The Week In Letters

Paul Russell, National Post  Published: Monday, June 23, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607098

go down page

The unusual story of Nina Arsenault, a transsexual who wants Ontario taxpayers to pay for his/her sex change -- brought in many opposing letters. Most offered thoughtful reasons why that should not happen, but a few displayed what could only be described as heterosexual rage at the very idea. Which is why this note from a gay man -- who also opposes her request -- stood out:

Paul Russell: Thoughts on guns, Tories, transsexuals and uplifting cleavage

Link
6/23/2008

"The unusual story of Nina Arsenault, pictured, a transsexual who wants Ontario taxpayers to pay for his/her sex change — brought in many opposing letters. Most offered thoughtful reasons why that should not happen, but a few displayed what could only be described as heterosexual rage at the very idea."

Which is why this note from a gay man — who also opposes her request — stood out: "Sex-change operations are the ultimate cosmetic surgery; all that changes is the façade," wrote the reader (who asked not to be identified "for fear of the gay thought police"). "It may help a confused person feel better, but ultimately, sex reassignment surgery is an illusion of change that diverts scarce health funding from people who face true life emergencies. If you want a sex change paid for by someone else, sue your own parents for giving you the wrong life."

He concluded by noting, "I am tired of socialist gay politics that obligates all gay persons to be seen as victims of something horrible in life, however ordinary it truly is."

That's the real quote I think.  And its the problem with socialized medicine.  Someone else gets to choose.  In the USA you can die of cancer or GID, or not, if your willing to pay.  That sucks.  Sure.  But it's sure better then letting other people make that decision.

Quote from: tekla on June 23, 2008, 05:48:51 PM
And its the problem with socialized medicine.  Someone else gets to choose.  In the USA you can die of cancer or GID, or not, if your willing to pay.  That sucks.  Sure.  But it's sure better then letting other people make that decision.

Is it? Why?

  Nfr

Because you are in control of your life - and death - and not some group of people who have their own values, objectives, and reasons.

Well, I can always control my decision to or not to transition, I suppose, regardless of how medicine is doled-out.

But, I prefer being able to actually afford the changes I've decided to make because I choose to, rather than having to wait years and years or never getting the chance at all because of the pricing and my social status at any particular time.

It's all well and good to be a "rugged individualist," and some are more "rugged" than are others. I suppose the year of work at that inner-city clinic helped me see just how much and how frequently real pain exists because the decisions are left up to "status" rather than to "need and availability."

Okay, that $.02 you get for free.

Nichole

If you put it to a vote, which in essence socialized med is, (along with rationing - there is only X amount for every year, and people have to decide "SRS or pre-natal care") I think that often we would end up on the short end of the stick.  All those stories of Charing Cross and its often outright refusal of care is, I'm sure, more of a 'we don't have the money' more than a 'we don't believe in it."  Though I'm sure the second reason comes off sounding better then the first.

The last thing I would like to see in the US is a system where people get to vote on who gets what care.  Outside of a few places, I'm sure there would be even less care for this then the already pitiful amount that is out there.

My health care is not rugged individualism, its through the union, and every few years we have to vote on it, and it often not pretty.  Do we opt for (and thus pay for) dental coverage that includes braces for everyone's little snowflakes with non-perfect teeth, or not?  Those of us who don't have little snowflakes at home really didn't want to pay, those with kids, of course, did.  But its a hard argument.

I have talked with others who lived in other countries and they had a lot to say about their national health care and how bad it is, especially the Canadians. one person had to move down here in order to be treated for cancer. Apparently this individual had been pretty much written off up there and is enjoying being in remission and enjoying life.

Besides after seeing our politicians screw up and ravage whatever they can for money, would you really want them deciding on your health care? I think that socialised medicine can work, just not sure how at the moment.

Yeah, put your health care in the hands of the people who are running the war in Iraq, or the hurricane relief effort in New Orleans.  That will work out well.

Plus whatever the govt grants, they can remove.

Would rather keep control of my health care at the moment, thankyaverymuch.

Like I said, the opinion was free. O, so are your two's as well!!

N~

Come on Nichole, do you really want the Katrina crowd running your health care?  The only think you could be sure of is that whoever they chose to run it would have less than zero experience in anything involving health care.

No, Kat, but you couid handle it, or Syn, or anyone I would feel is a bit more competent than the FEMA group!!

I trust my life to lots of different people, most of whom I don't know and probably don't care to know. I don't really see how a govt bureaucracy could be a whole lot worse than Aetna's.

Most of those systems allow one to opt-out in regard to actually receiving care anyhow. I knew a ton of people in Germany who didn't go through national-health for a lot of procedures and tests, etc.

It still amounts to a lottery based on ability to pay and a number of people decide between minimal health-care and food. I know, we've done that for centuries. But, perhaps, some things need to change, doncha think? Or will you be voting for McBush in November? Never mind, I know you will not. But the arguments on the face of them from that perspective look a lot alike to me.

Nichole

I already said I was going to vote for McCain on the basis that I've never voted for a winner in a Presidential election.  I was out of the country in '76 so I didn't vote in that election and by 80 I voted for Carter and he lost to Reagan.  I never did, and never would vote for Clinton, and Gore, well he won, but.....

My vote for John McCain would be the McKiss of Death.

That was it?

O come on, the very least of the point?

That's hardly like you, Kat.

N~

Ok, would the feds be better than Atena?  I doubt it, Atena at least has a mission statement, and a goal.  And I'm sure they have people in the high posts who do know what they are doing.  And unlike the Bush II years, I doubt that they would put people in charge who's goal was to ruin it.

Just think, if you had national health care then for 20 of the last 28 years it would have been under the control of the people who brought you No Child Left Behind and replaced Sex Ed with Abstinence Education (and you think they are going to approve SRS, you're kidding me right?).  How about abortion?  Not happening.   Yes, your health care decisions administrated by Bush I, Bush II and Ronald RayGun.  Not a pretty thought. 

Health care would be leaking like the levee system on the Mississippi which is also run by the federal government. 

Quote from: tekla on June 24, 2008, 11:39:10 AM
Come on Nichole, do you really want the Katrina crowd running your health care?  The only think you could be sure of is that whoever they chose to run it would have less than zero experience in anything involving health care.

It's hardly a nove idea.  Medicare has been around for 50 years and provides coverage for the oldest and disabled among us.  Read that the highest consumers of health care services.  Admistrative costs account for 3% of the healthcare dollar v. 30% for private carriers.  People in the USA pay a lot a dough to keep insurance executives fat and happy.

Health care like all resources is scarce and limited and the demand virtually unlimited.  The USA allocates health care based on ability to pay.  Roughly 25% of us have no coverage what so ever.  The Canadian with cancer had the resources to pay for his need.  Most don't.  Decisions are made based on models that hopefully provde the most equitable allocation of resources based on expected outcomes.

Fact:  80% of health care dollars are spent in the final 6 months of life.  If the needs of all are to be met something in those numbers will have to change.

Quote from: tekla on June 24, 2008, 09:29:33 AM
Because you are in control of your life - and death - and not some group of people who have their own values, objectives, and reasons.

Only if you have enough money; otherwise your life-and-death matters are decided by your insurance provider, who again have their own values, objectives and reasons. I personally don't really see all that big a difference on whether my health insurance is managed by the government or by a private company. I suppose I might have more options if I had a choice of private insurances, but that disappointment is offset by the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that also the truly poor have reasonable coverage. All in all, in my opinion neither approach is obviously better -- and certainly neither works perfectly in practice.

  Nfr

Actually, I found something to like and agree with in all three of these last posts. tekla is probably very right about the swaying of administrations causing some pretty uncomfy changes for many under a national system in USA. The more civilized we become, perhaps the better it would work.

And for all the screaming at times about Medicare and even Medicaid and their costs, the overhead is tremendously small compared to the overhead of the private insurers, when you can get their coverage.

And the majority of health-care related expenses is, indeed, spent during the final six months of a person's life, as Claire said. And forty years ago, that and a lot of other things, were quite different.

And, yes, Nfr mirrors my feelings that everyone should get at the very least basic coverage for basic problems. I'm still for those warm-fuzzies as well.

Nichole 

Quote from: tekla on June 24, 2008, 11:39:10 AM
Come on Nichole, do you really want the Katrina crowd running your health care?  The only think you could be sure of is that whoever they chose to run it would have less than zero experience in anything involving health care.

I'd be happy with the health plan that our senators get  I don't think that the guv'ment could do any worse a job than the insurance companies, who are milking the system completely dry. Anyway, I'm among the 47 million w/ out any coverage whatsoever... so anything would be better than nada. As long as I don't have anything catastrophic happen, I manage OK.

Z