Quote from: Guantanamera on November 13, 2011, 05:38:09 AM
As a consumer I find it horrifying that the government wouldn't set standards of care and health outcomes. There are no do-overs in a lot of medicine. What would your response to doctors performing experimental procedures or less effective procedures for the their own financial benefit? (aka ties to pharmacuetical companies.) Further, what would happen if the government didn't provide a means for people to redress their grievances when these instances eventually occur?

What would you consider the government do, if anything, if you live a hillbilly city where all the doctors/stores/bankers won't give you access because of their 'moral convictions?' Would you allow that person to starve because of the ignorant actions of others?

The fact of the matter is that for health care to be effective, the government must intercede because consumers are not experts and can't decide for themselves what the best course of treatment is. And that because doctors enjoy a special relationship with their patients that other merchants don't- which in combination makes it very deadly for consumers. (If you don't believe me, check out the patent medicines from the early 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine, herione and opium to young children.)

It might astonish you to know that European democracies are more 'free' by any measure of the word:

Those societies ensure the right the economic justice and oppurtunity- thus their society is much less class bound. Everyone has a shot at becoming wealthy.
They ensure the right to aforable healthcare- thus people in their society live longer.
They ensure the right to a clean enviroment and healthy food- thus people are are more happy and healthy.
They ensure the right to an education at whatever level you can achieve- thus people enjoy all the benefits associated with education while the society benefiets from more skilled workers and innovation.

In any way that you analyze the proposition, positive rights not only ensure that people are more free to pursue 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' but they create a much better society than the one we live in.

I disagree with all of this. But I can sum up my opinions on it by saying what you call "rights" is nothing more than government taking away rights from 1 group of people and "giving" them to another. These are not rights at all, they are mandates.

Mandates are laws. The word "law" is just a nice word for "limitation", because in all of your examples, somebody had to be limited somehow in order to give others what you call "rights".

The way I see it: the only "rights" are derived from a government being limited from taking action against the public. This includes private corporations, small business practice, and consumers all alike.

Okay. I too live in southern Indiana. My Endo is Dr. Sheperd and she practices at the I.U. Womens health Center in Indianapolis. She's a wonderful lady who has also treated one of my Sisters when she started transitioning. PM me if you want contact details if you can't find her.
I've had a doctor like that before.  Sadly, there is a lot of people like that in Indiana. But I hope Dr. Sheperd can help you. *hugs*

If you're still interested in trying someone in Evansville, IN, you should try Anne Busch, M.D. She is both my general practitioner and handles my hormones/blood work. She also already has a few trans patients that she sees in the area. Her website is http://www.evvmed.com/anne.html

Quote from: zancii on November 13, 2011, 08:46:52 PM
If you're still interested in trying someone in Evansville, IN, you should try Anne Busch, M.D. She is both my general practitioner and handles my hormones/blood work. She also already has a few trans patients that she sees in the area. Her website is http://www.evvmed.com/anne.html

Thank you so much! i will contact her in the morning first thing

Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 12, 2011, 01:39:33 PM
I'm a tea partier. People's identity or sexual preferences don't effect my hatred of big government. I was a REPUBLICAN voting gay male since high school and like the gayest male of all.

from what ive heard of the teaparty there is a lack of consensus on most politcal issues including racism, sexual diversity, tolerance etc. If you belong to a political group that has no clear manifesto and a history of having high profile members (For example Dale Robertson, Sonny Thomas, Mark Williams) who are willing to be publicly racist, islamiphobic and intolerant then you are always going to run the risk of being criticised. I dont think my own views neccisarily go against the view that "big government" is too controlling and i like the fact that the majority of tea party members are republicans who are dissatisfied with the republican party leadership (and there is nothing more patriotic than dissent). However the actions of many Tea Party members do worry me. Im not trying to tar you all with the same brush of course, i consider myself a Libertarian and a Socialist (but not a libertarian socialist if you take that to mean the political movement itself) which may seem like a conflict of interests but i dont believe it has to be.

Anyway no more politics, especially trans atlantic politics XD

As an independant observer on the US political system (yes I do feel it is important to pay attention even though I am British) it seems to me that the goal of the 'Tea Party' leadership is to rally the more conservative elements of the US to attack and discredit the current administration with as many outlandish accusations as possible. There is no way the Republican party would be foolish enough to put up a Tea Party Candidate for the Election next year, because they would alienate the moderates and swing voters that they need to win over for a victory...but to quote a certain American satirist and comedian 'That's just my opinion, I could be wrong'.

Speaking as someone raised in a country where you have a choice between state funded healthcare and private healthcare, I cannot imagine living under a system where the law does not hold a doctor to their duty of care. Where a private doctor in this country can refuse patients due to their own beliefs, an NHS Doctor cannot, meaning there is care for everyone who needs it... provided our Conservatives don't sell the NHS off like they seem intent on doing. I think there'd be more than rioting if that happened. The NHS in it's 60 year existance has embedded itself as the cornerstone of our society and I for one am grateful to have it, and feel safe going to any doctor with any problem to recieve impartial and professional treatment.

Tams xxxx

By the same standard no-one who objected to what Marci Bowers was doing could stop her either.  It works both ways.

Actually there are vocal opponents who believe that SRS and other transgender related treatments should not be availible on the NHS like it is now... they tend to get ignored though. When you can keep religion and government seperate, then you don't get the 'morality' of one group having legal jurisdiction over others.

It makes me laugh that churches and other religious groups are so opposed to certain things being legal... they seem to think the words 'legal' and 'compulsory' mean the same thing. It's not like there's a Gay or Transgender Draft where heterosexual, god-fearing types can get chosen at random for sodomy and sex changes. We're not short of fundamentalist religious types in the UK but at least they came from a wider variety of faiths and therefore cannot create a cohesive movement.

Tams x