The Trump Administration Bigotry Strikes Again With New ACA Regulations

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,649
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
LOL - yep. That's what happens when you put government in charge of things it shouldn't be in charge of.

"Dr. Trump will see you now. Bend over"
Then who should be in charge of health care? The for profit insurers and big pharma ? Seriously?
Those are the only two options you can think of? Seriously?

Why would you want anyone to be in charge of your health care? Wouldn't you rather make your own decisions?
Sure , but what exactly does that look like when you have a for profit health care industry that won't allow you to be in charge? Either that have free reign to make the life and death decisions based on their bottom line considerations, or they are regulated by government. With regulation, I am by far, more in control than I would otherwise be.
Again, I have to ask, are those the only two option you can think of? Why do you insist that someone else be calling the shots for you?
I already gave you my answer. Please enlighten me as to what exactly you have in mind short of being your own doctor, hospital, and pharmacy and being independently wealthy
If you want control over your own health care, over your own life, you have to pay your own way. The more you do that, the more you're in control. To the extent that someone else is paying your bills, they will be in control.

You seem to be coming at this from the conviction that no one can pay for their own health care, and I'd ask you to really pause and consider that premise. Imagine if this were the situation with food. Let's say we regulated food to the point that the average person could no longer afford to feed themselves. In that case, should we spend our time debating whether government, or corporations, should feed people? Or should you question how we got to a place where something as fundamental as food is too expensive for the average consumer?
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Then who should be in charge of health care? The for profit insurers and big pharma ? Seriously?
Those are the only two options you can think of? Seriously?

Why would you want anyone to be in charge of your health care? Wouldn't you rather make your own decisions?
Sure , but what exactly does that look like when you have a for profit health care industry that won't allow you to be in charge? Either that have free reign to make the life and death decisions based on their bottom line considerations, or they are regulated by government. With regulation, I am by far, more in control than I would otherwise be.
Again, I have to ask, are those the only two option you can think of? Why do you insist that someone else be calling the shots for you?
I already gave you my answer. Please enlighten me as to what exactly you have in mind short of being your own doctor, hospital, and pharmacy and being independently wealthy
If you want control over your own health care, over your own life, you have to pay your own way. The more you do that, the more you're in control. To the extent that someone else is paying your bills, they will be in control.

You seem to be coming at this from the conviction that no one can pay for their own health care, and I'd ask you to really pause and consider that premise. Imagine if this were the situation with food. Let's say we regulated food to the point that the average person could no longer afford to feed themselves. In that case, should we spend our time debating whether government, or corporations, should feed people? Or should you question how we got to a place where something as fundamental as food is too expensive for the average consumer?
Sure, pay your own way. Of course. Now all you have to do is explain how you would get doctor, hospital and drug costs down to the point where most people can afford them out of packet. I don't suppose that you would support socialized medicine?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,649
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
Sure, pay your own way. Of course. Now all you have to do is explain how you would get doctor, hospital and drug costs down to the point where most people can afford them out of packet.
If most of us start paying for most of our health care ourselves, prices will come down. There will be real demand for affordable health care. As it is, there is there's very little reason for health care providers to offer low cost care because they're successfully selling the high-cost variety.

Last century, doctors and hospitals worked hard to arrange things so that patients never have to ask "how much?". They think of that as a good thing, but it's created spiraling costs and a dysfunctional health care market. It may be a good thing for hospitals and doctors, but has betrayed health care consumers and left them holding the bag. We now have health care that no one can afford without corporate or government "sponsorship". The game is not sustainable and it's time we pulled the plug.
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Sure, pay your own way. Of course. Now all you have to do is explain how you would get doctor, hospital and drug costs down to the point where most people can afford them out of packet.
If most of us start paying for most of our health care ourselves, prices will come down. There will be real demand for affordable health care. As it is, there is there's very little reason for health care providers to offer low cost care because they're successfully selling the high-cost variety.

Last century, doctors and hospitals worked hard to arrange things so that patients never have to ask "how much?". They think of that as a good thing, but it's created spiraling costs and a dysfunctional health care market. It may be a good thing for hospitals and doctors, but has betrayed health care consumers and left them holding the bag. We now have health care that no one can afford without corporate or government "sponsorship". The game is not sustainable and it's time we pulled the plug.
The first problem that I see is that few if any will start paying their own way unless prices come down first-so you have a chicken and egg problem.

Secondly, the simple fact is that this is not the last century. It is the here and now. They sold snake oil back then too. The health care system is infinitely more complex now Even if health care providers wanted to lower prices, they would be severely constrained by the costs of medical equipment and supplies and drugs which the end user may have little control over since we are talking about a global market. If manufacturers can’t get their price here, they will find a place where they can get it.

In addition, it is likely to exacerbate the already short supply of doctors in some specialties. Many will go elsewhere, or not become doctors at all. I am hard pressed to believe that the quality and availability of care would not suffer greatly, or that prices would be sufficiently reduced so that everyone could afford the care that they need- and for what? For fear and loathing of government regulations.? Even now, we don't have the best health care outcomes indicating to me that we need even more regulation and costly research, coordination and availability of care. That will not be achieved by going back to the days of Dr. Kildare or Doc Holiday.

And do you really believe that government regulations of the industry would be unnecessary. There may no longer be insurance regulations because there is no insurance- but a whole host of other regulations would still be need from the manufacture of medical devices to the training of professionals.

I think that you may well find that you have less-not more control over your care in terms of availability and quality. Insurers are a necessary evil, and the regulation of them is just necessary.
 
Last edited:

Leo123

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
2,587
Points
290
This is absolutely disgusting and one of the clearest indications yet of the Trump Administration's open hostility towards LGBT people. Yes the lying ass Trump who - as a candidate - stated that he would support the rights of LBGT people. Instead, with this, he will have blood on his hands.

Lambda Legal: Trump Administration Assault on LGBT People Continues with New ACA Regulation

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations designed to roll back regulations issued during the Obama Administration that clarified that, pursuant to federal law, the sex discrimination protections of the Affordable Care Act forbid discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The proposed regulations would carve-out LGBT people from the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections, and purport to permit health care workers, doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies that receive federal funding to refuse to provide or cover health care services critical to the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, such as transition-related and reproductive care. The proposed regulations also seek to permit, yet again, health care entities and workers to be able to deny insurance or care to LGBT patients or policy-holders because of personal, religious or moral beliefs, endangering the lives of LGBT people.
It is clear that he values the votes of his dwindling base over human life.
What special 'rights' do LGBT people have that other's don't?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,649
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
Even if health care providers wanted to lower prices, they would be severely constrained by the costs of medical equipment and supplies and drugs which the end user may have little control over since we are talking about a global market. If manufacturers can’t get their price here, they will find a place where they can get it.
Under the current setup, they don't want to. Or, rather, they have no incentive to solve these problems. And these problems can be solved. There's no sane reason why health care should be unaffordable. It's bad policy that makes it so.

If we repeal the laws propping up the current, corrupt system - (get rid of the tax deduction for health insurance, drop laws forcing employers to provide health insurance, get rid of regulations prohibiting low cost health insurance, and, most importantly, get rid of regulations prohibiting low cost health care, etc...) and let people decide for themselves how to finance their health care, we'd find a reasonable balance.

As it is, every vested interest has an army of lobbyists to protect their slice of the pie. Anything government tries to do with health care will be manipulated by these groups to funnel even more money in their direction. The only way to break their stranglehold is to remove their ability to control their market via the regulatory regime.

Sadly, Republicans like the rigged system we have, and Democrats could never - ever - bring themselves to reduce regulation.
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Even if health care providers wanted to lower prices, they would be severely constrained by the costs of medical equipment and supplies and drugs which the end user may have little control over since we are talking about a global market. If manufacturers can’t get their price here, they will find a place where they can get it.
Under the current setup, they don't want to. Or, rather, they have no incentive to solve these problems. And these problems can be solved. There's no sane reason why health care should be unaffordable. It's bad policy that makes it so.

If we repeal the laws propping up the current, corrupt system - (get rid of the tax deduction for health insurance, drop laws forcing employers to provide health insurance, get rid of regulations prohibiting low cost health insurance, and, most importantly, get rid of regulations prohibiting low cost health care, etc...) and let people decide for themselves how to finance their health care, we'd find a reasonable balance.

As it is, every vested interest has an army of lobbyists to protect their slice of the pie. Anything government tries to do with health care will be manipulated by these groups to funnel even more money in their direction. The only way to break their stranglehold is to remove their ability to control their market via the regulatory regime.

Sadly, Republicans like the rigged system we have, and Democrats could never - ever - bring themselves to reduce regulation.
Still sounds like a pipe dream to me. It seems that your answer is to deregulate everything and have everyone fend for themselves. Good luck with that. We all know how the free market economy works so well. I still maintain that quality and quantity of health care will suffer and it will still not be affordable.

Let me tell you a story. I had major back surgury last year. I never saw a bill but I saw statements as to what the insurer was shelling out. Well over $1ook. Lucky for me, I had a highly skilled neuro surgeon because I might otherwise be in a wheelchair today. What do you think he would work for in your Marcus Welby fantasy land? Hell, I'm willing to be he would not even exist as a surgeon. He would have become an airline pilot or something like that. Who is going to train for 10 years at great expense and then not make good money? So feel free to pay your own way and to see who you can get to go along with you. I like my arrangement just fine.
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
14,361
Reaction score
4,073
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
I resent paying thousands upon thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing for me so that others can have elective surgery performed on them.

and I would say that for ANY form of elective surgery.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,145
Reaction score
3,185
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
This is absolutely disgusting and one of the clearest indications yet of the Trump Administration's open hostility towards LGBT people. Yes the lying ass Trump who - as a candidate - stated that he would support the rights of LBGT people. Instead, with this, he will have blood on his hands.

Lambda Legal: Trump Administration Assault on LGBT People Continues with New ACA Regulation

It is clear that he values the votes of his dwindling base over human life.
This was because some trans person sued a Catholic doctor who wouldn't remove the persons perfectly healthy uterus.

When you force total compliance OR ELSE, expect blowback.

Plus this rule was already on hold because of several lawsuits against it.

It doesn't allow ER doctors to deny care to ANYONE, it just limits the definition of "sex" to what is in congressionally passed laws.
Do you have some documentation to back all of that up, or do you expect that we will just take you at your word? What case of a Catholic doctor are you referring to and what role did it play in this policy decision?
Why this transgender man sued a Catholic hospital for refusing to do a hysterectomy

Why the fuck is this a serious lawsuit? What's next other weirdos suing because they won't cut off a healthy leg?


.
Because we are a society that demands others accept things OR ELSE.

At least the progressive side of society.

Live and let live isn't good enough anymore. It's based on the narcissism inherent in the progressive mindset.
martybegan
SpiritualIy I think it's a karmic reaction and phase.
There was so much discrimination, harassment and trauma against gays by Christian fundamentalists,
since this injustice was never fully FORGIVEN (but held AGAINST Christians still blamed for it today)
then it comes back and BOOMERANGS the other way until it is resolved.

Instead of the LGBT forgiving the past abuses against them collectively,
which hasn't happen because of rejection of Christianity,
All that bad karma comes back and gets projected "onto the other side"
in a vicious cycle of retribution from the past.

Now the burden of Forgiveness is being pushed back on Christians.
So the Christians are being treated the way LGBT were in the past
so the burden is back on THAT SIDE to forgive and resolve.

When both sides agree to forgive and stop the negative backlash
back and forth, then this cycle will stop. Till then martybegan
whatever backlash is still going on seems to be proportional
to the bad karma that went down in the past. If we don't learn
from history, we repeat it. Until we do learn to forgive and
resolve it instead of seeking retribution back and forth.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,145
Reaction score
3,185
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
This is absolutely disgusting and one of the clearest indications yet of the Trump Administration's open hostility towards LGBT people. Yes the lying ass Trump who - as a candidate - stated that he would support the rights of LBGT people. Instead, with this, he will have blood on his hands.

Lambda Legal: Trump Administration Assault on LGBT People Continues with New ACA Regulation

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations designed to roll back regulations issued during the Obama Administration that clarified that, pursuant to federal law, the sex discrimination protections of the Affordable Care Act forbid discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The proposed regulations would carve-out LGBT people from the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections, and purport to permit health care workers, doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies that receive federal funding to refuse to provide or cover health care services critical to the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, such as transition-related and reproductive care. The proposed regulations also seek to permit, yet again, health care entities and workers to be able to deny insurance or care to LGBT patients or policy-holders because of personal, religious or moral beliefs, endangering the lives of LGBT people.
It is clear that he values the votes of his dwindling base over human life.
LOL - yep. That's what happens when you put government in charge of things it shouldn't be in charge of.

"Dr. Trump will see you now. Bend over"
Then who should be in charge of health care? The for profit insurers and big pharma ? Seriously? Do you actually think that they put human life first over anything?
Dear TheProgressivePatriot

The most cost effective solutions, that also bypass any political conflicts,
are NONPROFIT cooperative structure and direct care associations. These
empower people to own and manage their own health care programs,
including enlisting and hiring their own doctors as one advantage of
organizing local providers in a cost effective network. www.medcoops.net

By creating member owned, democratically managed local coops,
people retain free choice of which benefits to manage through
either govt or paid retainer or indemnity/catastrophic insurance.
So there is no need to "compete" between conflicting ideologies;
it only takes groups of 1500 to get the same discount rates
as nationalizing health care. So people can form their own
groups and build in the terms they want to pay for without
interference from other groups that can select their own terms.

Unlike high-profit insurance or govt controlled programs that waste
2-3 times the money on bureaucratic admin, claims and payment systems,
organizing in local community based coops (at 6% admin with the rest paying for services)
cuts the costs in half, including eliminating deductibles with minimum or zero copays.
Because the money saved from paying insurance profits and marketing can go
instead toward paying for medical care. Because this is not based on profits,
there are no exclusions, and member owned coops mean no
discrimination by citizenship status or by pre-existing conditions.
Members pay for their own costs of care, not for other people's costs.

The costs are predicted and reduced by averaging out discounts over
pools of 1500 people concentrated by geographic region, so this
eliminates the problems of carrying excess burdens, conditions or costs.

SEE www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
This structure is what I will be proposing to Democrat and Republican
Congress reps in Houston, to stop wasting money on political campaigns
fighting over govt terms and conditions, set up Coops in every district
so each party's members can organize by their own precincts to support
2-3 coops each; and after the majority of programs are organized
cost-effectively through local providers in each district, then the rest
that is managed cheapest through govt can still be managed that way.
So we can map out what venues work best for what level of services,
and quit fighting to push "everything" into federal govt. That only works
for some of the GENERAL levels that don't require individual choices.
The local care is best covered by direct contracts with providers who
agree to take medicare pricing at cost (because the coops handle direct monthly
payments and cut out costs and losses to providers from govt bureaucracy,
insurance claims, and nonpayment that normally jacks up prices to compensate)
And the hospital indemnity and catastrophic insurance that covers higher expenses
can be managed through group discounts, also without requiring legislative hassles.

The one thing I would add through legislation is tax breaks where people
who pay for, invest or donate to cover medical and health care "at cost"
would get 100% tax deduction. So this would reward people and help
create jobs managing health care development through cooperatives.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,479
Reaction score
8,579
Points
2,040
This was because some trans person sued a Catholic doctor who wouldn't remove the persons perfectly healthy uterus.

When you force total compliance OR ELSE, expect blowback.

Plus this rule was already on hold because of several lawsuits against it.

It doesn't allow ER doctors to deny care to ANYONE, it just limits the definition of "sex" to what is in congressionally passed laws.
Do you have some documentation to back all of that up, or do you expect that we will just take you at your word? What case of a Catholic doctor are you referring to and what role did it play in this policy decision?
Why this transgender man sued a Catholic hospital for refusing to do a hysterectomy

Why the fuck is this a serious lawsuit? What's next other weirdos suing because they won't cut off a healthy leg?


.
Because we are a society that demands others accept things OR ELSE.

At least the progressive side of society.

Live and let live isn't good enough anymore. It's based on the narcissism inherent in the progressive mindset.
martybegan
SpiritualIy I think it's a karmic reaction and phase.
There was so much discrimination, harassment and trauma against gays by Christian fundamentalists,
since this injustice was never fully FORGIVEN (but held AGAINST Christians still blamed for it today)
then it comes back and BOOMERANGS the other way until it is resolved.

Instead of the LGBT forgiving the past abuses against them collectively,
which hasn't happen because of rejection of Christianity,
All that bad karma comes back and gets projected "onto the other side"
in a vicious cycle of retribution from the past.

Now the burden of Forgiveness is being pushed back on Christians.
So the Christians are being treated the way LGBT were in the past
so the burden is back on THAT SIDE to forgive and resolve.

When both sides agree to forgive and stop the negative backlash
back and forth, then this cycle will stop. Till then martybegan
whatever backlash is still going on seems to be proportional
to the bad karma that went down in the past. If we don't learn
from history, we repeat it. Until we do learn to forgive and
resolve it instead of seeking retribution back and forth.
Homosexuality wasn't just condemned in the past by fundamentalists, it was condemned by society in general.

Acceptance in recent history is a new phenomenon, really only a few decades old.
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,413
Reaction score
6,320
Points
290
This is absolutely disgusting and one of the clearest indications yet of the Trump Administration's open hostility towards LGBT people. Yes the lying ass Trump who - as a candidate - stated that he would support the rights of LBGT people. Instead, with this, he will have blood on his hands.

Lambda Legal: Trump Administration Assault on LGBT People Continues with New ACA Regulation

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations designed to roll back regulations issued during the Obama Administration that clarified that, pursuant to federal law, the sex discrimination protections of the Affordable Care Act forbid discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The proposed regulations would carve-out LGBT people from the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections, and purport to permit health care workers, doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies that receive federal funding to refuse to provide or cover health care services critical to the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, such as transition-related and reproductive care. The proposed regulations also seek to permit, yet again, health care entities and workers to be able to deny insurance or care to LGBT patients or policy-holders because of personal, religious or moral beliefs, endangering the lives of LGBT people.
It is clear that he values the votes of his dwindling base over human life.


There is no right to free sex change operations.

This is an elective surgery, failure to provide it doesn't endanger anyone's life.

If LGBTQ folks want to buy policies that include Sex Change operations , fine, they should be able to buy a rider for this.

But those of us who are willing to stay in the same gender, shouldn't have to pay for others anxious to switcheroo.

As far as doctors and hospitals, many feel that sex change operations are Quackery. Including Johns Hopkins. I know if I was a doctor, I couldn't amputate a healthy penis just because some goof asked me too. Sure, if someone had Cancer of the Cock and I was looking to cure him, chop, chop. But not just because some doofus thinks it will make him a broad.
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
This is absolutely disgusting and one of the clearest indications yet of the Trump Administration's open hostility towards LGBT people. Yes the lying ass Trump who - as a candidate - stated that he would support the rights of LBGT people. Instead, with this, he will have blood on his hands.

Lambda Legal: Trump Administration Assault on LGBT People Continues with New ACA Regulation

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations designed to roll back regulations issued during the Obama Administration that clarified that, pursuant to federal law, the sex discrimination protections of the Affordable Care Act forbid discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The proposed regulations would carve-out LGBT people from the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections, and purport to permit health care workers, doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies that receive federal funding to refuse to provide or cover health care services critical to the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, such as transition-related and reproductive care. The proposed regulations also seek to permit, yet again, health care entities and workers to be able to deny insurance or care to LGBT patients or policy-holders because of personal, religious or moral beliefs, endangering the lives of LGBT people.
It is clear that he values the votes of his dwindling base over human life.


There is no right to free sex change operations.

This is an elective surgery, failure to provide it doesn't endanger anyone's life.

If LGBTQ folks want to buy policies that include Sex Change operations , fine, they should be able to buy a rider for this.

But those of us who are willing to stay in the same gender, shouldn't have to pay for others anxious to switcheroo.

As far as doctors and hospitals, many feel that sex change operations are Quackery. Including Johns Hopkins. I know if I was a doctor, I couldn't amputate a healthy penis just because some goof asked me too. Sure, if someone had Cancer of the Cock and I was looking to cure him, chop, chop. But not just because some doofus thinks it will make him a broad.
Dude!! Each of your posts are more bizarre, demented and inappropriate than the last. Apparently you do not understand that the issue is discrimination in health care against LGBT of which gender reassignment is but one very small part. Yet you zero in on that as though there is nothing else to consider. What the fuck is wrong with you!!??
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,413
Reaction score
6,320
Points
290
Dude!! Each of your posts are more bizarre, demented and inappropriate than the last. Apparently you do not understand that the issue is discrimination in health care against LGBT of which gender reassignment is but one very small part. Yet you zero in on that as though there is nothing else to consider. What the fuck is wrong with you!!??

If a homosexual comes into the doctor for a hip replacement, or with afib, cirrhosis OTL, or emphysema, it really doesn't matter what their sexual preferences are. The doctor isn't going to ask, and doesn't want to hear if the patient wants to "share".

Sure, there are plenty of medical procedures outside of Sex Changes that LGBTQAAII+ people have, but what makes you think that any doctors could care less about what those patients do?
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Dude!! Each of your posts are more bizarre, demented and inappropriate than the last. Apparently you do not understand that the issue is discrimination in health care against LGBT of which gender reassignment is but one very small part. Yet you zero in on that as though there is nothing else to consider. What the fuck is wrong with you!!??

If a homosexual comes into the doctor for a hip replacement, or with afib, cirrhosis OTL, or emphysema, it really doesn't matter what their sexual preferences are. The doctor isn't going to ask, and doesn't want to hear if the patient wants to "share".

Sure, there are plenty of medical procedures outside of Sex Changes that LGBTQAAII+ people have, but what makes you think that any doctors could care less about what those patients do?
More horseshit! You either don't know what you're talking about or you're flat out lying. Most likely the latter since you shameless and blatant bigotry has been well documented here. There have been cases of medical professionals refusing to so much as touch an LGBT person for any reason what so ever.
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
620
Points
275
This is absolutely disgusting and one of the clearest indications yet of the Trump Administration's open hostility towards LGBT people. Yes the lying ass Trump who - as a candidate - stated that he would support the rights of LBGT people. Instead, with this, he will have blood on his hands.

Lambda Legal: Trump Administration Assault on LGBT People Continues with New ACA Regulation

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations designed to roll back regulations issued during the Obama Administration that clarified that, pursuant to federal law, the sex discrimination protections of the Affordable Care Act forbid discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The proposed regulations would carve-out LGBT people from the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections, and purport to permit health care workers, doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies that receive federal funding to refuse to provide or cover health care services critical to the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, such as transition-related and reproductive care. The proposed regulations also seek to permit, yet again, health care entities and workers to be able to deny insurance or care to LGBT patients or policy-holders because of personal, religious or moral beliefs, endangering the lives of LGBT people.
It is clear that he values the votes of his dwindling base over human life.
Consider this; they want to eliminate ACA, and the best way may be to make it distasteful for everyone who has it.
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,413
Reaction score
6,320
Points
290
Dude!! Each of your posts are more bizarre, demented and inappropriate than the last. Apparently you do not understand that the issue is discrimination in health care against LGBT of which gender reassignment is but one very small part. Yet you zero in on that as though there is nothing else to consider. What the fuck is wrong with you!!??

If a homosexual comes into the doctor for a hip replacement, or with afib, cirrhosis OTL, or emphysema, it really doesn't matter what their sexual preferences are. The doctor isn't going to ask, and doesn't want to hear if the patient wants to "share".

Sure, there are plenty of medical procedures outside of Sex Changes that LGBTQAAII+ people have, but what makes you think that any doctors could care less about what those patients do?
More horseshit! You either don't know what you're talking about or you're flat out lying. Most likely the latter since you shameless and blatant bigotry has been well documented here. There have been cases of medical professionals refusing to so much as touch an LGBT person for any reason what so ever.

Really?

I've never had a doctor ask me if I like it up the ass. How would a medical professional know otherwise? I would be very uncomfortable with a physician who quizzed me about my sexual preferences as he was telling me about a cataract operation.
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Dude!! Each of your posts are more bizarre, demented and inappropriate than the last. Apparently you do not understand that the issue is discrimination in health care against LGBT of which gender reassignment is but one very small part. Yet you zero in on that as though there is nothing else to consider. What the fuck is wrong with you!!??

If a homosexual comes into the doctor for a hip replacement, or with afib, cirrhosis OTL, or emphysema, it really doesn't matter what their sexual preferences are. The doctor isn't going to ask, and doesn't want to hear if the patient wants to "share".

Sure, there are plenty of medical procedures outside of Sex Changes that LGBTQAAII+ people have, but what makes you think that any doctors could care less about what those patients do?
More horseshit! You either don't know what you're talking about or you're flat out lying. Most likely the latter since you shameless and blatant bigotry has been well documented here. There have been cases of medical professionals refusing to so much as touch an LGBT person for any reason what so ever.

Really?

I've never had a doctor ask me if I like it up the ass. How would a medical professional know otherwise? I would be very uncomfortable with a physician who quizzed me about my sexual preferences as he was telling me about a cataract operation.
You sure think a lot about taking it up the ass. It always becomes about talking it up the ass. Makes me wonder.
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Do you have some documentation to back all of that up, or do you expect that we will just take you at your word? What case of a Catholic doctor are you referring to and what role did it play in this policy decision?
Why this transgender man sued a Catholic hospital for refusing to do a hysterectomy

Why the fuck is this a serious lawsuit? What's next other weirdos suing because they won't cut off a healthy leg?


.
Because we are a society that demands others accept things OR ELSE.

At least the progressive side of society.

Live and let live isn't good enough anymore. It's based on the narcissism inherent in the progressive mindset.
martybegan
SpiritualIy I think it's a karmic reaction and phase.
There was so much discrimination, harassment and trauma against gays by Christian fundamentalists,
since this injustice was never fully FORGIVEN (but held AGAINST Christians still blamed for it today)
then it comes back and BOOMERANGS the other way until it is resolved.

Instead of the LGBT forgiving the past abuses against them collectively,
which hasn't happen because of rejection of Christianity,
All that bad karma comes back and gets projected "onto the other side"
in a vicious cycle of retribution from the past.

Now the burden of Forgiveness is being pushed back on Christians.
So the Christians are being treated the way LGBT were in the past
so the burden is back on THAT SIDE to forgive and resolve.

When both sides agree to forgive and stop the negative backlash
back and forth, then this cycle will stop. Till then martybegan
whatever backlash is still going on seems to be proportional
to the bad karma that went down in the past. If we don't learn
from history, we repeat it. Until we do learn to forgive and
resolve it instead of seeking retribution back and forth.
Homosexuality wasn't just condemned in the past by fundamentalists, it was condemned by society in general.

Acceptance in recent history is a new phenomenon, really only a few decades old.
You know this guy?

Baptists Hold ‘Make America Straight Again’ Conference, Call For Execution Of Gays
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
56,417
Reaction score
13,612
Points
2,190
Dude!! Each of your posts are more bizarre, demented and inappropriate than the last. Apparently you do not understand that the issue is discrimination in health care against LGBT of which gender reassignment is but one very small part. Yet you zero in on that as though there is nothing else to consider. What the fuck is wrong with you!!??

If a homosexual comes into the doctor for a hip replacement, or with afib, cirrhosis OTL, or emphysema, it really doesn't matter what their sexual preferences are. The doctor isn't going to ask, and doesn't want to hear if the patient wants to "share".

Sure, there are plenty of medical procedures outside of Sex Changes that LGBTQAAII+ people have, but what makes you think that any doctors could care less about what those patients do?
More horseshit! You either don't know what you're talking about or you're flat out lying. Most likely the latter since you shameless and blatant bigotry has been well documented here. There have been cases of medical professionals refusing to so much as touch an LGBT person for any reason what so ever.

Really?

I've never had a doctor ask me if I like it up the ass. How would a medical professional know otherwise? I would be very uncomfortable with a physician who quizzed me about my sexual preferences as he was telling me about a cataract operation.
You sure think a lot about taking it up the ass. It always becomes about talking it up the ass. Makes me wonder.
Surely not what it would be like. :rolleyes:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top