Said the 35-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg, who's in the running for chair of the Democratic National Committee. Does it seem absurd that the major of a population-101,000 town could beat out Tom Perez and Keith Ellison? But he's an Afghanistan veteran, a Harvard graduate, and a Rhodes Scholar, and he's gay too, so you've got your diversity angle.
“Thanksgiving morning, by the way, I spent in a deer blind with my boyfriend’s father, so how’s that for a 2017 experience?,” he said. “But in the afternoon, we were sitting around the coffee table and his mom showed me this tube of cream, about the size of a tube of toothpaste. Only it’s not skin cream. Well, it is, but it’s topical chemotherapy her life depends on. It costs $2,000 a month. What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that?”
पोस्ट्स
१६९ टिप्पण्या:
I lived in South Bend until recently. Buttigieg is very ambitious, and very capable. I think he can be a force on the Democratic scene. He's going to embrace the "pragmatic" label and is actually someone well-suited to bring the Trump Democrats back to the Democratic Party.
Where did the lady get the $2000/month cream before? Just invented since the unaffordable care act?
One of the revelations from Water Closet was rampant [class] diversity at the DNC. He's a viable choice to lead the Party.
What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that?”
- sell assets
- rely on family
- rely on community
Go without and hope for the best...you know all the things people used to do before they had a right to spend other people's money.
Buy it in Canada.
Is he a lawyer? If not, he's got no chance. Dems haven't nominated a non lawyer (or in Gore's case, non law school failure) for pres or VP since Dukakis's veep, and Carter before that. It's the only credential they consistently require.
The exchanges started in 2014.
You would think nobody ever had insurance before that.
What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that
She can pay for it with the money saved on her premium and deductible.
the anti-selection load the current Obamacare exchange plans are carrying is worth at least 30% to 40%
No longer fact free!
Tell your chums mum she's welcome. Whats a little fascism if you can get your topical ointments for free.
@Unknown
Stop using my posts to link to other things. Get your own blog.
Talk about the post. Outgoing links are fine if the fit the discussion set up by the post. But don't treat the post as an open thread. I am deleting your posts like this. Take note, and stop doing that.
Unknown said...
On Day One, the Orange Don has lost the public relations battle across the world."
The last election showed us how important "the public relations battle" is.
That's why Hillary was sworn in yesterday.
Oh, wait! She wasn't!
Cry, loser, cry. And keep throwing easy pitches right down the middle of the plate.
Interesting man, looking forward to seeing and hearing more from him. When people with preexisting conditions are affected by the repeal of the ACA without a suitable replacement, we'll be hearing more of these stories, even from Trump voters.
Pete is better than Keith or Tom. But in 2020 the Dems will need Oprah. You read it here first (and second and . . .).
What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that?”
This is irritating. I can go along with a program that we pay for the lady's medication, but it should be recognized that we do pay for it; it is not a benefit of immaculate conception that we deprive her of just to be mean.
I also wonder if a tube of it would cost $2,000 if it was not anonymously paid for by the government from tax (or borrowed, which still has to be paid for somehow sometime) funds collected from us.
He is tabla rasa. The new Obama. A fresh but historic face (gay) with a thin voting record.
But look at who he is up against. A Muslim former Nation of Islam black separatist who might be anti-Semitic and a Hispanic lawyer who cut some questionable deals at DOJ and DOL. The South Bend guy has a shot as the Dems are all about identity politics.
snide, it's what's for breakfast.
The ACA made your cream more expensive,. not less.
I don't know what that cream is. There are drugs, usually biologicals, that are extremely expensive but many manufacturers have foundations to help pay for them. The idea is to get enough experience to scale up the product and have the price fall.
The ACA has nothing to do with that. He might inquire into the NHS program called "NICE" which decides what expensive therapy you are allowed to use.
If she is on the exchanges (is she?) she's probably paying about $700/month with a $10,000 deductible. So that means 5 months of the year she is paying $2700 for that medication.
If she has a 35-year old son, I would be surprised if she's not on Medicare.
I get that there are people who are much benefitted from ACA insurance. But Democrats want to pretend they are willing to "fix it" without being willing to admit healthy people on the exchanges are paying a lot of money, not to their own benefit.
He's white. They aren't interested.
A party that is viewed as being-out-of-touch would be well-advised to have people in power who aren't from large cities and seem to have some idea what small town life is like. But he doesn't have many celebs behind him and that seems to have an awful lot of sway over the party's decision-making, as if the celebs would potentially go Republican instead.
That's why Hillary was sworn in yesterday.
Earlier today, Drudge had a picture of Bill and Hillary. It was captioned "Glum and Glummer".
Still waiting for a coherent politically viable replacement for the ACA. They've had almost eight years, should have been ready to go on day one. I can't wait to start calling the clusterfuck that is our health care system TrumpCare, or RyanCare, maybe even RepubliCare will work some days.
"What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that?”
A Harvard graduate and Rhodes Scholar said that?
She will not refused treatment, and the GOP replacement will address this issue.
MayBee is correct. ACA plans are fairly useless for coverage of high cost meds. And getting worse every year.
Still waiting for a coherent politically viable replacement for the ACA.
Didn't see Dems concerned when they wrecked the insurance business.
They've had almost eight years, should have been ready to go on day one.
Monday is Day One. And Trump has said he plans on having a repeal ready quickly.
Democrats had TWENTY YEARS to prepare one (it's been a long-term desire) and they took over a year to shove one down people's throats.
Simply allowing policies to be sold across state lines will help a lot.
I can't wait to start calling the clusterfuck that is our health care system TrumpCare, or RyanCare, maybe even RepubliCare will work some days.
Feel free. Cannot be worse than Obamacare.
Still waiting for a coherent politically viable replacement for the ACA. They've had almost eight years, should have been ready to go on day one. I can't wait to start calling the clusterfuck that is our health care system TrumpCare, or RyanCare, maybe even RepubliCare will work some days.
It took over a year for the Democrats to come up with Obamacare. It wasn't signed until March 2010. They'd had 200 years to come up with something before that. The idea that the republicans need to have something on day 1 is just a silly talking point.
The Dems think free means "free". As Bernie just admitted in the hearings someone has to pay for it. The Dems just do not understand econ 101.
"She will not refused treatment, and the GOP replacement will address this issue."
True believer.
"She will not refused treatment, and the GOP replacement will address this issue."
True believer.
Obamacare has done a remarkably poor job of doing so.
MayBee said...
They'd had 200 years to come up with something before that.
This is a stupid talking point.
The idea that the republicans need to have something on day 1 is just a silly talking point.
They have been repealing it for six years. Not too much to ask that they had a replacement ready to go, unless of course they are just full of shit.
ARM- so why was it ok for the Democrats to take over a year?
He sounds like a cool guy. If he were a black guy with the same credentials, he would be our next president........If and when the ACA gets repealed, there will be some losers. Expect every journalist in America to report on their plight. There will be a great deal of competition to find the most heart rending story........I do not expect to find much of a hurry to report on any future misdeeds that the several hundred men recently pardoned might commit. A couple of the men whom Obama released from Gitmo became involved in some kind of bombing in Iraq. I forget the details, because it didn't get much mention in the media.
ARM and HeidiC
Maybe a little less fascism and lying this time around.
ARM is being disingenuous as usual.
As I recall an attempt was made to make the insurance program that congress uses available to everyone. With subsidies for people who couldn't afford even that.
Let's see what they come up with.
Like damikesc said," Can't be any worse than Obamacare."
When Obama was trying to pass ACA, he tried to give examples of the horrors of the system we had then, always to have them uncovered as bogus. The fact is, 80% of people were satisfied with their health insurance and healthcare, which why the turd had to lrepeatedly lie that he wouldn't take either away. Once ACA was passed, we didn't need fake anecdotes anymore, the horrors of spiraling costs and dwindling service were now real and verifiable, since it was the law. But now we also have Stockholm syndrome: the victims look up to their victimizer, the government, as the hero who will save them from the disaster government made.
I'll bet you anything that cream was $200 before Obamacare and so will go back to that if we can fully repeal it.
Obama said that everyone would save $2500 per year with the ACA. That woman should have an extra $500 to play with.
I always kind of giggle when someone says "if I don't have my prescriptions, I'll die."
Yes, I said, just like people used to do before FDR. You didn't hear about people complaining about living to 70. They had the good sense to die before they were in a hospital bed for 10 years being fed through a tube, and wearing diapers.
I don't understand why people want to live past their ability to function.
Look at poor bastard Bush. The bastard can't even raise his penis over the toilet seat, and yet we have to pay the fucker $800,000 a year from the treasury. The secret service with armed guards in case someone wants to assassinate him. Like that would help anything.
Sheesh...
Yes, I'm sure the gay mayor spends loads of time in a duck blind. Politicians do stuff to get people to think they are other than what they really are.
TheThinMan said...
I'll bet you anything that cream was $200 before Obamacare and so will go back to that if we can fully repeal it.
Don't know much about the pricing of drugs? Then, just make shit up.
harryo said...
I don't understand why people want to live past their ability to function.
I thought the DEATH PANELS were going to fix this problem.
NO-BamaCare
No-Corruptocrat-Care
No-Paul-Krugman-Care
No-GruberLies-Care
Freedom to choose something other than what corruptocrats shove down your throat-care.
Nixon offered NHC in 1970? To Teddy and Teddy turned it down.
So why did it take the dems that long?
They should have had that thing to go since then.
Hell, they had HillaryCare's template from the 90s.
This is fun!
“Thanksgiving morning, by the way, I spent in a deer blind with my boyfriend’s father, so how’s that for a 2017 experience?,”
Look at me. I'm a cool leftwing progressive who does cool things with my boyfriend. You better think I'm cool, you stupid gun-toting blue collar hicks.
When my brother shot himself, it was a new gun. I cleaned it up, and returned it for full price.
This is way better than any health insurance company could do.
A person knows when it's time to check out. So check out already. Don't wait for mother nature. She's into torture.
I was all set to poke fun at Buttigieg's name. Then I thought, Reince Priebus.
How much does the $2000 cream cost in other parts of the world? Much of our medication in the US is overpriced because of government restrictions and regulations. Buy it in Canada indeed.
No Heide, expanded Medicaid.
How old is this woman?
Is she old enuf to be on Medicare?
I don't understand why health insurance can't operate in some similar ways as car insurance.
Portability is key. Regimenting the options to be state-based in this day and age seems hella foolish.
Note the drug overdose medication that went from $100 to $600 when it was mandated to be carried by "first responders." It has now been just as arbitrarily cut back to $300 after adverse criticism, but this is still outrageous.
As I understan it, this is possible because the manufacturer used political maneuvers to first create a monopoly on the product and then have the Federal government pay for it.
Much of our medication in the US is overpriced because of government restrictions and regulations.
We also pay more because we're a wealthier nation. It's progressive pricing.
Most liberals would rather die than contribute to a private charity, accept it, or even acknowledge it as a possibility. This is the real problem. On the other hand a $2000 a month chemo bill is on the low end.
Google "topical chemotherapy creams" and then take a look at the ads on the right side of the page.
"You know, we’re all worried about living in this fact-free world we’re in right now. The great thing about the local level is you don’t get to do that."
How much you want to bet that in South Bend, Buttigieg and his ilk will condemn you if you fail to affirm that a man is a woman, and vice versa? In the progressive world, it is a crime to even think that two plus two makes four.
I've always wondered in the diversity scale if the positive points of "gay" overcome the negative points of "white"?
Topical 5-fluorouracil is a cream chemotherapy for squamous cell cancer. One brand of it costs $2,000 for one tube, but there are cheaper generic alternatives, and also other alternatives to topical treatment (such as excision.) It is often used on people who have extensive precancerous changes.
Another more chronic type of skin condition, mycoses fungoides (a cutaneous lymphoma),is treated with topical chemotherapy. Those are even more expensive if paid for out of pocket without insurance - topical nitrogen mustard for $3,798 per tube or topical bexarotene for $3,490. Neither of those are listed on GoodRx, so can't provide link. My info comes from a subscription website.
I seriously doubt not having the ACA would prevent this lady from getting her medicine covered. Most of the ACA coverage was from Medicaid expansion. Even Medicaid would pay for treatment of cutaneous lymphoma. And if she isn't poor enough for the Medicaid, then she would be paying most of the cost via her deductible anyway, so it isn't really helping. (As one of the commenters already pointed out.)
Obama said she should just take a pain pill and go away. Too bad about that 22nd Amendment.
I think it likely this is a skin cancer therapy for melanoma, Michael K. The likely drug under discussion is Aldara. Depending on the extent she uses it, I could see this costing $2000/month, but I think that was an exaggeration.
What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that?
Because prior to 2010, back in those savage, uncaring dark ages, patients had no ability whatsoever to obtain healthcare or to pay for it.
Maybe the GOP had nothing ready on Day One because everybody was telling them they were going to lose the White House and Congress, and be a regional rump party only in the South. Who knew ?
“But in the afternoon, we were sitting around the coffee table and his mom showed me this tube of cream, about the size of a tube of toothpaste. Only it’s not skin cream. Well, it is, but it’s topical chemotherapy her life depends on. It costs $2,000 a month."
But at least she can get her birth control for free.
harryo said...
When my brother shot himself, it was a new gun. I cleaned it up, and returned it for full price.
Waste not, want not.
Pay for it with some of the graft that comes with being a DNC national committee chair.
If the Democrats want to win back Trump supporters, first thing is to push through a major anti-corruption blitz in their party. The amount of accepted corruption is crippling every policy goal. Republicans have a massive corruption problem too, so it's not entirely unique, but the Tea Party was a massive response against the entrenched forms and Trump's win was a major response to the establishment, so people went that direction.
The question is, of course, if Democrats would have anything left if they got rid of the corruption. That's defined their politics since at least Boss Tweed days.
Buttigieg lives in what Unknown calls Trumpland, so is probably irredeemable.
Insurance is a legal gambling operation where you figure the odds on needing this insurance versus the price the insurance company offers it for, and the company figures the price it can offer and still make a profit vs. the odds that this calamity will actually happen to you, while also looking at the price other companies are charging for the same product.
You get the legislature into figuring out ways to take the gamble out of it for everyone, it is not "insurance" anymore, but a welfare program, and you need to figure out ways to pay for it while controlling the cost or the community will not be able to afford it.
We also pay more because we're a wealthier nation. It's progressive pricing.
No. We pay more because Federal money is made in Heaven.
Bingo, Paddy O.
An example of a single question WE the people should ask every democrat, at every opportunity.
"Senator Bennett (D-CO) - will you admit the democrat party has a massive corruption problem?
Stop yammering and answer the question. Yes or no?"
5 FU is about $240 on Canada Drugs. His mom just needs to exercise her power as a consumer.
This market economy is a cool thing; she should try it sometime
I'm looking forward to how the replacement for the ACA will handle the negotiation for better drug prices. I hope this doesn't fall by the wayside.
"“Thanksgiving morning, by the way, I spent in a deer blind with my boyfriend’s father, so how’s that for a 2017 experience?,"
Must own a DeLorean.
This fellow is the sort of impressive person that brings out the truly dreadful nature of the affliction that is hmosexuality. All that talent, all that personality, and its gone, it ends with him, there are no heirs, no contribution into the next generation. Great families and entire clans die out. The world is made more stupid, more incapable, less creative.
It is absurd that this loss is not acknowledged as a loss, because it is.
It is absurd that this extremely costly disease is not allowed to be treated, for a cure or prevention to be researched.
The modern attitude seems like we are being required to cheer the black death.
buwaya,
"Affliction of homosexuality". So are the gay children of parents to consider their children as afflicted by some dread condition? You have no gay people in your family, extended family? You consider them "afflicted" too? The homosexual person can contribute to society and live a happy fulfilled life in their own lifetimes, that counts for something.
buwaya said...
This fellow is the sort of impressive person that brings out the truly dreadful nature of the affliction that is hmosexuality.
Presumably stupid people are also gay. Wouldn't the effect on the gene pool be neutral, unless there is evidence that smarter people are more likely to be gay than dumb ones?
I suppose she can talk to the Democratic senators, such as my Sen. Bob Casey Jr., who last week blocked an amendment that would have allowed importation of cheaper drugs from Canada, for reasons.
At least whatever health plan the Republicans introduce will be open to investigation and debate, unlike Obamacare, when Nancy Pelosi famously said they'll have to approve it before we find out what's in it.
But go ahead, keep attacking Trump over why he hasn't spent six years designing the perfect health plan, when the Dems ignored their one opportunity to have single-payer (you remember, when they controlled the White House, House and Senate).
Keep firing, and ignore the clicking of your empty gun barrels.
No. We pay more because Federal money is made in Heaven.
No. And no.
I'm looking forward to how the replacement for the ACA will handle the negotiation for better drug prices. I hope this doesn't fall by the wayside.
I believe that this issue is one that Trump stressed in some of his earlier speeches and hopefully one that will be addressed by Congress when crafting some new legislation.
We don't necessarily need to "replace" Obamacare with another massive convoluted program. Just fix the problems with the system now piece by piece.
"Rhodes Scholar" is a red flag, IYKWIMAITYD.
buwaya,
What about people who are unable to have children? Are their lives less important or useful than yours?
Robert Holmgren said... [hush][hide comment]
Yes, I'm sure the gay mayor spends loads of time in a duck blind. Politicians do stuff to get people to think they are other than what they really are.
Are you kidding? You don't really think ALL gays are adverse to hunting, or other macho thing?
Anecdotal, I know, rough motorcycle guy down the street gay.
Emile Griffith, world champion boxer, was gay. Beat Benny -the Kid-Paret to death for insulting him.
Sports players gay, straight guys designing and tailoring clothes.
Oh, and the popular MSM stereotype of all gays being super smart and talented is a lie also.
NO, I AM NOT GAY, not that there is anything wrong with it.
OK then, so maybe it is made in the other place.
But we do not recognize it as being of this Earth.
hmosexuality
Health Maintenance Organizations turn me on sometimes, too.
We are communal creatures. Our personal value to the whole is rather low. The exceptions are very rare. The biggest contribution we, most of us, especially the most accomplished, can make to the whole is to have children.
That is, above all, leaving out religion, what we are here for.
My argument is one from humility. I'm not all that, and my transient pleasures are trivial, on the larger scale of things, compared to my obligations.
The lack of imagination by Democrats is frustrating. A behemoth government program like the one the ACA created is not the only possible way to deal with things and it's not like repealing the ACA is going to mean everyone who has a plan through it now is going to be uninsured.
Yes, repealing the ACA will undoubtedly hurt some people. So did the passage of the ACA, and Democrats never gave a damn about the people they hurt ramming the bill through...which is in part why the law remains vulnerable enough to repeal and why it in part is responsible for their lousy performance from 2010-2016 in elections.
The story of insurance for me from the Obama administration is that I went from Platinum-type coverage just before he took office, fully paid for by my employer with a $250 deductible, to Silver coverage that costs more than 60% more per month than the 2008 plan while costing me over $100 a month from the paycheck with a $2000 deductible. And I'm supposed to be thanking the Democrats for this?
Known Unknown said...
Health Maintenance Organizations turn me on sometimes, too.
LBGTQH?
buwaya,
Your outlook on your life here on earth is a sad one. We are communal creatures as you say, some of the things that we can do to contribute to the community is to be useful to others here on earth. Waiting for your progeny to do what you yourself were unwilling or unable to do is wrongheaded and diminishes yourself and others. Seems almost un-Christian.
"People who can't have children... Are their lives less important?"
Yes. Witness the expectation that we give up our seats on the bus for pregnant women.
Or look at human history. Its common for tribes, socities, etc to allocate more time energy and resources towards reproduction and women of child bearing age.
In fact, in a demographic crisis (like Europe today) you can expect the State to provide incentives to have more children.
I found it interesting that on the fictional Galactica, with the human race facing extinction, the President used an EO to outlaw abortion.
So yes, fertile lives matter more than infertile ones. And no, its not fair. Welcome to the real world.
So yes, fertile lives matter more than infertile ones. And no, its not fair. Welcome to the Trump world.
FTFY
Actually I take that back, not even Trump is this ignorant.
buwaya,
Also, don't let science get in your way, homosexual people are capable of passing along their own genetics.
It is a sad one I suppose, but realistic.
Whether its Christian or not is an interesting question.
Humility, on a large or small scale, certainly isnt unChristian.
On our purpose and scale of values, I guess it turns on whether you can reconcile, say, Marcus Aurelius with Christianity.
Also, if you have an interest of such a philosophy on a very personal scale, have a look at "A Tragic Sense of Life", Miguel Unamuno.
As for accomplishments, those dont figure really, not your own or whatever one expects, usually foolishly, from ones children. The next generation is valuable mainly because it exists, and promises implicitly to carry on. We are here mainly to make sure they exist.
Afflicted?
What if its proven that an increase in homosexuals "born this way" has something to do with all the female hormones that our water recycle systems can't filter out? Just as a hypothetical.
Afflicted is not necessarily a negative or bigoted term.
No doubt they CAN reproduce, using everything from scientific glassware to willpower, of course with some cooperative woman, but they very rarely do.
"Welcome to the Trump world"
Oh please. Don't be such an idiot. I gave you examples of society's preference for fertile lives reaching back 5000 years. Dont be so hysterical.
Much of our medication in the US is overpriced because of government restrictions and regulations. Buy it in Canada indeed.
Talk about living in a fact free world. The reason medication in the U.S. is overpriced is because the lack of government regulations. Countries with a single payer or government run health care are able to hold down the price of drugs through regulation and negotiating prices (which Medicare prohibits).
don't let science get in your way, homosexual people are capable of passing along their own genetics
That should be -- don't let science get in your way, homosexual people are only capable of passing along their own genetics through heterosexual means. Two homosexuals -- every two homosexuals throughout the world, not only those with dysfunctional systems -- trying to reproduce only by and through their own joinder will always fail. If those who identify as homosexual are so by nature, then nature has consigned them to extinction because people can reproduce only by heterosexual -- man and woman -- means.
The great thing about the local level is you get to make a real, tangible connection to the sorts of politicians who you can trust to go out and extort payment for the lifesaving medication you need from 300 million other people who you don't know or think about.
And, by the way, given the radical feminists' hostile and militant antipathy to women's fertility, gays are not the only ones who have chosen the road of extinction.
To the radical feminist, with the same affliction of irrationality of every leftist, "reproductive health" means seeing a woman's healthy condition as diseased, it means making a woman's body dysfunctional, that is, unhealthy with respect to her natural reproductive process.
Talk about living in a fact-free world, Freder.
They've threatened to bust the patents.
That includes Canada.
But this is a fun fact.
A Canadian tribe was negotiating or going to negotiate with a MN Indian casino tribe to bring in Canafian meds that the tribe could sell thru their casino. Then came the Mecicare drug benefit under W and that fell thru.
So, once again, with the drugs, American companies pay for the research and the world wants the US taxpayer to subsidize them.
Let them do that shit and give it away.
Mark said...
And, by the way, given the radical feminists' hostile and militant antipathy to women's fertility, gays are not the only ones who have chosen the road of extinction."
A woman actually tweeted out yesterday that she found out she was pregnant and was joyful at first, but then remembered who is in the WH. She's now considering an abortion because how can she bring a child into the world when Orange Monster is president? And the replies she got were all "It's your choice! I know how you feel!" Nobody pointed out that her response was a hysterical overreaction. Or that 4 or 8 years from now she will not be as fertile as she is now.
If I was a heartless utilitarian, I would support abortion on the grounds that when your enemy is destroying herself, why stop her?
"Talk about living in a fact free world"
No kidding. And spot on re government regulation.
Another reason drugs are so expensive in the US is because of R&D. Yes, it only cost the company $2 to produce each pill. Except for the first pill - that cost them $200 million to produce and they need to make that money back.
Else, there is no incentive to research new medicines. No cure for cancer. No cure for MS. Everything goes static. And we are reduced to being parasites living off the medicines invented by other nations. Like Canada does.
I think she should just get her tubes tied. Pence could be the next president.
Why take the risk?
China poisons their people.
Would I really trust them to make meds?
"when your enemy is destroying herself, why stop her?"
Because she isnt your enemy, just another, more immediately vulnerable victim of the set of exterminating cultural memes that are passing through this society.
Its as if some enemy force has deployed some sort of "humane" pest control technology on Western societies. One of those things where bugs are tricked into not mating, or mating only with infertile bugs.
How many children have you got exiledonmaonstreet? If you answer "none", do you consider your existence here on earth less valuable than a person who has natural children?
Whoever runs the DNC should have some executive experience and it should be a full time job. This guy seems more impressive and competent than Ellison or Perez.
If your child loses her legs in an accident, would getting her prosthetic legs, permitting her to walk somewhat, or even a wheelchair, mean that you thought she is "less valuable" lying in bed the rest of her life? So of course you cant possibly get her legs or a wheelchair.
Or perhaps children should not be educated, as otherwise you could be accused of thinking that they were "less valuable" in their benighted state, and we cant have people thinking ill of you.
I admit, your logic on this "less valuable" line is hard to follow.
This is great! The DNC leader will be the Hispanic corrupter of the DOJ Civil Rights Division or an anti-Semitic black Muslim or a gay Ivy Leaguer who thinks Obamacare works.
The Democrat Party is becoming a caricature of itself.
Next up: A Native American feminist who is married to a duck and demanding reparations for the buffalo.
Childbearing is not the end all be all of life, buwaya. You seem to put a higher value on people who have had children. The dummy Fen actually came out and proudly proclaimed they were indeed more valuable. My point is that you both are wrong. A human's value doesn't depend on the ability to bear children. A bedridden child who can't bear children as an adult also has value of a different sort. That bedridden child can contribute in his or her own way.
buwaya, to be clear so you follow,
YOU put less value on gay people who you claim can't procreate, despite science providing a way for them to have their own biological children. You are wrong to suggest it is so.
I didn't proclaim that fertile lives have more value. 5000 years of human history did.
But if you insist on clinging bitterly to your false narratives and fantasy reality, that's fine by me. It's why you were blindsided by this election and why you are destined to lose the next
gay people who you claim can't procreate, despite science providing a way for them to have their own biological children
Explain to us please the science of (1) joining two sperm, which (2) then results in a newly-conceived life.
Hey Heidi, let us know when you are done burning all those strawmen. No one is saying that your existence here has less value because you are childless.
Get thee to a shrink. You obviuosly have personal issues re the subject, and while I sympathize, it's bad form to involve us in your therapy. You could at least pay us.
By the way, how fair is it that self-proclaimed gay people should have to resort to science and technology to have children? Why not allow two gay men to have children themselves naturally, in the same way as male-female couples can?
Why do you place less value of gay couples in this way? Why not value putting procreative genetic material in another person's digestive tract as a means to reproduce?
But, HeideC, whats the difference here?
Lets take a child who cant walk, a child who is uneducated, a child who is unable to bear children for medical reasons, a child with mental problems, a child addicted to drugs, all of those; let us take all these as case 1.
And a child who is gay? Let us take this as case 2.
Just one thing - the attitude of society that attempts treatment, mitigation, and works on research on those afflictions in the first case. In case 1 it is a given that one can, or more usually must, do something about it, that these are serious problems.
And the absolute prohibition of any of these in case 2.
Why? It seems to me case 2 = case 1 problems in every way, or worse than many. Its an affliction, it should be understood, prevented, mitigated or cured.
And reproduction is the overwhelming natural imperative for all life, if you want to assume the existence of natural law, this is the first. Without this one does not exist, all else is secondary.
Childbearing is not the end all be all of life
Actually...it is.
If a species doesn't reproduce it is extinct. Dead.
If a species only reproduces at a rate that is less than the attrition of the others in the species...it will become extinct. Dead.
Not all life, but certainly the life of those who are part of that species. Humans can go extinct, just like a species of lizard. We just have more resources to either prolong the extinction or to speed it right up.
Mark,
You obviously know little about fairness, decency or gay people, or "self-proclaimed gay people" as you characterize them. So, you want them back in the closet. You go in the closet with your hate and lock yourself in. You turned the comment's section into a hate-filled screed against homosexuals. Those attitudes result in violence, discrimination, etc. against innocent people. YOU must be put in your place (in the hate closet) and ostracized by decent people everywhere.
Thanks for the sarcasm Trumpit, but let's keep it serious.
Seriously, since we are talking about fact and science, and since it has been asserted that gay people can reproduce -- how do two men reproduce by and through only themselves?
What people like about Obamacare is the wide coverage and the guaranteed issue, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Those are very popular. What they don't like are the individual mandate and the sky-rocketing premiums and deductibles. In short, folks would prefer that a vast and ever-growing array of extremely expensive products and services be provided to them at little or no cost, and Obamacare promised that was exactly what they would get. That is now the absurd and unworkable standard by which any new legislation is to be judged.
This is the trap the Democrats have set, and I frankly don't see how Trump expects to avoid its jaws. But he has surprised me more than once already.
I know a well-off gay couple that has two beautiful daughters. Each daughter has a different biological father (them). They paid the high fees to use modern science to have children of their own. They are other ways they could have gotten children. They certainty can afford to give their girls a quality life, and they wanted them, and love them.
They paid the high fees to use modern science to have children of their own
Are. Both. Of. Them. Parents. Of. The. Same. Child?
Or. Was. A. Woman. Necessary. In. Order. To. Conceive. The. Children?
@Trumpit,
You obviously know little about fairness, decency or gay people, or "self-proclaimed gay people" as you characterize them. So, you want them back in the closet. You go in the closet with your hate and lock yourself in. You turned the comment's section into a hate-filled screed against homosexuals.
After the seemingly pointless attacks on any Christian or Christians who happened to get in the way of Gay Orthodoxy in the past eight years, there's probably no one here who will cede any moral high ground to the gay rights movement. Gay rights has turned into just one more stick with which the Left beats the parts of society that don't toe its line. It didn't have to be that, but the LGBTQ movement let it become that.
If you'd like to claim some moral high ground, Trumpit, tell me this: Do you know of any gay writing on what constitutes a life of virtue in a gay marriage? Straights have, for thousands of years, been exhorted by other hets to live lives of virtue in marriage, & the rules are spelled out in meticulous detail. Do straights fall short of those virtues? All the time. But a goal, however high, is still a goal.
Now, if such literature exists on the gay side of things, I seem to have missed it. I will make one exception -- Bruce Bawer's Place at the Table. Any others spring to mind?
"fairness decency and gay people"
One of these things is not like the other.
Gays have deliberately sought to ruin the lives of good people who refused to violate their moral conscience. Bake their fucking wedding cake or lose your livelihood and be thrown in jail. One woman was even sent into hiding because of their death threats.
Fuck them. I'll start caring about the rights of gays again when they demonstrate they care about the rights of people other than themselves.
Blogger Trumpit said...
"Mark,
... YOU must be put in your place (in the hate closet) and ostracized by decent people everywhere."
You know, Trumpit, it is quite likely that the cause of homosexuality will be discovered, and it will become possible to test the unborn for that behavioral idiosyncracy. Do you doubt that Planned Parenthood will offer that test for free? What do you suppose they will advise mothers with homosexual tissue clumps to do?
Of course, it is also possible that a cure for the condition will be discovered. Pop a pill, and you're straight. I suppose a substantial fraction of adults would refuse such "treatment". But how many parents would refuse it for their children? No one *wants* to have homosexual children. If homosexuality is indeed inborn, then it is a birth defect. When it becomes curable, it will be cured. Given that reality, those who currently suffer from the condition are unfortunate, and deserve sympathy. But there is no point in pretending that it is not an affliction. At least, none I can see. School me.
Fertilization occurred in the lab using their sperm and extracted eggs (ova). They paid a woman (or in this case two women) handsomely to carry the embryo to term. The girls are not the biological child of the birth mother.
You want to have sex with a guy in order to have a child, I doubt it will work. But, by all means, keep trying, if you are into that.
Trumpit,
I live in San Francisco full of rich gay people, and I have heard of this practice, but it is extremely rare. In 25+ years with kids in the schools, we have certainly known quite a few kids with gay parents, but never a case like this. More likely the gay person has a child from a prior marriage or arrangement with a person of the opposite sex, or in the case of lesbians, we have run into one case of IVF and of artificial insemination. But in the vast majority of cases, it seems it was all done the old fashioned way.
Fertilization occurred in the lab using their sperm and extracted eggs (ova). They paid a woman (or in this case two women) handsomely to carry the embryo to term.
In other words, then, procreation by heterosexual means.
So I repeat myself -- why not procreation by purely homosexual means? Maybe that is what you were referring to in your last paragraph, but it is unclear.
That's OK, I'll tell you the answer that you already know and we all know -- a gay sexual union is inherently infertile -- they will NEVER conceive a child themselves. They are inherently different.
That's it. No moral gloss put on this. It is only an acknowledgement of a basic undeniable TRUTH and the nature of the human person.
Regarding Buttigieg's mother, if she had my pre-ACA healthcare plan she would have met her family deductible in the first month of the year. It's not easy to twig out what the deductible will be this year for a silver plan in Indiana but it appears that the deductible will be in excess of $6000, so she doesn't pay off her deductible until the third quarter of the year. I suspect she pays more, what with the latest round of cost increases.
Obamacare is emblematic of how the Democrats do business. The pass something, anything, but put neither time nor thought nor manegerisl effort into the hard work of making it work. That's left for the Republicans down the road. Obamacare is entering, maybe has entered, its death spiral. It's going to be up to Trump and the Republicans to rescue it, because that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe not this time. Maybe it's time to wait for it to die and only then fix it.
Talk about living in a fact free world. The reason medication in the U.S. is overpriced is because the lack of government regulations.
Trump will pass regs that say you can only invent and manufacture cheap
Stuff to satisfy your demands.
Did Freder actually blame the high cost of medication on restrictions against price negotiation, and deemed that to be a *lack* of regulation?
My first thought was "Hitler!" Probably not the first thought they want. Is it?
Ironic that we got on the topic of homosexual parents today. My son and his partner have twin boy and girl using a surrogate mom. My son and I have been going around and around about Trump- he spouting the NY lib cant and me trying to pound some sense into his head. The twins are from the partner's sperm so in many ways I have no "real" connection to them. For a moment today that made happy because I was so pissed that I was ready to cut off communication with him. Had the children had any of my genes , however diluted, I don't think I would ever have considered that. Like Ann I have been very supportive of - if very puzzled by - this homosexual relationship. Today I was thinking seriously of withdrawing my support. I think I have gotten over it, but I know that I am still on a low simmer about it.
For those who are so obtuse as to say that two homosexuals can procreateI I only have ESPN's "C'mon Man!" to offer. You must have failed elementary biology.
This mayor is still fighting culture wars, not talking about getting jobs back into his area. He seems like an interesting guy but what he is, is a guy with coastie creds (Rhodes scholar, gay) who lives in the Mid-West. Living there is now a cred perhaps. "I live among the Others and am at home within Their strange Customs." (Hunting on Thanksgiving Day).
The question I ask is this: when will a high ranking Democrat talk about workers and jobs and how to get jobs for workers within his city or state, not for workers in Mexico and China. And this mayor does not have an answer to that question. (Notre Dame University is probably a big employer and, as a result, the jobs issue does not exist for this mayor. Really he is living in a coastie enclave thinking coastie thoughts.)
This mayor is still fighting culture wars, not talking about getting jobs back into his area. He seems like an interesting guy but what he is, is a guy with coastie creds (Rhodes scholar, gay) who lives in the Mid-West. Living there is now a cred perhaps. "I live among the Others and am at home within Their strange Customs." (Hunting on Thanksgiving Day).
The question I ask is this: when will a high ranking Democrat talk about workers and jobs and how to get jobs for workers within his city or state, not for workers in Mexico and China. And this mayor does not have an answer to that question. (Notre Dame University is probably a big employer and, as a result, the jobs issue does not exist for this mayor. Really he is living in a coastie enclave thinking coastie thoughts.)
I am way more conservative than the country, so I am not going to get what I want which is for the government to get out of the business altogether - including everything they had already fucked up before Obamacare was ever heard of.
"'What is she supposed to do if they take away the ACA she used to pay for that?'
"- sell assets
"- rely on family
"- rely on community
"Go without and hope for the best...you know all the things people used to do before they had a right to spend other people's money."
--What if she has few or no assets?
--What if her family is financially unable to help her?
--Since when do communities pay for expensive chemotherapy drugs for people?
Another thing people used to do if they didn't have access to insurance was die. They still do...and will.
What "other people's money" is being spent here? She is paying for insurance that is made available to her because of ACA. It may not even be a matter of her being unable to afford the insurance; it may be that insurers were not willing to provide here with coverage due to her present or prior health history.
I am not a fan of ACA, because it is a gift to the private insurers and its existence precludes the potential for what we need--single-payer coverage--to be implemented. However, to the degree it has made it possible for some people to obtain insurance who couldn't obtain it previously, it serves a good and essential purpose.
"You would think nobody ever had insurance before that."
Millions didn't. Millions still don't, but many who didn't previously do now.
HeideC said...
How many children have you got exiledonmaonstreet? If you answer "none", do you consider your existence here on earth less valuable than a person who has natural children?
1/21/17, 1:17 PM
I had a child at age 19 and gave the baby up for adoption. My biological daughter contacted me several months ago She started looking for me when her mom died a few years ago. She didn't want to hurt the feelings of the woman who raised her - her real mom- and I am happy and relieved to see it looks like her parents did a very good job. My daughter is now married, lives in the SW and has 2 boys and a girl of her own. We are planning a meeting, which makes me very excited and very nervous.
Being childless does not make one "less valuable." But giving my baby up for adoption, was the most difficult thing I ever did. It's still a painful memory. It's also the best thing I ever did in my life. Four human beings are alive now because I didn't walk into the Planned Parenthood clinic one morning.
My cancer (leukemia) medication (Gleevec) has been about $12,000 a month (no typo.) I'm on Medicare so I pay the donut hole amount in the first (this) month and then 5% of the cost thereafter. So it's still costly to me but a lot more costly to the taxpayer. (And given the deficits and borrowing, future taxpayers.)
There is a recent generic for Gleevec made by Sun Pharmaceuticals. I was forced into the generic by my insurer so I hope it works. The generic price is only a few hundred dollars a month less than the Gleevec brand right now, since for the moment Sun (a company based in Mumbai) is the only maker of the generic. Supposedly as more makers of the generic come on line it's price will fall significantly.
Gleevec cost about $26,000 a year when it first came out in 2001. The price has steadily marched upwards to the current very high levels. It is much cheaper in the rest of the world. The cost for Gleevec in Canada is $32,000 per year, and the new Sun generic is supposedly $8000 per year. I do not know the European prices but they are lower than in the US. Gleevec has been only $400 a year in India. The Supreme Court of India, in a very controversial decision, denied all patent protection for Gleevec. Essentially the country stole the innovation for its own use from its inventor, Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical company. (The bulk of the research for the drug was done in the US with significant contributions from Europe.)
There are only about 8000 new cases of CML per year in the US. That is about 10% of all new leukemia cases. Thus there is no mass market for the drug, which makes it hard for the developer to recover the expense and generate profit. Gleevec has been very profitable for Novartis, but it's questionable if it would have ever been developed if it was only able to command Indian or even Canadian prices. Gleevec was a novel approach to cancer treatment since it treats (suppresses) the known genetic abnormality that causes the disease. This is a promising approach for other cancers so the drug's importance transcends the value to just the people who have CML.
Gleevec has a very high success rate. Over 90% of patients taking the drug are alive after 5 years. I have been taking it for 12 years with no recurrence, and my case is not an unusual success.
It is easy to criticize the pricing for something like Gleevec but a lot harder to know what a proper alternative would be. This was a very innovative drug which required a high level of vision and skill to invent. Because of the limited market it was unclear how it would be profitable. (It does get some profit help by being classified as a "orphan" drug (for rare diseases) but that is a another separate and long discussion.)
I have thought a lot about this issue, but have insufficient knowledge to know just what the right approach is. But it is clear to me that in many cases not allowing robust pricing for such drugs would result in their never being invented in the first place.
The people who posit easy answers for these issues do not know what they are talking about.
Every time I see another claim of how the ACA is keeping someone alive who otherwise wouldn't be, questions aren't asked or answered by the press.
Is the policy really an ACA policy issued through the government exchange. (I'm insured, mine isn't.)
What's the deducible she has to meet? (A very important point, brought up before this post.)
What's her cost share after meeting the deductible?
And- did she have insurance before the ACA was passed that was cancelled because it didn't meet the ACA requirements, but it would have paid foe the medicine? That is, is the ACA and government intervention in the marketplace really her savior?
And if she didn't have insurance, was she a freeloader who skated along until diagnosed? Inquiring minds want to know.
"I also wonder if a tube of it would cost $2,000 if it was not anonymously paid for by the government from tax (or borrowed, which still has to be paid for somehow sometime) funds collected from us."
I had leukemia 19 years ago. The treatment was seven daily self-performed subcutaneous injections of a chemo drug. The doctor gave me a prescription to fill at the pharmacy. I was ill so my father--visiting with my mother from out of state during my illness--went to the pharmacy to submit the prescription. When he went to pick it up, the bag contained one vial of the drug--enough for one day's injection. The other six vials were not there. My father objected but the pharmacy told him my insurance would only pay for one vial. I can't recall the cost, but it was several thousand dollars per vial.
I called my doctor and he had to call my insurer: he told them they could either approve the cost of the rest of the medication or he could put me back in the hospital to be treated there. In that case, the insurer would be billed for not just the medication they would provide me in the hospital--something they would not be able to deny--but also for the additionally expensive hospital stay for the seven days of treatment. They paid.
(I did subsequently spend several weeks in hospital anyway.)
The point: expensive drugs are not a startling result of ACA, but have been a perennial driver of high medical costs for many years. Most bankruptcies each year are a result of medical costs that people can't pay. Many who file bankruptcy due to medical costs had insurance.
"Of course, it is also possible that a cure for the condition will be discovered. Pop a pill, and you're straight."
Ridiculous. Homosexuality is not a "condition," anymore than is heterosexuality.
"China poisons their people.
"Would I really trust them to make meds?"
Ha! You think America doesn't?
And this is before the corporate parasites succeed in having government rescind many safety and standards regulations in the production of food products, medications, etc.
خرید vpn
Very good
"Still waiting for a coherent politically viable replacement for the ACA."
This might be something to consider.
Robert Cook: What "other people's money" is being spent here? She is paying for insurance that is made available to her because of ACA. It may not even be a matter of her being unable to afford the insurance; it may be that insurers were not willing to provide here with coverage due to her present or prior health history.
Blink. Blink.
Squeeze eyes together. Open eyes again. Re-read.
Nope, he really did just write what I thought he wrote.
Please note, Robert, that I am not arguing with you about whether or how we as a society ought to provide health care. But we can't have any useful debate about this if people don't understand at the most basic level how insurance works and how subsidies work. IOW, where the money comes from. (I may even be in agreement with you about the abusive crony-tastic behavior of insurance conglomerates, but, no, fixing that will not make the fundamental problems inherent in trying to provide decent health care to everybody go away.)
You aren't this stupid.
My wife has needed a anti-psychotic medicine for a number of years. It costs more than a thousand dollars a month. And for a number of years, the psychiatrist has given her free samples.
My employer and I together pay about $5-6000 per year into healthcare coverage. Other working people here and others with their own plans do the same.
As for me, the amount I have paid in exceeds by many multiples the amount taken out. Nearly every year, for all of that money paid in, I take nothing out. Zip, zada. Many others here could probably say the same.
The proper and polite response to that would be to say, "Thank you. Thank you for paying for the medical care of other people." The improper response would be to call us cold heartless bastards for not supporting the screwed up system imposed by Obama and the left that has only made things more expensive.
TheThinMan said...
I'll bet you anything that cream was $200 before Obamacare and so will go back to that if we can fully repeal it.
Reasonable(?) Man said...
Don't know much about the pricing of drugs? Then, just make shit up.
You obviously don't understand what a bet means? Can't come up with a counter argument? Start cursing.
when will a high ranking Democrat talk about workers and jobs and how to get jobs for workers within his city or state, not for workers in Mexico and China.
Trump has done a hell a lot of talking about workers and jobs. But like the con man and grifter he is, he has not talked a lot about the how.
wildswan said...
The question I ask is this: when will a high ranking Democrat talk about workers and jobs and how to get jobs for workers within his city or state, not for workers in Mexico and China.
This is a fair question and I don't think the Democrats have provided a good answer, which is why they are now out of power. What is not clear is whether Trump has anything other than words. Also, his own party is a large part of the problem.
Robert Cook said...
"Ridiculous. Homosexuality is not a "condition," anymore than is heterosexuality."
Interesting. For a long time, the right claimed that homosexuality was an activity, not a condition. Meaning that it was a choice a person made, and therefore subject to moral strictures. The left, and also the homosexuals (the overlap is not complete), argued in response that homosexuality is an innate condition, and therefore not a choice. The latter position appears to have won the debate, at least in the West, as homosexuality is now regarded as an aspect of personal identity.
So what are you getting at, Cookie? Are you simply objecting to the word "condition", with its medical connotation? Or are you making some factual claim?
Hey ARM, here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/rand-paul-obamacare-replacement/index.html
As I understand it, there are 5 or 6 plans written right now but the problem is coming to a consensus about which plans or parts thereof to use.
Make that 50 replacement plans, per the linked article.
heyboom said...
As I understand it, there are 5 or 6 plans written right now
They have had 5 or 6 plans for years. What they don't have is one plan and until they have one plan they have no plans.
Rand Paul's plan is ready to go. It's pretty clear that your statement that the Republicans have no plan is false.
heyboom said...
Rand Paul's plan is ready to go. It's pretty clear that your statement that the Republicans have no plan is false.
Which part of no one will vote for Rand Paul's plan don't you get? To have any chance of putting together a viable health insurance replacement they all have to coalesce around one plan. That hasn't happened in six years.
So yes, fertile lives matter more than infertile ones. And no, its not fair. Welcome to the Trump world.
Are you aware that a lower birth rate effectively kills off the majority of modern liberal society?
The safety net doesn't exist if there aren't enough young workers to keep it afloat.
Simple reality. Math is not too attuned to feelings.
Another reason drugs are so expensive in the US is because of R&D. Yes, it only cost the company $2 to produce each pill. Except for the first pill - that cost them $200 million to produce and they need to make that money back.
Plus all of the drugs that FAIL to make it. A lot of the Left do not seem to grasp that they lose tons of money on R & D on successful drugs...and about the same as with failed drugs.
I know a well-off gay couple that has two beautiful daughters. Each daughter has a different biological father (them). They paid the high fees to use modern science to have children of their own. They are other ways they could have gotten children. They certainty can afford to give their girls a quality life, and they wanted them, and love them.
No woman was involved at any point?
Because that seems to be Mark's point.
"So what are you getting at, Cookie? Are you simply objecting to the word 'condition', with its medical connotation?
Of course. As used in the statement I took issue with, "condition" suggests a medical malady that is just awaiting proper medical discoveries to "cure."
Which part of no one will vote for Rand Paul's plan don't you get? To have any chance of putting together a viable health insurance replacement they all have to coalesce around one plan. That hasn't happened in six years.
Apparently you haven't paid attention to the events of yesterday. It's a new day and things are different than they have been the past eight years.
Hey ARM, here you go:
Well, first off, that is not a written plan. It is Rand Paul talking out of his ass for just over a minute. He also tells an outright lie: that Obamacare requires dental coverage.
He, and you (for thinking he has a viable plan), is a no-nothing asshole. Hell, he couldn't even pass the boards in his specialty.
Just wait 'til John Travolta grabs you by the junk!
You'll just let him!
Thanks for that cogent analysis and mature response Freder. You're a lovely and formidable debater.
Oh, and it's KNOW-nothing by the way. In case you ever have to use that word again in future comments.
I too wonder what medication she is using. I am unaware of topical treatments for life-threatening conditions, with no other treatment options.
Funny, I bet the family has no qualms about buying a 40,000 car, or buying a 2,000 television, but medicine should be free. Pharma companies have programs to assist patients who cannot afford medications. Did this woman have insurance prior to ACA, if so, I bet she didn't have the 5600 deductible that has become commonplace.
Most all the ACA comments on this thread are fact (consequence) free. It's the people who have had the facts come hit them good and hard who have any standing to comment. And they should either say god bless everyone else for covering my insert expensive treatment here which I might have covered if I had managed my insurance options better, or if they were even able to keep their plan under Obama care saw their individual health premiums jump 75% in 2 years while the group health people were sheltered from carrying the load.
So as a member of the latter group, until I get a collective God bless you, the rest of you can just STFU.
The incoming secretary of Health & Human Services is one of the principal authors of the Empowering Patients First Act, which is ready to go, and has been introduced as complete legislation several times already. Congress could update the date and bill number and some implementation dates and pass it tomorrow, or as soon as the Secretary of HHS has his team settled in and knowing where the office supplies are kept.
So the claim that "the Republicans have no replacement plan" is, quite simply, a lie.
Freder Frederson said...
Hey ARM, here you go:
Well, first off, that is not a written plan. It is Rand Paul talking out of his ass for just over a minute. He also tells an outright lie: that Obamacare requires dental coverage.
You look like an idiot when you don't fact check. From obamacarefacts.com: Is Dental Coverage Required Under the ACA? Yes, for children but not adults. After Jan. 1, 2014, all individual and small group market plans – both inside and outside the exchange – must be certified as “qualified health plans” except for stand-alone dental plans. QHPs must provide all “essential health benefits”. So, if Snopes were fact checking, they'd call Rand Paul's statement mostly false, because ACA doesn't require dental care for adults. If a Democrat had said it, and they've praise this part, and Snopes fact checked, they'd call it completely true, because the ACA does cover dental care, albeit for children only.
Robert Cook said...
'Of course. As used in the statement I took issue with, "condition" suggests a medical malady that is just awaiting proper medical discoveries to "cure."'
My point was precisely that people who have passed puberty as homosexuals may well consider it to be an aspect of their personality which they have no wish to change. But parents who had the option would choose to cure it if a cure were available. Which means that from their point of view, it is a medical malady, and a devastating one. Whether it is just awaiting proper medical discoveries to cure is an open question. I doubt that much work is going on in Western universities on a "cure" for adult homosexuality, but there is a lot of interest in whether the condition is genetic. Should it prove to be detectable in utero, our society has the cure already. It's called "a woman's right to choose".
Mark said...
gay people who you claim can't procreate, despite science providing a way for them to have their own biological children
Explain to us please the science of (1) joining two sperm, which (2) then results in a newly-conceived life.
I am still waiting for the answer to this question also. Responses so far have addressed a different topic.
urbane legend said...
"Explain to us please the science of (1) joining two sperm, which (2) then results in a newly-conceived life.
I am still waiting for the answer to this question also. Responses so far have addressed a different topic."
I'm afraid it just isn't going to work. The sperm will have the human genome, but the mitochondrial genome has to be supplied by an egg, which in turn must be supplied by a human female. There is nothing like a dame!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा