHC. But of course he won't, because he actually tries to care what the republican minority has to say- this is costing him his presidency, I think.

Quote from: Laura Hope on November 01, 2009, 05:47:13 PM
I can't see what ANY of that has to do with their position on health care reform.

It doesn't, anymore than the last line I quoted from your post does. 

The two lines I quoted said (and correct me if I'm wrong) liberals are just as bad as conservatives.  And there's a tendency here to have a knee jerk reaction that results in people here believing all conservatives are mean and nasty.

What I was pointing out was the Republicans, who are mostly conservative, do very little to support the LGBT community.  In fact they actively participate in denying us equality.  The same cannot be said about Democrats, who are mostly liberal.

So, even if both sides are liars, at least the Democrats vote for legislation that helps us gain the equality we deserve.  If there is a knee jerk reaction, it's well deserved by simply looking at who supports us.

It's simple, support the people who support you.  And if those people are in charge when health care reform becomes reality, there's a pretty good chance there won't be a clause in there denying us medical treatment.  I'll take the Democrat liars long before I'll accept the Republican liars.

Julie

Quote
But you also have to realize that countries with NHC are not all failures, in fact many are doing great.

I'll qualify my reply by acknowledging there are source issues.

EVERY report has an agenda and tells the side of the story that supports the preferred views (and this is as true of the difference of opinion on quality-of-care issues as on cost)  but that stipulated:

I've seen quite a few reports that countries with NHC are moving AWAY from the model we are moving towards. that all of them are spending far more on the services they provide than they can afford, that the projected growth curve of health care spending will, if unchanged, drive those nations into bankruptcy.

My understanding is that pretty much every political cycle there is ongoing political drama in all those countries about how to control the rising impact of health costs on the national budget.

I don't think - if that's true - that one needs to even get into the quality-of-care debate in order to be worried.

And I'm not saying that all conservatives are liars, but it just so happens that all of the misinformation and scare tactics are in fact coming from them, almost all of them, and I've never seen democrats act this cruel before.
I can't think of too many lying democrats, either. Granted, there aare a few, but it seems that the number of lying conservatives outnumber the amount of lying democrats... Even though there are more democrats than their are conservatives in the House and Senate.
So I'll side with the Democrats, especially because they represent my world view the best and have consistently proven to me that they support the same causes I support. And that they are willing to negotiate something that means so much to them, whereas republicans have never watered down bills this much.
I can trust the democrats.

EDIT: we just posted at the same time. I've heard the same thing, but I do disagree. The criticism is of course from those who are critics of NHC. Obviously you are right when you say the reports are based on the persons bias. So I think we should look at the facts objectively, and look at the results that they have given objectively, and then using that information predict if indeed they will become bankrupt.

National Health Care especially as a single payer system is a bad idea for one very important reason. People tend to abuse what they consider to be theirs by right and theirs for free. Health care is not free and the sooner people act like it, the sooner some reasonable plan can be found.

I know some of you are going to say of course it isn't free. Look at the omment from people on these boards from Canada and the UK. Their comments often say something like they don't know what it costs or that the procedure was free. It wasn't. Someone paid for it.


I am upset enough at having to pay health club facility for the local high school when many of the people I know are struggling with doc bills and just trying to get food or a place to have shelter. The ones who have money see nothing wrong with taking more from those who have none. Those who have none aren't really afforded a voice in the matter.

Ok enough of my personal rant.

Quote
especially because they represent my world view the best

it's a good thing to realize that.

All of us are more forgiving of the political  (and media) crowd which best reflects our worldview.

Most of you have it a lot better than i do.

I'm stuck with a party that has it all wrong in terms of LGBT issues that affect me potentially personally....but in a lot of - almost all - other matters (economics, limited government, sometimes foreign affairs) they line up with me very well.

At least those of you on the left don't have that conflict.

On the other hand, I HAVE to learn to simply accept that I'm now a part of a community that is probably 95% Democrat and keep me freakish conservative ideas to myself lol.

Lol. The Libertarians support LGBT rights (human rights in general) and are greatly more conservative than Republicans.

Quote from: Julie Marie on August 28, 2009, 11:21:59 AM
It was maybe a year or so ago that I read an article by an AMA spokerperson who said they were encouraging insurance companies to cover GRS because they recognized it as a medical condition.  That's a good thing.

But as for this "Americans For Truth" shell organization, they need to stop creating their "truths" and get educated.  But then again, if they did, they would lose the following of sheep they now have.  And probably their donations. 

Follow the money.

Julie

If they educate themselves then they might be taking a chance on not being able to hate as much and I'm sure they don't want that.

Quote from: Mazarine_Sky on November 02, 2009, 06:59:20 AM
Lol. The Libertarians support LGBT rights (human rights in general) and are greatly more conservative than Republicans.

Philosophically, I am a libertarian (with the exception of not being totally hands off on abortion) but Libertarians don't get elected.

I am a victim of the two-party system.

Yeaah but I mean, you can't have the "lesser of two evils" if that's what you believe.
Also concerning the health care bill I did some research, and the CBO (congressional budget office, a non partisan branch who's job it is to provide non biased information on the financial cost of legislations) has predicted that the Affordable Health Care for America Act will actually decrease the national deficit by 600 billion.

I've seen conflicting reports out of the CBO on that (albeit, second handed) - I'm led to believe that it depends on what assumptions are built into the calculations.

But frankly, my general opinion here is based on, well, every other government program ever created.

Post office?
Amtrack?
Mecicaid?
the VA?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

whatever.

Every single thing the government initiates it tells you "we project it will cost X" and it actually ends up costing X+a helluvalot more"

I think that mostly happens because opponants of certain programs fight to dumb the program down and therefore the program doesn't work as effectively as it should.
Or when oppanants do everything they can to restrict that program from doing anything good.

Quote from: Laura Hope on November 02, 2009, 02:15:20 PM
I am a victim

Yes! You are a member of the reserve labor force, you work when workers are needed and are cast aside when they aren't.

Quotewhatever.

The thing is, it doesn't matter how much it costs. Our nation has the money, it is productive and powerful and resource rich and in the long term we will be fine. It's all a balance, my doctor wears clothes that were made by people who can't afford to see her. She drives a car worth more than most of her patients make. I have things in my house that surely were made by people making minimum wage, and I eat food prepared by such people all the time. The stunning thing is that these people are SO convinced that it's their fault they are poor and they don't deserve health care. You guys are just as important, even members of the reserve labor force, as my doctor or the restaurant ceo.

Ya it smacks of Marxism, but read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx before you automatically call that a dirty word. It's available online for free. It isn't very long and makes a lot of sense and the cause was twisted later on by other people. Modern socialism is a perversion, Karl himself once said "I am not Marxist" but he also held out hope that America was a nation that could evolve into exactly what we are becoming, without bloodshed.

Quote from: Mazarine_Sky on November 04, 2009, 09:00:06 AM
I think that mostly happens because opponants of certain programs fight to dumb the program down and therefore the program doesn't work as effectively as it should.
Or when oppanants do everything they can to restrict that program from doing anything good.

Your assumption is not totally invalid except on one point - more often it's the supporters who overload a program until it fails.

For instance - take Amtrack.

It was designed, upon inception, to be a "for profit" business. It has never made a profit.

Why?

Consider the Sunset Limited. That ONE run loses millions of dollars a year, and there have been repeated suggestions to kill it. but it presists.

why?

Because Amtrack needs the votes of the Congressmen through whose districts that line runs. and those congressmen won't vote for Amtrack funding without that line remaining.

Or consider the Post Office. Since 1971 the Post office has been, on paper, a quasi-government agency that was supposed to at least support itself if not make a profit.

The thing is, even though the Federal oversite is limited - whenever the Congress wants there way, all they have to do is hold hearings on changing that status.

For instance, in the mid-40's the Post Office proposed to close 12,000 inefficent or unnecessary offices which the GAO calculated would save them $100 million per year. what happened? Congressmen who didn't want offices in their districts closed amended the Postal Reauthorization Act to bar the USPS from closing any offices.

And that sort of thing is why government programs - ALL government programs - are money losing inefficient programs, not because someone is trying to undermine them, but because government by definition screws up everything it does. Comepting agendas, bought off lobbyists, pandering to segments of the voting population with something no business would do because it's a bad idea, protecting vested self interest to the detriminet of good government.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could take an objective look at how our government (or any government) operates and then want the government to do ANY thing that could possibly be done any other way.

---

Post Merge: November 04, 2009, 04:56:07 PM

---

Quote from: Becca on November 04, 2009, 12:02:59 PM
Yes! You are a member of the reserve labor force, you work when workers are needed and are cast aside when they aren't.

Sure. But there's no such thing as an economy without such workers.

Except communism and we've already seen how that works out.

Quote
The thing is, it doesn't matter how much it costs. Our nation has the money, it is productive and powerful and resource rich and in the long term we will be fine.

No, we really don't. And a lot of what inherent wealt the nation does have is off limits based on the actions of the same government we are turning too (for instance, vast oil reserves in places congress says we can't drill).

Quote
It's all a balance, my doctor wears clothes that were made by people who can't afford to see her. She drives a car worth more than most of her patients make. I have things in my house that surely were made by people making minimum wage, and I eat food prepared by such people all the time.

It's an illusion. The total net worth of All Americans in 2007 was about $58 trillion.

The Federal budget for 2008 was almost $3 trillion.

It's safe to add another trillion when you add in state and local governance.

At least.

The median family net worth for those in the top 10% of all households (in net worth) is about $1.5 million.

There are about 112 million households in the U.S. so the top 10% of those would be 11.2 million, time's $1.5 million works out to about $16.8 trillion.

So, if you confiscate EVERY DOLLAR of net worth of EVERY household in the top 10% you have enough money to run the government (BEFORE adding new spending) for less than 6 years.

Not enough? Take the top 25% of all households. The median net worth of those between 75% and 90% is only $500,000 but lets wipe them out too.

That gets you a whopping $44 trillion. which runs the government, in it's current form, for less than 15 years. and that's not paying down the dept, or adding health care, or allowing for the increased cost of programs like Miedicare and Social Security which MUST go up if promises are kept. In reality it would be far less than 15 years.

In short, wipe out EVERY person you consider wealthy and leave them totally broke, give it all to the government - and you have maybe a decade until you are both broke AND have no rich to tax anymore.

And again - that's JUST the Federal government.

Quote
The stunning thing is that these people are SO convinced that it's their fault they are poor and they don't deserve health care. You guys are just as important, even members of the reserve labor force, as my doctor or the restaurant ceo.

Ya it smacks of Marxism, but read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx before you automatically call that a dirty word. It's available online for free. It isn't very long and makes a lot of sense and the cause was twisted later on by other people. Modern socialism is a perversion, Karl himself once said "I am not Marxist" but he also held out hope that America was a nation that could evolve into exactly what we are becoming, without bloodshed.

The problem is that the sad reality is the idealism doesn't actually work when you apply it to real people, because people don't behave in an ideal way. Marx's ideas are WONDERFUL! They just so happen to not work. Because people, rich and poor, are...well...people. And people usually don't do the right thing as a group.


All you have to do is look at any given election regarding gay marriage to find evidence of that.


Edit: Forgot to add links to the source-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-GWUS_1-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-GWUS_1-3)

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)

Definitely not right wing sources.