"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population," the National Center for Women & Policing says. "A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."
The study says the number is concerning considering spouses and children of police officers have "unique vulnerability."
That's because of three things, the study says:
-The officer who is abusing them has a gun
-The officer who is abusing them knows the location of battered women's shelters
-The officer who is abusing them knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim
Additionally, victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
I'm not sure what to make of those stats.
High pressure jobs make people do dumb things? Even if you're one of the 90% of officers who never have to draw their weapons in anger, you're still exposed to the worst side of human existence imaginable. Police officers, intelligence specialists and soldiers, how can you be one and not be jaded after a while?
I mean, being a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. By using your logic, we should all be perfectly fine if/when a doctor, commercial fisherman, construction worker, lumberjack etc., abuses there family or whips out a gun and kills someone. After all, these are the most stressful jobs in America. So what if they commit the occasional atrocity?
"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population," the National Center for Women & Policing says. "A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."
The study says the number is concerning considering spouses and children of police officers have "unique vulnerability."
That's because of three things, the study says:
-The officer who is abusing them has a gun
-The officer who is abusing them knows the location of battered women's shelters
-The officer who is abusing them knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim
Additionally, victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
I'm not sure what to make of those stats.
Finally you are understanding that the police is not omnipresent and infallible. People should be allowed to defend thenselves or pay for private security without depending the state not only by this reasons but because states can go bankrupt, cataclysms can happens, an racist influential policeman can refuse to patrol """poor areas""" and even in a perfect situation, police takes minutes to arrive.
You need to right to self defense in order to preserve other rights. For eg, Abortion clinics are often victim of violent attacks ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html ), one or two well armed security guards can dissuade a possible attack. And this is not limited to freedom of association and the right of life/propriety. Religion freedom, mainly for those who practice religions "demonized" by the majority of the population like Thelema NEEDS rights of self defense.
I don't know much about freedom of religion on US but here practitioners of Afro religions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-American_religion ) often suffer a lot of persecution mainly in poorer areas.
Anyway, people with high stress jobs have a greater chance to do "dumb" things like Balrog99 said.
1. Abortion is not a right....
2. Two, especially in poorer areas Africans that experience prosecution for practicing African religion are prosecuted by, drumroll please.... Other Africans...
3. Americans have a right to defend themselves, despite Democrats trying to tear apart the second amendment, which is quite ironic...their trying to destroy the second amendment while claiming the government is evil... Take away the arms and leave the people at the whims of that very government that the progressive have called authoritarian and racist...
4. A company or corporation having its own "well armed security guards" is no different than the state having a police department, except unlike the state, corporations aren't beholden to the constitution or the bill of rights and can/have abused their position in ways that violate both. It's way senators are trying to pressure social media to do their censoring for them and to shut down opposing speech.
1 - In many countries is a right. And even in countries where it is prohibited, people can just visit another country and do the procedure.
2 - Irrelevant. They still need the right of self defense. The skin color of the aggressor is irrelevant
3 - Strongly agree.
4 - Strongly disagree. Private armed forces always existed and the state did much more awful things with armed forces than any mercenary company. As for "private censorship", there are a huge difference. For eg, if twitter censors me, i can just go to gab. If a platform promises neutrality and is bias for the right or the left, then is a fraud and should be punished.
"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population," the National Center for Women & Policing says. "A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."
The study says the number is concerning considering spouses and children of police officers have "unique vulnerability."
That's because of three things, the study says:
-The officer who is abusing them has a gun
-The officer who is abusing them knows the location of battered women's shelters
-The officer who is abusing them knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim
Additionally, victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
I'm not sure what to make of those stats.
High pressure jobs make people do dumb things? Even if you're one of the 90% of officers who never have to draw their weapons in anger, you're still exposed to the worst side of human existence imaginable. Police officers, intelligence specialists and soldiers, how can you be one and not be jaded after a while?
I mean, being a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. By using your logic, we should all be perfectly fine if/when a doctor, commercial fisherman, construction worker, lumberjack etc., abuses there family or whips out a gun and kills someone. After all, these are the most stressful jobs in America. So what if they commit the occasional atrocity?
Nobody is saying that is OK. Only that this people needs to choose his professions understanding the consequences of high stress jobs
"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population," the National Center for Women & Policing says. "A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."
The study says the number is concerning considering spouses and children of police officers have "unique vulnerability."
That's because of three things, the study says:
-The officer who is abusing them has a gun
-The officer who is abusing them knows the location of battered women's shelters
-The officer who is abusing them knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim
Additionally, victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
I'm not sure what to make of those stats.
High pressure jobs make people do dumb things? Even if you're one of the 90% of officers who never have to draw their weapons in anger, you're still exposed to the worst side of human existence imaginable. Police officers, intelligence specialists and soldiers, how can you be one and not be jaded after a while?
I mean, being a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. By using your logic, we should all be perfectly fine if/when a doctor, commercial fisherman, construction worker, lumberjack etc., abuses there family or whips out a gun and kills someone. After all, these are the most stressful jobs in America. So what if they commit the occasional atrocity?
Straw-man argument. The case we've been discussing doesn't involve any deaths, wasnt a mistake, and your beloved government agrees with the city not having to pay.
Texas state representative Matt Krause has announced his intention to outlaw puberty blockers for people under 18. That's essentially a total ban on puberty blockers for transgender children to buy time to consider their options (puberty blockers ain't gonna do much when you're already 18). Another Texas state representative, Steve Toth, has also announced his intention to classify allowing a child to transition to a different gender to constitute child abuse--if the government did so, any parent in Texas would be FORCED by law to repress their own child's gender identity.
These are early proposals, and they already look incredibly repressive and authoritarian. The first law would make it nearly impossible for trans kids to make their own decisions about their bodies, forcing them to grow up with the wrong balance of hormones (who says we get to decide how their bodies are supposed to grow?). The second law would flat-out criminalize transgender tolerance by requiring parents to actively suppress their transgender children and stop any child who wants to transition! All of this is motivated by Jeffry Younger's false claims against his ex-wife and his campaign to force his daughter to live as a boy.
This is why trans tolerance is so important. Because when people demonize transgender identity, politicians will gleefully call for full-blown bans on being transgender, just to pounce on a wedge issue and gain votes. These proposals don't offer any freedom of choice to either trans kids or their parents; they actively restrict American families' own freedoms by forcing trans kids to live as the wrong gender and even IMPRISONING parents who support the choices of their own children. God forbid Krause and Toth get their way, or trans kids aren't going to have any real freedoms over their bodies.
This isn't protecting children or individual liberty. These politicians are explicitly calling for the government to criminalize transitioning. They want to make being transgender, or even tolerating your own transgender children, into a crime.
This is why I'm so suspicious of attempts to impose stricter regulations on transitioning: Because there are plenty of powerful politicians who will try to flat-out ban our existence if they gain enough support for an anti-trans agenda.
You're not going to get moderate legislation from people who demonize their fellow American. You're going to get extremist legislation and repression of civil liberties, and we're already seeing two powerful people explicitly announcing their intent to do just that.
Good. Children aren't lab rats to be experimented upon. My tolerance ends at child endangerment.
"Trans kids deciding what to do with their bodies" is total nonsense. KIDS are not capable of making long term decisions that have lasting and complicated consequences. ESPECIALLY before puberty. I wouldn't let a prepubescent child enter into a contract of any sort for this reason, and neither would the law. Why we would allow them to make medical decisions, that it cannot be stressed enough that they do not understand, that have potentially serious ramifications is beyond me.
Compound that with the fact that so many in this culture are willing to spread clear misinformation, glorify it to the tenth degree, provide an endless barrage of incentives for it, and you are just begging for irresponsible, poorly thought out decisions to be made by children that may greatly impact the rest of their lives. It's wrong. It's so obviously wrong i'm stunned I have to make a case about it.
The fact that it is legal anywhere in this country at all, despite no solid evidence that it will do them any good in the long term, is a moral abomination.
If the trans agenda is only concerned about itself, and not the well being of the most vulnerable among us, well, I have little sympathy for the trans agenda.
I think the American College of Pediatricians said it best:
"ABSTRACT: Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.”
"We are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition…. We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people. Policies that encourage—either directly or indirectly—such medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion.6"
"There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging a young child with GD to socially impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. Purely from a social learning point of view, the repeated behavior of impersonating and being treated as the opposite sex will make identity alignment with the child’s biologic sex less likely. This, together with the suppression of puberty that prevents further endogenous masculinization or feminization of the entire body and brain, causes the child to remain either a gender non-conforming pre-pubertal boy disguised as a pre-pubertal girl, or the reverse. Since their peers develop normally into young men or young women, these children are left psychosocially isolated. They will be less able to identify as being the biological male or female they actually are."
I'm selectively quoting important parts, but it goes on at great length.
I know they are right wing, so some are going to object from the outset that they are quoted, but it succinctly summarizes my point of view, so I used it. I will accept any objections provided they are accompanied by a reason to doubt the premise, that this is more ill-researched and potentially dangerous treatment with little in the way of solid evidence for it's long term beneficial effects and borders on pseudoscience.
Also, let me point out that I know they are reversible for the most part, barring the risk of some detrimental effects and the possibility of making yourself infertile by going from puberty blockers to hormones. My primary objection is their mostly unknown impact on brain development. Treating psychological conditions in kids with medications that have unknown psychological impacts, but certainly some impacts due to the nature of hormones, is junk science upon junk science. No good reason to believe in transition surgery in general, certainly no good reason to believe that hormone blockers aren't hurting more than helping. Not to mention the lack of any knowledge of the health effects in the long term.
You keep bringing up transition surgery as if a single person has called for it, when they not only haven't done so, they have explicitly said they oppose it. And from my point of view, you are purposefully mixing the issues of actual, physical transition surgery in which the genitals are altered with a.) consultations with physicians about steps going forward IF the child is transgender and b.) puberty blockers. As if all 3 are the same thing. Never mind that the Younger case was ONLY dealing with option "a" at this point. But I mean, if my recollection is correct, I'm pretty sure you thought there was "scientific" legitimacy (or argument) to the idea that transgender service members should be banned when that whole issue started, even though it was, as you admitted, not proven. So I mean, I don't think anyone was under any illusions you were supportive of the "trans agenda". Not anyone with a memory.
By the way, what makes something an "agenda"?? What are your parameters?? Because as far as I can tell, the criteria is "something I disagree with" and "perceived as a left-wing cause". It seems to me the trans agenda is "I'd really just like to survive in a society that is openly hostile to my existence".
I think the American College of Pediatricians said it best:
"ABSTRACT: Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.”
"We are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition…. We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people. Policies that encourage—either directly or indirectly—such medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion.6"
"There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging a young child with GD to socially impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. Purely from a social learning point of view, the repeated behavior of impersonating and being treated as the opposite sex will make identity alignment with the child’s biologic sex less likely. This, together with the suppression of puberty that prevents further endogenous masculinization or feminization of the entire body and brain, causes the child to remain either a gender non-conforming pre-pubertal boy disguised as a pre-pubertal girl, or the reverse. Since their peers develop normally into young men or young women, these children are left psychosocially isolated. They will be less able to identify as being the biological male or female they actually are."
I'm selectively quoting important parts, but it goes on at great length.
I know they are right wing, so some are going to object from the outset that they are quoted, but it succinctly summarizes my point of view, so I used it. I will accept any objections provided they are accompanied by a reason to doubt the premise, that this is more ill-researched and potentially dangerous treatment with little in the way of solid evidence for it's long term beneficial effects and borders on pseudoscience.
Also, let me point out that I know they are reversible for the most part, barring the risk of some detrimental effects and the possibility of making yourself infertile by going from puberty blockers to hormones. My primary objection is their mostly unknown impact on brain development. Treating psychological conditions in kids with medications that have unknown psychological impacts, but certainly some impacts due to the nature of hormones, is junk science upon junk science. No good reason to believe in transition surgery in general, certainly no good reason to believe that hormone blockers aren't hurting more than helping. Not to mention the lack of any knowledge of the health effects in the long term.
I want to agree that the science is still out on this.
However, it’s a catch-22. The science will never be there if procedures and clinical trials are not allowed.
Now are they not allowed on ethical grounds? That in my opinion is up for debate. I think it is more unethical to tell a person that they are not allowed to live as the gender that they relate to.
So I think there needs to be acceptance first. I think a study needs to be done where kids who relate to their opposite gender are studied and encouraged and told that “yes, you can be a boy/girl if you want,” and then see how many at the age of 18 change their stance.
I honestly think it is society suppressing these thoughts until they are at an older age. Little jimmy trying on mommy’s shoes and make up is “just a stage, just take it away and remind him that he is a boy,” thinking.
Once that’s done, treatments, like hormone therapy can be revisited, based on what that type of study tells the medical community.
There will never be "enough" science for those that oppose it. The goalposts will be constantly moved as they are on every other issue. Nothing will ever be satisfactory, nor do they want a world where such a thing is a possibility. And for all the tears being shed over these purely hypothetical kids who are going to be turned into "lab rats" by radical leftist parents, there is absolutely zero sympathy for the ACTUAL kids who have to somehow navigate growing up with a secret they must keep entirely hidden because revealing it is akin to a social death sentence. Want to make your middle school or high school years 1000x harder than they already are?? Come out as trans in your average American community and see how well that goes. The idea anyone would do so because it's cool or hip is absurd. The idea a parent would FORCE their child to do so, while technically theoretically possible, would be so rare as to be absolutely dwarfed in comparison to the opposite end of the spectrum. Which isn't to say it wouldn't be a problem if it took or is taking place. But for every one of those stories, you'd have a hundred going the other way. The assumption is that the mother in the Younger case has some desperate "urge" for her son to be transgender, rather than the far, FAR more likely scenario she is simply accepting it as a likely possibility. Even the most tolerant parents, in MOST cases (though not all, as we'd likely see outliers) would not WANT their child to be gay or transgender, not because there is anything wrong with it, but because they don't want to see their child suffer a lifetime of the social stigmas that come with it.
Donald Trump found time off from his busy schedule to appear on Farage's radio show. Johnson will no doubt regard the endorsement he received from Trump as a mixed blessing.
Donald Trump found time off from his busy schedule to appear on Farage's radio show. Johnson will no doubt regard the endorsement he received from Trump as a mixed blessing.
Indeed. Trump's sharp criticism of the proposed Brexit deal (saying it will not allow the full benefits of a US/UK free trade deal) could also be a problem. It's not really clear what he's criticizing, but I suspect it's the provisions intended to keep Northern Ireland roughly in line with EU regulations in order to simplify border crossing arrangements there. In principle such provisions could make it more difficult to do a deal that achieves long-held desires of the US - such as the ability to export GM crops.
What's a bit ironic is that Johnson has been very careful here - the NI arrangements are time limited with a cancellation clause (unlike May's deal). Also unlike May's deal, there are no provisions in the agreement for continued regulatory alignment for the UK as a whole.
I would not put any stock in Trump's assessment of anything much less Brexit. He thought he was going to build the border wall in Colorado which doesn't border Mexico.
He knows less than nothing about the UK.
He does have a goal which is supporting the weakening of the EU. That's it. He wants to harm the UK to stick it to the EU because in his mind that maybe helps the US take advantage of them in "trade deals". It might be a coincidence but weakening the EU should help Russia as well which seems to be a theme with him.
Good. Children aren't lab rats to be experimented upon. My tolerance ends at child endangerment.
"Trans kids deciding what to do with their bodies" is total nonsense. KIDS are not capable of making long term decisions that have lasting and complicated consequences. ESPECIALLY before puberty. I wouldn't let a prepubescent child enter into a contract of any sort for this reason, and neither would the law. Why we would allow them to make medical decisions, that it cannot be stressed enough that they do not understand, that have potentially serious ramifications is beyond me.
Compound that with the fact that so many in this culture are willing to spread clear misinformation, glorify it to the tenth degree, provide an endless barrage of incentives for it, and you are just begging for irresponsible, poorly thought out decisions to be made by children that may greatly impact the rest of their lives. It's wrong. It's so obviously wrong i'm stunned I have to make a case about it.
The fact that it is legal anywhere in this country at all, despite no solid evidence that it will do them any good in the long term, is a moral abomination.
If the trans agenda is only concerned about itself, and not the well being of the most vulnerable among us, well, I have little sympathy for the trans agenda.
As I said before I have sympathy with your position and think caution is justified. You make a good point about the potential effects on development of using hormonal blockers and I can see how doing that could be socially and psychologically isolating. However, I don't think that argument is strong enough to rule out the possibility of treatment - and gathering evidence about the effectiveness of that treatment.
The argument against treatment appears to start from the position that these children are 'normal', but just experiencing some sort of social illusion - and if left to grow out of this temporary stage will become well-adjusted in due course. I'm skeptical about that as a starting position. Take this quote you used:
"Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence."
I suspect what this really means is that only a small minority of those who experience gender dysphoria in childhood go on to seek medical treatment as adults. There would be no surprise in that finding if those children have found the system totally unsympathetic in their formative years, but that does not mean that they will necessarily be happy and well-adjusted as adults.
Given the greater understanding we have now of genetics and that biological sex is not a simple binary state, it seems to me to be highly likely that there will be at least some people with medical, rather than purely social, reasons underpinning their gender dysphoria. It seems to me that denying that possibility makes gender dysphoria another in the list of conditions that have real (if poorly understood) causes, but were widely denied within the medical profession for many years - ME is an example of that for instance.
We should not be offering treatment and support to children for a condition just because they say that's what they want. However, denying any possibility of support for children who not only say that's what they want, but demonstrate that through the way they live over a sustained period, seems to me to be itself inconsistent with the idea of "do no harm".
Hidden deep in the implementation of Johnson's deal is agreement to implement EU standards on agriculture and technology. That would prevent a big UK / US deal. The present Brexit deal is pretty much unpalatable to leavers as well as remainers once you get into its details, which is why they tried to pass it in 3 days....
Almost as if the exact thing the pipeline protesters warned about has happened. Or, to be more accurate, has happened AGAIN. Of course, no one (even the supporters) ever thought this wouldn't happen. That is why it was routed into Native lands instead of near an upper middle-class, 93% white city. The companies who RUN the pipelines fully expect them to fail and have these problems, which is why they want them near the most vulnerable people with the least amount of political power.
Hidden deep in the implementation of Johnson's deal is agreement to implement EU standards on agriculture and technology. That would prevent a big UK / US deal. The present Brexit deal is pretty much unpalatable to leavers as well as remainers once you get into its details, which is why they tried to pass it in 3 days....
Those standards now only apply to Northern Ireland (rather than the UK as a whole as in May's deal). I agree that if Northern Ireland is following a different regulatory regime, that would complicate a future UK/US trade deal, but it would not prevent one - that's the same situation as the Brexit deal itself of course, where the rather weird customs arrangements proposed for Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be difficult to implement in practice, but haven't prevented a deal being negotiated. It's also important to remember that the Northern Ireland provisions will only continue if they retain the support of the Assembly at Stormont, so those provisions could be moot well before any US trade deal was completed.
The details of any future trade deal with the EU are of course still to be negotiated and those could have an impact on the sorts of deals possible with other countries. However, the references to a regulatory "level playing field" in the previous political declaration have been removed from the version negotiated by Johnson. I think that's a clear indication that a government led by him would be seeking to avoid anything which could constrain other deals.
While I agree that the more hard-line leavers still have concerns, I don't think there's any doubt that the current version of the deal envisages a significantly 'harder' Brexit than the previous one. That's why the Labour party have been banging on recently about the threat to environmental standards and workers' rights.
"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population," the National Center for Women & Policing says. "A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."
The study says the number is concerning considering spouses and children of police officers have "unique vulnerability."
That's because of three things, the study says:
-The officer who is abusing them has a gun
-The officer who is abusing them knows the location of battered women's shelters
-The officer who is abusing them knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim
Additionally, victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
I'm not sure what to make of those stats.
High pressure jobs make people do dumb things? Even if you're one of the 90% of officers who never have to draw their weapons in anger, you're still exposed to the worst side of human existence imaginable. Police officers, intelligence specialists and soldiers, how can you be one and not be jaded after a while?
I mean, being a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. By using your logic, we should all be perfectly fine if/when a doctor, commercial fisherman, construction worker, lumberjack etc., abuses there family or whips out a gun and kills someone. After all, these are the most stressful jobs in America. So what if they commit the occasional atrocity?
Straw-man argument. The case we've been discussing doesn't involve any deaths, wasnt a mistake, and your beloved government agrees with the city not having to pay.
@Balrog99 When the domestic abuse statistics were brought up you dismissed it with, "Well police are stressed, we shouldn't be surprised." All I did was tie it in to other acts of violence cimmitted by officers. Officers discharge your wepons often enough to kill almost 1,000 Americans a year, its not some huge leap of logic to include this fact in the statistics that show that police are more aggressive than other people.
*edit* Also, where did you get the idea that my government is somehow "beloved" to me?
@ThacoBell: I would actually call that particular statement a leap of logic. Being aggressive isn't quite the same as being willing to resort to lethal force, and vice versa. There are other explanations, which could be phrased more elegantly:
"Working as a police officer creates or encourages fear of violence against oneself. Police officers are more likely to resort to force if they feel in danger."
"Police culture involves an "us vs. them" mindset that encourages officers to see other people as potential criminals who pose a threat to them."
"Violent people may be more likely to become a police officer."
"Being a police officer puts you in a position of power, and people in positions of power are less likely to treat other people well since they are not held accountable."
I'd put my money on the last one, since doctors and pastors are, notably, more likely to commit domestic violence, just like police officers. I think the root issue is that police are given unchecked power (I think this is your view as well), and people with unchecked power are more or less guaranteed to abuse it. The fact that police officers have great power in the criminal justice system also means they know they can get away with committing a crime or an abuse of power, and an "us vs. them" mentality in the police force means that officers can expect other officers to cover them.
We don't have access to the full text, but there was a long-term study in 2014 about transgender youth and the effects of transitioning to their preferred sex, and the results are positive.
A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years).
...
After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD [gender dysphoria] was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.
"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population," the National Center for Women & Policing says. "A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."
The study says the number is concerning considering spouses and children of police officers have "unique vulnerability."
That's because of three things, the study says:
-The officer who is abusing them has a gun
-The officer who is abusing them knows the location of battered women's shelters
-The officer who is abusing them knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim
Additionally, victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
I'm not sure what to make of those stats.
High pressure jobs make people do dumb things? Even if you're one of the 90% of officers who never have to draw their weapons in anger, you're still exposed to the worst side of human existence imaginable. Police officers, intelligence specialists and soldiers, how can you be one and not be jaded after a while?
I mean, being a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. By using your logic, we should all be perfectly fine if/when a doctor, commercial fisherman, construction worker, lumberjack etc., abuses there family or whips out a gun and kills someone. After all, these are the most stressful jobs in America. So what if they commit the occasional atrocity?
Straw-man argument. The case we've been discussing doesn't involve any deaths, wasnt a mistake, and your beloved government agrees with the city not having to pay.
*edit* Also, where did you get the idea that my government is somehow "beloved" to me?
I just meant that you seem to look to government to fix society's problems and that your brand of government will be the best thing since sliced bread if only they could get power. I don't trust any government myself, not even the one I vote for.
Warren released how she plans to cover her Medicare for all. Going through her statements, as a Canadian, I am going to highlight some flaws or “miss truths” with her statement. When I say miss truths, I am not accusing her of lying, but missing some of the bigger picture:
“ Under Medicare for All, everyone gets the care they need, when they need it, and nobody goes broke. ”
The “when they need it” part is the problem here. When opening up healthcare for all, a strain is going to be placed on specialist as they will start seeing more patients. This will create longer wait times for procedures.
Even seeing or having a family doctor can take time.
“Medicare for All Act, including long-term care, audio, vision, and dental benefits.”
Wow. OHIP (Ontario’s Health insurance) doesn’t cover vision fully, albeit a $80 eye exam every year or two isn’t that bad. Paying for new glasses can get up there however.
Dental, IMO, is and always has been cosmetic and shouldn’t be covered. You don’t die from crooked teeth.
I think narrowing down what should be covered can and will help with the messaging and cost. It can always be added later if the costs don’t seem significant. Taking it away after the fact though might upset a lot of people.
“Not one penny in middle-class tax increases.”
This is a loaded statement that can back fire. As any tax increase usually isn’t about a single program and tax money gets moved around a lot on the whims of politicians: see Trump’s wall and military spending.
Besides that, she’s mentioned “choosing the doctor of your choice” a couple of times, which again, can be misleading. Family doctors here have a waiting list for people to become patients with them.
Also health services will have to be “socialized,” or at least put in a tiered system. The government will have to set a price on how much a doctor will be able to charge them for a service. This alone will kill any plans as America’s capitalist system as socialist is a dirty word. If it’s becomes a tiered system (the government will cover X amount, and if the doctor wants more, they need to charge the patient), opponent’s will highlight worse case scenarios and point to examples where citizens are now paying more.
It’s going to be a fight, and if she makes this an election issue, it could be a fight she loses with just the above points.
You've got to be kidding me. Anti-vaxxers are seriously nuts. I got my flu shot, shingles vaccination and even tetanus this year (got some nasty claw-puncture wounds when my cat freaked out because of the neighbor's dogs). I'm a government sceptic as you all know here, but what possible reason could the government have for poisoning children???
@deltago "Dental, IMO, is and always has been cosmetic and shouldn’t be covered. You don’t die from crooked teeth."
No, but you CAN die from a tooth infection that doesn't get treated in time and moves up to the brain. People have even lost eyes because they couldn't get treatment until it was too severe to treat effectively.
@Balrog99 I'm not a fan of our government at all. But wholesale replacing it isn't really an option. So I'll push for improving it one step at a time. Getting at least up to par with literally every other developed country in terms of healthcare shouldn't be that difficult. How many successful models do we have that we study freely and adapt?
I should have added, there are some worst case procedures that would require dental coverage (I want to say the two you listed are covered here, but I am not 100% sure.) But little Jonny needing braces, or grandma needs dentures should not be covered.
We've spent $6 trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, yet somehow investing $20 trillion in making sure no one has to worry about a hospital or clinic bill ever again is the third rail. But I mean, if people really believe that their insurance company has any interest in saving their life and paying out claims rather than sucking your blood for every penny until you drop dead (possibly because of their negligence), I mean, maybe that's what we want. More power to you. You can hate government as much as you want. I defy you to tell me with a straight face they are worse than health insurance companies. If only because this removes the profit motive from life and death situations.
As for how much "extra" it is going to cost any average person, that is really not the question. You can't possibly have an intellectually honest argument about that until you also factor in the fact that you would no longer spend thousands (possibly 10s of thousands) of dollars a year on health care bills and insurance premiums. Any conversation about individual cost that doesn't subtract that from whatever tax increase would be involved is not an honest conversation, unless you literally NEVER get sick, in which case, I have news for you. You will. You won't be 20 forever. In fact, you'll find you won't be much sooner than you realize.
And once again, it never fucking fails that Democrats will ALWAYS be called to account to explain how they are going to "pay" for their proposals and how much it is going to cost, and literally NOTHING Republicans ever propose is held to these standards. I'll take this concern seriously the moment those Tea Party folks head back into the streets about the deficits Trump has created. Until then, I don't want to hear anything more from the right about spending and deficits. Ever. You lost the right to complain about it. You got the Iraq War and tax cuts and put them on the credit card. So fuck it, we're going to do the same thing with healthcare. If that's the playing field, then let's play on it. But enough of this disingenuous horseshit about fiscal responsibility. You burned that bridge, and we aren't rebuilding it for you.
Warren released how she plans to cover her Medicare for all. Going through her statements, as a Canadian, I am going to highlight some flaws or “miss truths” with her statement. When I say miss truths, I am not accusing her of lying, but missing some of the bigger picture:
“ Under Medicare for All, everyone gets the care they need, when they need it, and nobody goes broke. ”
The “when they need it” part is the problem here. When opening up healthcare for all, a strain is going to be placed on specialist as they will start seeing more patients. This will create longer wait times for procedures.
Even seeing or having a family doctor can take time.
“Medicare for All Act, including long-term care, audio, vision, and dental benefits.”
Wow. OHIP (Ontario’s Health insurance) doesn’t cover vision fully, albeit a $80 eye exam every year or two isn’t that bad. Paying for new glasses can get up there however.
Dental, IMO, is and always has been cosmetic and shouldn’t be covered. You don’t die from crooked teeth.
I think narrowing down what should be covered can and will help with the messaging and cost. It can always be added later if the costs don’t seem significant. Taking it away after the fact though might upset a lot of people.
“Not one penny in middle-class tax increases.”
This is a loaded statement that can back fire. As any tax increase usually isn’t about a single program and tax money gets moved around a lot on the whims of politicians: see Trump’s wall and military spending.
Besides that, she’s mentioned “choosing the doctor of your choice” a couple of times, which again, can be misleading. Family doctors here have a waiting list for people to become patients with them.
Also health services will have to be “socialized,” or at least put in a tiered system. The government will have to set a price on how much a doctor will be able to charge them for a service. This alone will kill any plans as America’s capitalist system as socialist is a dirty word. If it’s becomes a tiered system (the government will cover X amount, and if the doctor wants more, they need to charge the patient), opponent’s will highlight worse case scenarios and point to examples where citizens are now paying more.
It’s going to be a fight, and if she makes this an election issue, it could be a fight she loses with just the above points.
@deltago
I appreciate the honest assessment from someone who actually has a solid and well working socialized healthcare system. That is correct overall right? You like your system and would not prefer to scrap it for a free market system like we have down here in the US?
Down here we, well some of us, recognize that a for-profit healthcare system is wasteful and at worst leads to tens of thousands of deaths per year due to being unable to pay for care.
66% of all bankruptcies are due to medical issues (direct healthcare cost or missed work due to health). You don't have that problem to the same degree right?
However, due to wait times and service shortages, there have been discussions (which really do not go that far) about Tiering the health care system like I mentioned above.
There are already medical vacations, where people will travel to the states to get an operation done more quickly and pay for it out of pocket.
There is also a lot of things that aren’t covered which some Americans may think should be covered such as Ambulance services, hospital stays, medication and medical equipment.
It should also be noted that each province is responsible for their own coverage and I honestly think that individual states should cover their own expenses if they want to go to a single payer program. Therefore, if a state like Kentucky wants to keep the typical insurance coverage they can, while Vermont can move to single payer. Having the states dictate how much a doctor can charge for a checkup would be better than it being federally regulated as a place like Alaska may have a higher cost of living.
However, due to wait times and service shortages, there have been discussions (which really do not go that far) about Tiering the health care system like I mentioned above.
There are already medical vacations, where people will travel to the states to get an operation done more quickly and pay for it out of pocket.
There is also a lot of things that aren’t covered which some Americans may think should be covered such as Ambulance services, hospital stays, medication and medical equipment.
It should also be noted that each province is responsible for their own coverage and I honestly think that individual states should cover their own expenses if they want to go to a single payer program. Therefore, if a state like Kentucky wants to keep the typical insurance coverage they can, while Vermont can move to single payer. Having the states dictate how much a doctor can charge for a checkup would be better than it being federally regulated as a place like Alaska may have a higher cost of living.
Ambulance services? How much does that cost? People here are afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol.
Here that bill is going to be pretty big. In the U.S., ambulances charge way more than they collect. It is that way all over the country. The reason is the collection rate. The ambulance company might send out 10 bills for $1,500 each. Two of the bills might be paid in full. Another bill will be paid by Medicare at $450. Two more by Medicaid at $105 each. The rest might go uncollected because the patient didn't have insurance or an address to send the bill. Once the $3,660 for all of that is collected and averaged across the 10 ambulance bills, a bill for $1,500 becomes a collection of $366, about 24.4 percent, which they think isn't all that bad.
TLDR: Ambulances send out bills asking for thousands of dollars hoping to get people to pay that to cover costs for people that don't pay.
However, due to wait times and service shortages, there have been discussions (which really do not go that far) about Tiering the health care system like I mentioned above.
There are already medical vacations, where people will travel to the states to get an operation done more quickly and pay for it out of pocket.
There is also a lot of things that aren’t covered which some Americans may think should be covered such as Ambulance services, hospital stays, medication and medical equipment.
It should also be noted that each province is responsible for their own coverage and I honestly think that individual states should cover their own expenses if they want to go to a single payer program. Therefore, if a state like Kentucky wants to keep the typical insurance coverage they can, while Vermont can move to single payer. Having the states dictate how much a doctor can charge for a checkup would be better than it being federally regulated as a place like Alaska may have a higher cost of living.
Ambulance services? How much does that cost? People here are afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol.
Here that bill is going to be pretty big. In the U.S., ambulances charge way more than they collect. It is that way all over the country. The reason is the collection rate. The ambulance company might send out 10 bills for $1,500 each. Two of the bills might be paid in full. Another bill will be paid by Medicare at $450. Two more by Medicaid at $105 each. The rest might go uncollected because the patient didn't have insurance or an address to send the bill. Once the $3,660 for all of that is collected and averaged across the 10 ambulance bills, a bill for $1,500 becomes a collection of $366, about 24.4 percent, which they think isn't all that bad.
TLDR: Ambulances send out bills asking for thousands of dollars hoping to get people to pay that to cover costs for people that don't pay.
" afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol."
How much regulation ambulances services are subjected and how much uber is?
Hidden deep in the implementation of Johnson's deal is agreement to implement EU standards on agriculture and technology. That would prevent a big UK / US deal. The present Brexit deal is pretty much unpalatable to leavers as well as remainers once you get into its details, which is why they tried to pass it in 3 days....
Those standards now only apply to Northern Ireland (rather than the UK as a whole as in May's deal). I agree that if Northern Ireland is following a different regulatory regime, that would complicate a future UK/US trade deal, but it would not prevent one - that's the same situation as the Brexit deal itself of course, where the rather weird customs arrangements proposed for Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be difficult to implement in practice, but haven't prevented a deal being negotiated. It's also important to remember that the Northern Ireland provisions will only continue if they retain the support of the Assembly at Stormont, so those provisions could be moot well before any US trade deal was completed.
The details of any future trade deal with the EU are of course still to be negotiated and those could have an impact on the sorts of deals possible with other countries. However, the references to a regulatory "level playing field" in the previous political declaration have been removed from the version negotiated by Johnson. I think that's a clear indication that a government led by him would be seeking to avoid anything which could constrain other deals.
While I agree that the more hard-line leavers still have concerns, I don't think there's any doubt that the current version of the deal envisages a significantly 'harder' Brexit than the previous one. That's why the Labour party have been banging on recently about the threat to environmental standards and workers' rights.
There's some binding stuff in the withdrawal agreement, and some in the non-binding political declaration which will 'guide' future negotiations. According to this expert on trade this will likely have significant effects:
I agree that it's a harder brexit though, there's no way to get to the customs union / single market outcome. The question is whether Johnson's deal is palatable to a Conservative party that is leaning ever further to the right and may baulk at how harsh negotiations will get once the UK is out of the EU and the gloves come off.
However, due to wait times and service shortages, there have been discussions (which really do not go that far) about Tiering the health care system like I mentioned above.
There are already medical vacations, where people will travel to the states to get an operation done more quickly and pay for it out of pocket.
There is also a lot of things that aren’t covered which some Americans may think should be covered such as Ambulance services, hospital stays, medication and medical equipment.
It should also be noted that each province is responsible for their own coverage and I honestly think that individual states should cover their own expenses if they want to go to a single payer program. Therefore, if a state like Kentucky wants to keep the typical insurance coverage they can, while Vermont can move to single payer. Having the states dictate how much a doctor can charge for a checkup would be better than it being federally regulated as a place like Alaska may have a higher cost of living.
Ambulance services? How much does that cost? People here are afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol.
Here that bill is going to be pretty big. In the U.S., ambulances charge way more than they collect. It is that way all over the country. The reason is the collection rate. The ambulance company might send out 10 bills for $1,500 each. Two of the bills might be paid in full. Another bill will be paid by Medicare at $450. Two more by Medicaid at $105 each. The rest might go uncollected because the patient didn't have insurance or an address to send the bill. Once the $3,660 for all of that is collected and averaged across the 10 ambulance bills, a bill for $1,500 becomes a collection of $366, about 24.4 percent, which they think isn't all that bad.
TLDR: Ambulances send out bills asking for thousands of dollars hoping to get people to pay that to cover costs for people that don't pay.
" afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol."
How much regulation ambulances services are subjected and how much uber is?
I mean, do we want people who are transporting possibly critically ill or injured patients subject to the same regulation as someone who is using their car as a side-job on weekends?? I'm gonna vote no on that one.......
Comments
I mean, being a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. By using your logic, we should all be perfectly fine if/when a doctor, commercial fisherman, construction worker, lumberjack etc., abuses there family or whips out a gun and kills someone. After all, these are the most stressful jobs in America. So what if they commit the occasional atrocity?
1 - In many countries is a right. And even in countries where it is prohibited, people can just visit another country and do the procedure.
2 - Irrelevant. They still need the right of self defense. The skin color of the aggressor is irrelevant
3 - Strongly agree.
4 - Strongly disagree. Private armed forces always existed and the state did much more awful things with armed forces than any mercenary company. As for "private censorship", there are a huge difference. For eg, if twitter censors me, i can just go to gab. If a platform promises neutrality and is bias for the right or the left, then is a fraud and should be punished.
Nobody is saying that is OK. Only that this people needs to choose his professions understanding the consequences of high stress jobs
Straw-man argument. The case we've been discussing doesn't involve any deaths, wasnt a mistake, and your beloved government agrees with the city not having to pay.
Good. Children aren't lab rats to be experimented upon. My tolerance ends at child endangerment.
"Trans kids deciding what to do with their bodies" is total nonsense. KIDS are not capable of making long term decisions that have lasting and complicated consequences. ESPECIALLY before puberty. I wouldn't let a prepubescent child enter into a contract of any sort for this reason, and neither would the law. Why we would allow them to make medical decisions, that it cannot be stressed enough that they do not understand, that have potentially serious ramifications is beyond me.
Compound that with the fact that so many in this culture are willing to spread clear misinformation, glorify it to the tenth degree, provide an endless barrage of incentives for it, and you are just begging for irresponsible, poorly thought out decisions to be made by children that may greatly impact the rest of their lives. It's wrong. It's so obviously wrong i'm stunned I have to make a case about it.
The fact that it is legal anywhere in this country at all, despite no solid evidence that it will do them any good in the long term, is a moral abomination.
If the trans agenda is only concerned about itself, and not the well being of the most vulnerable among us, well, I have little sympathy for the trans agenda.
"ABSTRACT: Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.”
"We are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition…. We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people. Policies that encourage—either directly or indirectly—such medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion.6"
"There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging a young child with GD to socially impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. Purely from a social learning point of view, the repeated behavior of impersonating and being treated as the opposite sex will make identity alignment with the child’s biologic sex less likely. This, together with the suppression of puberty that prevents further endogenous masculinization or feminization of the entire body and brain, causes the child to remain either a gender non-conforming pre-pubertal boy disguised as a pre-pubertal girl, or the reverse. Since their peers develop normally into young men or young women, these children are left psychosocially isolated. They will be less able to identify as being the biological male or female they actually are."
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-dysphoria-in-children
I'm selectively quoting important parts, but it goes on at great length.
I know they are right wing, so some are going to object from the outset that they are quoted, but it succinctly summarizes my point of view, so I used it. I will accept any objections provided they are accompanied by a reason to doubt the premise, that this is more ill-researched and potentially dangerous treatment with little in the way of solid evidence for it's long term beneficial effects and borders on pseudoscience.
Also, let me point out that I know they are reversible for the most part, barring the risk of some detrimental effects and the possibility of making yourself infertile by going from puberty blockers to hormones. My primary objection is their mostly unknown impact on brain development. Treating psychological conditions in kids with medications that have unknown psychological impacts, but certainly some impacts due to the nature of hormones, is junk science upon junk science. No good reason to believe in transition surgery in general, certainly no good reason to believe that hormone blockers aren't hurting more than helping. Not to mention the lack of any knowledge of the health effects in the long term.
By the way, what makes something an "agenda"?? What are your parameters?? Because as far as I can tell, the criteria is "something I disagree with" and "perceived as a left-wing cause". It seems to me the trans agenda is "I'd really just like to survive in a society that is openly hostile to my existence".
I want to agree that the science is still out on this.
However, it’s a catch-22. The science will never be there if procedures and clinical trials are not allowed.
Now are they not allowed on ethical grounds? That in my opinion is up for debate. I think it is more unethical to tell a person that they are not allowed to live as the gender that they relate to.
So I think there needs to be acceptance first. I think a study needs to be done where kids who relate to their opposite gender are studied and encouraged and told that “yes, you can be a boy/girl if you want,” and then see how many at the age of 18 change their stance.
I honestly think it is society suppressing these thoughts until they are at an older age. Little jimmy trying on mommy’s shoes and make up is “just a stage, just take it away and remind him that he is a boy,” thinking.
Once that’s done, treatments, like hormone therapy can be revisited, based on what that type of study tells the medical community.
Indeed. Trump's sharp criticism of the proposed Brexit deal (saying it will not allow the full benefits of a US/UK free trade deal) could also be a problem. It's not really clear what he's criticizing, but I suspect it's the provisions intended to keep Northern Ireland roughly in line with EU regulations in order to simplify border crossing arrangements there. In principle such provisions could make it more difficult to do a deal that achieves long-held desires of the US - such as the ability to export GM crops.
What's a bit ironic is that Johnson has been very careful here - the NI arrangements are time limited with a cancellation clause (unlike May's deal). Also unlike May's deal, there are no provisions in the agreement for continued regulatory alignment for the UK as a whole.
He knows less than nothing about the UK.
He does have a goal which is supporting the weakening of the EU. That's it. He wants to harm the UK to stick it to the EU because in his mind that maybe helps the US take advantage of them in "trade deals". It might be a coincidence but weakening the EU should help Russia as well which seems to be a theme with him.
As I said before I have sympathy with your position and think caution is justified. You make a good point about the potential effects on development of using hormonal blockers and I can see how doing that could be socially and psychologically isolating. However, I don't think that argument is strong enough to rule out the possibility of treatment - and gathering evidence about the effectiveness of that treatment.
The argument against treatment appears to start from the position that these children are 'normal', but just experiencing some sort of social illusion - and if left to grow out of this temporary stage will become well-adjusted in due course. I'm skeptical about that as a starting position. Take this quote you used:
"Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence."
I suspect what this really means is that only a small minority of those who experience gender dysphoria in childhood go on to seek medical treatment as adults. There would be no surprise in that finding if those children have found the system totally unsympathetic in their formative years, but that does not mean that they will necessarily be happy and well-adjusted as adults.
Given the greater understanding we have now of genetics and that biological sex is not a simple binary state, it seems to me to be highly likely that there will be at least some people with medical, rather than purely social, reasons underpinning their gender dysphoria. It seems to me that denying that possibility makes gender dysphoria another in the list of conditions that have real (if poorly understood) causes, but were widely denied within the medical profession for many years - ME is an example of that for instance.
We should not be offering treatment and support to children for a condition just because they say that's what they want. However, denying any possibility of support for children who not only say that's what they want, but demonstrate that through the way they live over a sustained period, seems to me to be itself inconsistent with the idea of "do no harm".
Almost as if the exact thing the pipeline protesters warned about has happened. Or, to be more accurate, has happened AGAIN. Of course, no one (even the supporters) ever thought this wouldn't happen. That is why it was routed into Native lands instead of near an upper middle-class, 93% white city. The companies who RUN the pipelines fully expect them to fail and have these problems, which is why they want them near the most vulnerable people with the least amount of political power.
Those standards now only apply to Northern Ireland (rather than the UK as a whole as in May's deal). I agree that if Northern Ireland is following a different regulatory regime, that would complicate a future UK/US trade deal, but it would not prevent one - that's the same situation as the Brexit deal itself of course, where the rather weird customs arrangements proposed for Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be difficult to implement in practice, but haven't prevented a deal being negotiated. It's also important to remember that the Northern Ireland provisions will only continue if they retain the support of the Assembly at Stormont, so those provisions could be moot well before any US trade deal was completed.
The details of any future trade deal with the EU are of course still to be negotiated and those could have an impact on the sorts of deals possible with other countries. However, the references to a regulatory "level playing field" in the previous political declaration have been removed from the version negotiated by Johnson. I think that's a clear indication that a government led by him would be seeking to avoid anything which could constrain other deals.
While I agree that the more hard-line leavers still have concerns, I don't think there's any doubt that the current version of the deal envisages a significantly 'harder' Brexit than the previous one. That's why the Labour party have been banging on recently about the threat to environmental standards and workers' rights.
@Balrog99 When the domestic abuse statistics were brought up you dismissed it with, "Well police are stressed, we shouldn't be surprised." All I did was tie it in to other acts of violence cimmitted by officers. Officers discharge your wepons often enough to kill almost 1,000 Americans a year, its not some huge leap of logic to include this fact in the statistics that show that police are more aggressive than other people.
*edit* Also, where did you get the idea that my government is somehow "beloved" to me?
"Working as a police officer creates or encourages fear of violence against oneself. Police officers are more likely to resort to force if they feel in danger."
"Police culture involves an "us vs. them" mindset that encourages officers to see other people as potential criminals who pose a threat to them."
"Violent people may be more likely to become a police officer."
"Being a police officer puts you in a position of power, and people in positions of power are less likely to treat other people well since they are not held accountable."
I'd put my money on the last one, since doctors and pastors are, notably, more likely to commit domestic violence, just like police officers. I think the root issue is that police are given unchecked power (I think this is your view as well), and people with unchecked power are more or less guaranteed to abuse it. The fact that police officers have great power in the criminal justice system also means they know they can get away with committing a crime or an abuse of power, and an "us vs. them" mentality in the police force means that officers can expect other officers to cover them.
I just meant that you seem to look to government to fix society's problems and that your brand of government will be the best thing since sliced bread if only they could get power. I don't trust any government myself, not even the one I vote for.
“ Under Medicare for All, everyone gets the care they need, when they need it, and nobody goes broke. ”
The “when they need it” part is the problem here. When opening up healthcare for all, a strain is going to be placed on specialist as they will start seeing more patients. This will create longer wait times for procedures.
Even seeing or having a family doctor can take time.
“Medicare for All Act, including long-term care, audio, vision, and dental benefits.”
Wow. OHIP (Ontario’s Health insurance) doesn’t cover vision fully, albeit a $80 eye exam every year or two isn’t that bad. Paying for new glasses can get up there however.
Dental, IMO, is and always has been cosmetic and shouldn’t be covered. You don’t die from crooked teeth.
I think narrowing down what should be covered can and will help with the messaging and cost. It can always be added later if the costs don’t seem significant. Taking it away after the fact though might upset a lot of people.
“Not one penny in middle-class tax increases.”
This is a loaded statement that can back fire. As any tax increase usually isn’t about a single program and tax money gets moved around a lot on the whims of politicians: see Trump’s wall and military spending.
Besides that, she’s mentioned “choosing the doctor of your choice” a couple of times, which again, can be misleading. Family doctors here have a waiting list for people to become patients with them.
Also health services will have to be “socialized,” or at least put in a tiered system. The government will have to set a price on how much a doctor will be able to charge them for a service. This alone will kill any plans as America’s capitalist system as socialist is a dirty word. If it’s becomes a tiered system (the government will cover X amount, and if the doctor wants more, they need to charge the patient), opponent’s will highlight worse case scenarios and point to examples where citizens are now paying more.
It’s going to be a fight, and if she makes this an election issue, it could be a fight she loses with just the above points.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/19/health/anti-vax-harassment-eprise/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
No, but you CAN die from a tooth infection that doesn't get treated in time and moves up to the brain. People have even lost eyes because they couldn't get treatment until it was too severe to treat effectively.
@Balrog99 I'm not a fan of our government at all. But wholesale replacing it isn't really an option. So I'll push for improving it one step at a time. Getting at least up to par with literally every other developed country in terms of healthcare shouldn't be that difficult. How many successful models do we have that we study freely and adapt?
As for how much "extra" it is going to cost any average person, that is really not the question. You can't possibly have an intellectually honest argument about that until you also factor in the fact that you would no longer spend thousands (possibly 10s of thousands) of dollars a year on health care bills and insurance premiums. Any conversation about individual cost that doesn't subtract that from whatever tax increase would be involved is not an honest conversation, unless you literally NEVER get sick, in which case, I have news for you. You will. You won't be 20 forever. In fact, you'll find you won't be much sooner than you realize.
And once again, it never fucking fails that Democrats will ALWAYS be called to account to explain how they are going to "pay" for their proposals and how much it is going to cost, and literally NOTHING Republicans ever propose is held to these standards. I'll take this concern seriously the moment those Tea Party folks head back into the streets about the deficits Trump has created. Until then, I don't want to hear anything more from the right about spending and deficits. Ever. You lost the right to complain about it. You got the Iraq War and tax cuts and put them on the credit card. So fuck it, we're going to do the same thing with healthcare. If that's the playing field, then let's play on it. But enough of this disingenuous horseshit about fiscal responsibility. You burned that bridge, and we aren't rebuilding it for you.
I appreciate the honest assessment from someone who actually has a solid and well working socialized healthcare system. That is correct overall right? You like your system and would not prefer to scrap it for a free market system like we have down here in the US?
Down here we, well some of us, recognize that a for-profit healthcare system is wasteful and at worst leads to tens of thousands of deaths per year due to being unable to pay for care.
66% of all bankruptcies are due to medical issues (direct healthcare cost or missed work due to health). You don't have that problem to the same degree right?
However, due to wait times and service shortages, there have been discussions (which really do not go that far) about Tiering the health care system like I mentioned above.
There are already medical vacations, where people will travel to the states to get an operation done more quickly and pay for it out of pocket.
There is also a lot of things that aren’t covered which some Americans may think should be covered such as Ambulance services, hospital stays, medication and medical equipment.
It should also be noted that each province is responsible for their own coverage and I honestly think that individual states should cover their own expenses if they want to go to a single payer program. Therefore, if a state like Kentucky wants to keep the typical insurance coverage they can, while Vermont can move to single payer. Having the states dictate how much a doctor can charge for a checkup would be better than it being federally regulated as a place like Alaska may have a higher cost of living.
Ambulance services? How much does that cost? People here are afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol.
Here that bill is going to be pretty big. In the U.S., ambulances charge way more than they collect. It is that way all over the country. The reason is the collection rate. The ambulance company might send out 10 bills for $1,500 each. Two of the bills might be paid in full. Another bill will be paid by Medicare at $450. Two more by Medicaid at $105 each. The rest might go uncollected because the patient didn't have insurance or an address to send the bill. Once the $3,660 for all of that is collected and averaged across the 10 ambulance bills, a bill for $1,500 becomes a collection of $366, about 24.4 percent, which they think isn't all that bad.
TLDR: Ambulances send out bills asking for thousands of dollars hoping to get people to pay that to cover costs for people that don't pay.
" afraid to call ambulances, I've seen guys say just call an Uber lol."
How much regulation ambulances services are subjected and how much uber is?
There's some binding stuff in the withdrawal agreement, and some in the non-binding political declaration which will 'guide' future negotiations. According to this expert on trade this will likely have significant effects:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1186532271823769600
I agree that it's a harder brexit though, there's no way to get to the customs union / single market outcome. The question is whether Johnson's deal is palatable to a Conservative party that is leaning ever further to the right and may baulk at how harsh negotiations will get once the UK is out of the EU and the gloves come off.
I mean, do we want people who are transporting possibly critically ill or injured patients subject to the same regulation as someone who is using their car as a side-job on weekends?? I'm gonna vote no on that one.......