Quote from: Nichole on August 07, 2009, 08:49:40 PM
But every breath I take, or Cindi, Leslie Ann or tekla takes seems to present a problem for you. At some point doncha think it's simply pointless to argue it?

This is exactly why I stopped.

I did not mean that I'm taking my ball and going home. I'm sorry if I came off in such a manner, that was not my intention, I just simply wished to bow out of the debate. Nothing will be solved by it and it will eat up a lot of time and energy. Hugs to everyone.

Astro-turf is a term for things parading around as grass-roots when they are, in fact PAC/corporate sponsored.  And, anyone who has ever been near a group like Code Pink (which only organized after the war had started) never refers to it as an organized group.  They kinda like being disorganized.  They are not some shrewd bunch of politicos using secret funding, they are, as they seem to be, a bunch of mostly older women (hippie types) who opposed this war, like they've opposed all prior wars. 

And on those things where my union, or other unions participate, we don't cover that up, we show up in our union colors, representing exactly who we are, and who we are there for. There is no attempt at diversion or distraction, or hiding things - we are very proud of who we are, when the men and women of the Longshoreman's Union march, they march - rank and file - as Longshoremen, with Longshoreman Union coats, shirts and banners as well as Longshorman's songs and chants.  Its all but impossible to miss them.

And what is going on here is precisely what Nichole is point to in another post.  The people on the losing end raising such a fuss that the real points can't even be debated.   The decision has been made, not to participate, but to obfuscate.  This bill, in the end does nothing really, its just a start on something that should have been done long ago, and is meant to get the ball rolling.  I'm sure they will be back next year, with even more, and at that point I don't think they are even going to try to get a consensus opinion, they are going to vote on numbers, and they have numbers.

All this does is cast the right further out in the political wilderness, and as the left will tell you, its a long, long way to get back home again.

Quote from: Cindy Stephens on August 08, 2009, 10:42:24 AM
   My own personal observation is that 90% of health care in US could be given by nurse practioners trained in two things-1. recognizing what has to be seen by a doctor, and 2. reciting the phrase "Go home, you have a cold, drink water, take an aspirin-no, you don't need a prescription, just a little rest".  There, I bet I could drop health care expenditures 40% just with that.   

Now HERE is true wisdom we cal all agree on.

I wish to physically hurt that Matt Barber idiot... 

Quote from: Kristi on August 07, 2009, 10:13:38 PM
I have heard nothing about how the new plan would handle the malpractice issue.  Maybe someone has heard.  Would it eventually be impossible to sue for malpractice because basically the doctors would be controlled by the government?  Or has this even been addressed.

I think that we must address this issue.  Because it always comes up.  Actual payouts for malpractice suits is .01 percent of actual  health care costs.  Yet, this is the first counter argument presented (or presented by THE insurance companies) to some sort of socialized program of any type.  Yes I agree we should look at it. But something that has NEVER been addressed to my satisfaction is the ratio of what providers pay for insurance VS what the actual payouts are under these plans.  We need to follow the money. We can not trust the rubbish we here from insurance company shills. We need to investigate the problem and understand it rather than to just listen to someone propose a solution without understanding the underlying cause.  I suspect that if we limited legal suits to low cost arbitration and small malpractice awards, doctors would still be paying far too much for malpractice insurance.  And who'd be the real recipient of the short end of the stick...... again?

QuoteAnd, if GRS is included (which I think would be just awesome) would it be possible to sue the doctor if you change your mind, as we are seeing now?

I would say yes.  And I honestly, I believe that these cases would be summarily dismissed.

I also believe that we should be looking at countries who have better health care than we do to see what they do.  There are 30 or so that do a better job than we do.  Why don't we ever hear anything of them or what they do?  France is rated number one.  They have a combination plan with private and public options. How does theirs work, how much does it cost? How might we apply what they do to our system? You will hear nothing about smart analysis tactics.  BTW, this is the first thing that any business would do.  I know. I used to do this sort of work.  You look at your competition and beat them by providing better service and lower cost. We are looking at this issue from a completely different standpoint.  Why?

Cindi

Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 05:06:39 PM
*sigh*

Oh please you guys. We all know that some people would rather commit suicide then stay as thier birth gender. That is what HRT is for, going around as the gender you say you are, But WE are talking about SRS, which IMO is a tolerateable as a tumor in your groin. Except an acual tumor has the chance of killing you... Nobody here goes around naked all the time, so it has no effect on people taking you seriously as a man/woman.

And I know you guys are going to say something about others killing transsexuals because of thier genitalia or something. If that is the case, the problem lies not in the genitals but in the person doing the killing. Having genitals opposite of your gender does may cause a bit of discomfert but is NOT life threatening.

There is a number of people who mutilate themselves from desperation and some who would kill themselves because they have the wrong genitals.

there are some who can blow it off or tolerate their wrong genitals not being corrected, however, we should always consider the people who cannot go on with the wrong genitals.

---

Post Merge: August 09, 2009, 01:17:16 PM

---

Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 05, 2009, 11:04:54 PM
They will even put in a fake testicle if you lose one, or a fake breast implant.

I'm just goofing on you, but isn't that redundant? Would a fake breast implant be if the surgeon pretended to use an implant, or if they told you it was an implant, but it turned out to be a real breast?

I think largely because of money.  There is a huge profit motive in both the health care industry, as well as in its paid spokespeople, some of which are our elected officials.  Check out the money that the people who oppose this are collecting in contributions, and it pretty much tells the story.

No one is proposing doing anything to change the entire system.  The only thing, and I'm not sure its even going to get through, is a public pool for people who are not otherwise covered, and attempting to do something about the insanity of pre-existing conditions clause. 

At the bottom line level, this problem is one that affects the competitiveness of American Industry (aside from the insurance industry) in the world market, adding unnecessary costs to the end tag of manufactured items. And that is one reason that a lot of people do support it.

And yes, France and Germany have very good health care systems, and BTW, so does Canada for the most part.  But every time it's brought up its the NIH in Brittan, a model that no other country really follows.  And the arguments are getting a little shop worn at this point.  The entire deal about having a gub'mt bureaucrat between you and your doctor.  Well, you have a bureaucrat between you and your doctor now, that and an executive who gets paid more if they pay out to you less.  Is that really a better option?

Since, no one is talking at this point about changing anything that people like so much, I would think the reasonable and rational choice is for those people to bow out of the debate, as it doesn't really reach them. 

This is a key area where elections have consequences, and like they all said after the 2000/2004 election, the losers ought to keep quite and admit defeat.  (Which I'm sure they now regret, as some of the losers did get busy and ended up winning).  Health care reform was a key issue for people voting the eventual winners into power, and - oddly enough in a democracy - the people are getting some measure, though in no means what they really wanted, which I think is Single Payer, or something on that model, of what they voted these people into office to do.

I think it's going to happen, and the passage of this bill is just a field test for what's going to come next year.

Quote from: Laura Hope on August 06, 2009, 08:49:24 PM
so, of course, MSA's are anethema to left wing politicians - why? Because if YOU are making the decisions, government has less CONTROL over you and THAT my friends is what they WANT, not to "take care of you"

I think it is the people who want to legislate morality that want to control me.  People who spent all our money on oil wars and such. They are the people to watch out for.

I wouldn't fear someone who wants to help me if I'm having a hard time. No one controls me anyway. You could have a zillion government programs. IF I had enough money to do it, I'd get private insurance or cover my bills myself. That's me making a decision.

If taxes go too high, somebody will be voted in to cut them along with the programs that are causing it. If the votes aren't there, some corporations will pay to have the right tax cutter put in office.

Today's solutions the problems of tomorrow.

As long as I make like $30,000 a year, I doubt I'm going to be overtaxed anyway.


I agree with Tekla. It won't be earth shattering change.

     I think that it is illustrative to look at the argument that seems to be making the rounds.  Obamacare is evil because you would be forced to stand in front of a death board who would decide how to end your life.  Palin has said something to this effect.  Also Pat Buchanan on today's McLaughlin report. 
     What they are refereeing to is a provision ALLOWING you to see a specialist, social worker, therapist, etc. who could help you decide on a course of action upon being given a really bad diagnoses.  Very stressful time of life.  Maybe your spouse, or your priest is the best person to ask.  Maybe a professional.  Wouldn't you like someone, IF YOU WANT, with professional creds to give you insight on hospice care, continuing treatment, no treatment at all?  Maybe even at hospice at home until it is time to go to a facility.  Doctors don't like this option because they lose a customer.  My father had it, and he had a very peaceful end.
      Unfortunately, the same players against Terry Shiavo are coming out against this provision.  They want to force their religious practices down your throat, without so much as the information of alternatives.  Didn't they do the same thing with birth control and turn it into an abstinence only program which when measured had the same success rate as no program.  Resulting in Palins daughter... well, I'm not going to go the Letterman route. 
        Choice is having more, not less information and choices.  I deal with the bureaucracy all the time and have rarely had trouble.  Of course I assume that they are there to do their jobs.  Usually they are quite helpful.  Of course I have seen people get pushy, mouthy, and arrogant (I am your boss etc.) and bureaucrats, who know how the system works, can send you to Siberia. I guess you just get the Government you deserve.

---

Post Merge: August 09, 2009, 12:59:05 PM

---

---

Post Merge: August 09, 2009, 03:00:26 PM

---

Now that we have solved the health care question, I notice the thread is "Free Sex-change Surgeries."  I think that because of limited surgeons, and varied methods, perhaps a maximum payment for the surgery could be set up.  Like this. The policy pays max of 17,500 for whole procedure.  If yours costs more, then you pay difference.  Hormones should be covered whether or not you have surgery, hair removal, breast augmentation, ffs, etc. not.  Agree:disagree?

Quote from: Rebis on August 09, 2009, 01:51:10 PM
I think it is the people who want to legislate morality that want to control me.

They do to.

QuotePeople who spent all our money on oil wars and such. They are the people to watch out for.

what does legislating morality have to do with "oil wars"?

Even if the same person happens to do both, it's a non-sequiter in this conversation.

Quote
I wouldn't fear someone who wants to help me if I'm having a hard time. No one controls me anyway.

Meh. Religious people do a LOT to help people in need and a LOT of people fear religious people greatly.

Often for good reason.

Quote
You could have a zillion government programs. IF I had enough money to do it, I'd get private insurance or cover my bills myself. That's me making a decision.

If taxes go too high, somebody will be voted in to cut them along with the programs that are causing it. If the votes aren't there, some corporations will pay to have the right tax cutter put in office.

Today's solutions the problems of tomorrow.

True that.

Quote
As long as I make like $30,000 a year, I doubt I'm going to be overtaxed anyway.

Not directly, no. But a lot of the negative impact on anyone's economic situation is indirect.

for instance - if you tax a corporation does the corporation make less money?

nope. they raise their prices. So the ultimate taxpayer of cooperate taxes is the customer - i.e. the average citizen, you and me.

Quote
I agree with Tekla. It won't be earth shattering change.

One things for sure, whether or not GID is covered would be a drop in the bucket of the overall cost of the thing. It's sure a red herring in the debate.

Quote from: Laura Hope on August 09, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
One things for sure, whether or not GID is covered would be a drop in the bucket of the overall cost of the thing. It's sure a red herring in the debate.

so true.

QuoteNow that we have solved the health care question, I notice the thread is "Free Sex-change Surgeries."  I think that because of limited surgeons, and varied methods, perhaps a maximum payment for the surgery could be set up.  Like this. The policy pays max of 17,500 for whole procedure.  If yours costs more, then you pay difference.  Hormones should be covered whether or not you have surgery, hair removal, breast augmentation, ffs, etc. not.  Agree:disagree?

The PHB column that was linked above referred to a study that said the average cost in 2001 was $11,400 and the inflation calculator implies that's around $13,000 today. So $17,5 seems generous. probably have to index it a bit for inflation.

I agree that hormones should be covered and so should therapy. I agree that BA shouldn't (unless it's covered for the flat chested GG) nor should FFS.

But I disagree about hair removal. If a GG is "hirsute" (ever how you spell it) it's considered a treatable medical condition. I would think that if that's true then SOME not all!) hair removal would be covered for the trans patient as well - but only in the places where hair is unnatural for a female. Not arms, legs, genitals (except as necessary for surgery) or underarms.

Quote from: Cindy Stephens on August 09, 2009, 02:52:18 PM
     I think that it is illustrative to look at the argument that seems to be making the rounds.  Obamacare is evil because you would be forced to stand in front of a death board who would decide how to end your life.  Palin has said something to this effect.  Also Pat Buchanan on today's McLaughlin report. 

I think it is almost funny to point out is that the "end of life counseling" that is in the bill was put there by two Republican members of Congress.  I wonder how they can get away with this stuff?  I actually agree that putting together a living will is a good idea.  They offer free counseling at the clinic where I go for this.... and it is not a public financed clinic.  I agree with you Cindy, I think that it is an excellent thing to offer. 

Cindi   

Palin has said something to this effect.  Also Pat Buchanan

Are those their sources?  Their spokespersons?  One who declared a culture war after being a speechwriter for the only President to ever have had to resign in disgrace, and the other who couldn't even finish a term as governor of a low population state?  One is a tool and the other is a fool.  If this is the best they got anyone to quote from how can the other side possibly lose?

Quote from: tekla on August 09, 2009, 10:08:08 PM
If this is the best they got anyone to quote from how can the other side possibly lose?

Does make you wonder.

But the truth is, health care reform is not exactly taking the country by storm, at least not as a whole.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51810

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121916/Two-Three-Doubt-Congress-Grasp-Healthcare-Issues.aspx

Does anyone have any more recent polling data?

Kristi

Social Security and Medicare were equally difficult to implement politically.  They do seem fairly popular these days.

I'm still very hopeful that we will accomplish something significant. But if we let the insurance companies continue to gouge us, the next go around won't be a public and private option, it will be nationalized.  All we have to do is tip the balance... you know.... where more people do not have insurance than do.  Then we'll get nationalized health care.

You know, some people just do not know when and where to pick their battles.

So, I suppose that it doesn't really matter.  Insurance companies can lose out a little right now or they can lose everything a few years down the road.

Cindi

I don't think they use polling numbers except on the opposition.  If they did, we would have never gone to war in Iraq, and even if then we would have been out every year since then.  So I don't think they care about the numbers.

The polls are skewed. You can ask the same person the same question phrased two different ways and get two different answers.

The "leaders" opposed to it are spreading fear and lies to get people riled up and turn against it. Almost every high level person against it has their hand in the cookie jar and has some of the best medical coverage money can buy.

Yellow daisy,

     I understand.  However, if you have hair removal covered then a large number of regular men will want hair removed even if they are only looking to improve their appearance.  They will turn it into a joke. If we got facial surgery, then huge numbers of women will want their fair share also. Then we become a bigger scapegoat then we are now.  I think we have to be a bit thankful for any change that comes and avoid trying to go a bit too far.  At least at the beginning. 

Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 10, 2009, 01:25:58 AM
The polls are skewed. You can ask the same person the same question phrased two different ways and get two different answers.

I realize you can massage data and get lots of different slants to it as well.  Rasmussen and Gallup seem to be some of the more reliable ones out there though.  I didn't list the CNN or right wing polls. They seem to be showing similar trends.  I just don't think in this case all of the polls are totally off base.  We do need some kind of reform.  No, there will never be complete consensus.  I saw an interview with Obama where he said he does not govern according to polls.  But to me it looks like this plan is in danger.  I don't believe it is too late, but there are obviously some real issues that need to be addressed.  And, if anyone has access to more current data, I would still like to see it.  I just wonder if things have changed since these were done.

Kristi