Why are you against universal health care?

[LibertyKid]

And what if data supported the idea that gender reassignment surgeries reduced rates of suicide and saved lives?

It doesn't. Read the Cass Study in the following link. SEGM supports gender medicine and the TLDR part in summary says that many of the treatments suggested are an absolute overreach postulated by the United States and that England will be pursuing rational therapies moving forward.

The Final Cass Review and the NHS England Response

Key take-aways from the single most notable event in the history of youth gender medicine of the last decade

segm.org

For England, the Cass Report marks the end of the era of a highly medicalized approach to the treatment of young people with gender-related distress, which has come to be known as “gender-affirming care.” While the treatment protocol for youth comprising of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, known as the “Dutch Protocol,” was invented in the Netherlands in the 1990’s, the report points out the concept of “gender-affirming care” – the notion that the doctors must accept children’s declarations of identity at face value and must assist them in gender change as early as possible– actually originated in the United States, and only then spread internationally.

The Cass Report provides a scathing assessment of the gender-affirming approach in general, and the gender-clinic model of care, which operationalized this approach of on-demand provision of gender-reassignment interventions, in particular. Going forward, England will treat gender dysphoric youth <18 using standard psychological and psychotherapeutic approaches, with very few young people receiving endocrine gender reassignment interventions (gender-transition surgeries for <18s have never been allowed in England). Further, the review noted that the group of young adults 18-25 is subject to many of the same concerns as the <18s, and recommended that the new regional “hubs” being set up to help gender dysphoric youth be expanded to include patients up to 25 years old.

In regards to Suicides the report states:

The current "suicide and suicidality narrative" surrounding gender-dysphoric youth is misleading. The Cass Report noted that "balanced information, which is realistic and practical, and does not over-exaggerate or underestimate the risks, is essential to support everyone involved and identify young people in most urgent need of help." The review commented on the thankfully low rates of completed suicides in the population of trans-identified youth, pointing out the latest evidence from Finland. However, the review appropriately recognized every suicide is a tragic event and the causes in each individual case must be clearly understood.

The report noted a recent UK analysis of suicides using the National Child Mortality Database (NCMD). The analysis of 91 cases of youth suicides between April 2019 and March 2020 (1-year span) identified 108 total deaths across the entire population of the UK that were likely due to suicide. In examining the factors contributing to suicides, the Child Death Overview Panel concluded that "household functioning" was the most common contributing factor (69%), followed by mental health problems (55%), bullying (23%), and neurodevelopmental conditions (16%). Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and gender identity were assessed as a factor in 9% of total suicides. The Cass report did not provide an additional breakdown for sexual orientation vs gender identity. However, the report did note that systematic reviews failed to provide evidence that endocrine interventions reduce suicides.

 

[Hector12]

Nothing here changes the fact you rest on a post-hoc fallacy.

It is not always a fallacy, for reasons I explained.

 

[jc456]

Why are you opposed to universal healthcare for all Americans?

wow, really? state/government run healthcare? because of 12 to 20 million americans? hahahahahahahaha so fk the 94% of americans over 6% of them. And, there's so much more to those 20 million.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not always a fallacy, for reasons I explained.

It remains a fallacy, even after the reasons you gave.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Veterans Administration is better than no health care at all.

The VA is just fine, now! They take of me, my son, my daughter, my daughter-in-law and my son-in-law. No problems since Biden's cronies were dispatched.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Democraps, if you want affordable healthcare, just get involved in one of the myriad scams your party provides to defraud the US government. Open up your very own form of The Learing Center. You will get at least a 100K per year, and potentially over a million, of which you can now easily afford the best healthcare the country can provide. The fact that the democrap party provides hundreds of thousands of ways for every democrap to engage in fraud unfortunately makes it impossible to be able to afford UHC on top of all the fraud, waste and abuse. So, use the alternative scams provided to you by the most honest politicians on the planet.

Gish Gallop.

 

[hadit]

If the surgery is not beneficial, the medical establishment will not consider it standard of care and shouldn’t be reimbursed by insurance.

That’s how medical science works.

Medical science makes mistakes that sometimes take quite a while to uncover, and doctors are as prone to peer pressure as anyone is. Let's look at mental healthcare for just a moment. It is in living memory when the height of care to help patients suffering from certain mental ailments was to shove a metal rod through their face into their brain and hope they didn't bleed out right then and there. We look back at that and shudder at how barbaric that is. Sure, it helped some of the patients while leaving others worse off.

It was also not long ago that medical science was ecstatic that they had medicine to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant women. It was only after babies were born with missing limbs that they took it off the market. Again, medical science. The medicine was approved and prescribed.

I predict it will not be terribly long before we look back at how we mutilate the bodies of young people, in most cases sterilizing them, all in the name of mental health treatment. No, citing medical consensus as the ultimate authority has problems in itself.

If a patient demands ivermectin to treat their prostate cancer, should everyone else pay for that?

Again, you are trying to compare treatments for disabling illnesses with elective cosmetic surgery, with the only goal of making a person's body appear more feminine or masculine. Should society pay for expensive makeup to make a man look feminine, laser hair removal, clothing? If we're going to pay for surgery to make him feel better, why not classify his clothes and makeup as medical supplies? Would they not be as medically necessary as the surgery?

 

[Marener]

Medical science makes mistakes that sometimes take quite a while to uncover, and doctors are as prone to peer pressure as anyone is. Let's look at mental healthcare for just a moment. It is in living memory when the height of care to help patients suffering from certain mental ailments was to shove a metal rod through their face into their brain and hope they didn't bleed out right then and there. We look back at that and shudder at how barbaric that is. Sure, it helped some of the patients while leaving others worse off.

It was also not long ago that medical science was ecstatic that they had medicine to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant women. It was only after babies were born with missing limbs that they took it off the market. Again, medical science. The medicine was approved and prescribed.

I predict it will not be terribly long before we look back at how we mutilate the bodies of young people, in most cases sterilizing them, all in the name of mental health treatment. No, citing medical consensus as the ultimate authority has problems in itself.

Again, you are trying to compare treatments for disabling illnesses with elective cosmetic surgery, with the only goal of making a person's body appear more feminine or masculine. Should society pay for expensive makeup to make a man look feminine, laser hair removal, clothing? If we're going to pay for surgery to make him feel better, why not classify his clothes and makeup as medical supplies? Would they not be as medically necessary as the surgery?

Thaidomide predates modern drug testing and medical ethics. Don't forget the Belmont report came out in the 1970s. Furthermore, thalidomide wasn't approved in this country because our nascent FDA.

It's irrational to compare medical science a century ago to now.

The goal of gender affirming care is to improve someone's mental health and improve their wellbeing.

Should insurance have to pay for medically unnecessary treatments that have no known benefit? Ivermectin for prostate cancer, for example.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gish Gallop.

Ah.
You know have no meaningful response.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why are you opposed to universal healthcare for all Americans?

Because the govt shouldn't be determining our health care. Period.

 

[Hector12]

It remains a fallacy, even after the reasons you gave.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.

You can't prove it the way you can prove assertions in chemistry or physics, but you can give a strong indication of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can't prove it

That's right. You can't.
So.... yours is an ideological statement, not a factual one.

 

[Sparker]

Centralized bureaucracy is at the end of its run, when everything it absorbs becomes a dumpster fire. Funding bureaucracy became a higher priority than anything bureaucracy is paid to manage. Centralization, administrative distance and huge quantities, creates inflexible procedures and requirements that fail to work in local conditions. And that's only the government side. Before the bureaucratic metastasis, healthcare was already becoming a dumpster fire with ordinary greed, the AMA's determination to become a monopoly and shut out the competition of alternative healthcare providers.

We will eventually have competent and affordable healthcare, but we probably won't get it through any type of government action. The doctors refusing all insurance and taking cash only, in smaller amounts because they don't need staff to do insurance work, are a step in the right direction.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

No, it's not "always" a disaster. Pretty good in the UK when the Conservatives aren't stealing all the money (like they just did from 2010 to 2024.)

U.K.'s public health service is in crisis, threatening an institution at the center of British culture

Once touted as the envy of the world, the National Health Service is now “broken,” according to the government.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Veterans Administration is better than no health care at all.

I spent years trying to get the VA to do something other than giving me drugs for my service connected back problems. I finally got an MRI and find out that I have a degenerating L4 and L5 proscribed physical therapy that didn't do shit. Took another MRI and was told by my primary that my degenerative problems were getting better. They are great.

I'm living through the pain because I can't deal with the VA's bullshit anymore.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

That depends on what you're talking about. Social reform and social welfare spending never reduced the crime rate.

Nevertheless, more environmental regulation resulted in a cleaner environment. Life for most Americans improved as a result of New Deal reforms. That is why Franklin Roosevelt was reelected three times.

Seriously ? FDR's New Deal extended the depression.

 

[Dorian Mode]

Ah.
You know have no meaningful response.

The first rule of being in the democrap club and dipping into the myriad scams going on is you CANNOT talk about the myriad scams going on. Every time someone else brings up the myriad scams going on the appropriate response is But TRUMP!!!!! Democraps are always changing the subject to Trump to avoid conversations about their waste, fraud and abuse blowing up. Just look at how Walz is handling his scandals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just look at how Walz is handling his scandals.

Democrats make the mistake in believing they will never get caught.

 

[hadit]

Thaidomide predates modern drug testing and medical ethics. Don't forget the Belmont report came out in the 1970s. Furthermore, thalidomide wasn't approved in this country because our nascent FDA.

It's a legitimate observation that medical science is still done by fallible people, and that the vast majority of doctors do no research or testing of their own, but rely on the work of others

It's irrational to compare medical science a century ago to now.

It's just as rational as comparing medical science in the 1970's to, say, the medical science that killed George Washington. You cannot say that medical science has been perfected now, and we no longer will see mistakes that might take years or decades to reveal the true scope of their devastation.

The goal of gender affirming care is to improve someone's mental health and improve their wellbeing.

The goal of shoving a metal rod into a person's brain was to improve someone's mental health and improve their wellbeing. That doesn't shield the practice, however, from criticism, just as it doesn't shield elective cosmetic surgery.

Should insurance have to pay for medically unnecessary treatments that have no known benefit? Ivermectin for prostate cancer, for example.

If a doctor is convinced it will help, why not? Medical science, after all. Shouldn't a doctor be free to explore non-traditional treatments? I mean, you want to force insurance to pay for elective cosmetic surgery, it would seem that a treatment that could cure a man's cancer should be covered. Now, of course, you are still trying to compare wildly different things. Ivermectin is cheap whereas elective cosmetic surgery is very expensive. You do see the difference, right?

 

[Marener]

It's a legitimate observation that medical science is still done by fallible people, and that the vast majority of doctors do no research or testing of their own, but rely on the work of others

It's just as rational as comparing medical science in the 1970's to, say, the medical science that killed George Washington. You cannot say that medical science has been perfected now, and we no longer will see mistakes that might take years or decades to reveal the true scope of their devastation.

The goal of shoving a metal rod into a person's brain was to improve someone's mental health and improve their wellbeing. That doesn't shield the practice, however, from criticism, just as it doesn't shield elective cosmetic surgery.

If a doctor is convinced it will help, why not? Medical science, after all. Shouldn't a doctor be free to explore non-traditional treatments? I mean, you want to force insurance to pay for elective cosmetic surgery, it would seem that a treatment that could cure a man's cancer should be covered. Now, of course, you are still trying to compare wildly different things. Ivermectin is cheap whereas elective cosmetic surgery is very expensive. You do see the difference, right?

This logic is totally useless.

With this logic, no medical care should be offered to anyone. After all, it could be wrong. It's intellectual nihilism.

If medical evidence supports decreased mortality for people who undergo gender reassignment surgery, I think it should be covered. If medical evidence doesn't support ivermectin for prostate cancer, I think it shouldn't be covered.

This is the only rational way to proceed.