Ah, right. Remember everyone, because someone else did something, that makes it cool.
I'm sure the police will be fine if I go rob a bank. I mean, a few other people have done it before.
Random Politics & Religion #05
Random Politics & Religion #05
Ragnarok.Raenil said: »
Ah, right. Remember everyone, because someone else did something, that makes it cool.
I'm sure the police will be fine if I go rob a bank. I mean, a few other people have done it before.
I'm sure the police will be fine if I go rob a bank. I mean, a few other people have done it before.
[+]
Apparently the latter. Which is understandable, because you seem to be keen to hop between centuries in your attempted arguments.
Terlet Sangria said: »
...
So, deep breaths, and let's all come back down for a second and talk about a topic I know we can all have a good chuckle about:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-sanders-prayer-circle-20160514-snap-story.html
(h/t Artemas)
So, deep breaths, and let's all come back down for a second and talk about a topic I know we can all have a good chuckle about:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-sanders-prayer-circle-20160514-snap-story.html
(h/t Artemas)
Who wants to take a shot at talking this down?
ObamaCare regulation pressures insurers to cover sex change operations
I'm sure this is somehow Bushes fault, but I cannot figure out why.
ObamaCare regulation pressures insurers to cover sex change operations
Quote:
The Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation Friday that will pressure health insurers to cover sex change operations, which could then be subsidized by taxpayers through Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
The final rule comes the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding.
The final rule comes the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding.
I'm sure this is somehow Bushes fault, but I cannot figure out why.
I really don't have a problem with it as much as I have a problem with things so many insurers (ACA included?) won't cover that are a bit more pressing.
Flavor of the month cause, though, etc.
Flavor of the month cause, though, etc.
[+]
Yep, no big deal. Supreme Court also declined to hear a Obamacare case today.
Maybe we should ask Elizabeth Harrington since she wrote that piece.
Altimaomega said: »
Who wants to take a shot at talking this down?
ObamaCare regulation pressures insurers to cover sex change operations
I'm sure this is somehow Bushes fault, but I cannot figure out why.
ObamaCare regulation pressures insurers to cover sex change operations
Quote:
The Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation Friday that will pressure health insurers to cover sex change operations, which could then be subsidized by taxpayers through Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
The final rule comes the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding.
The final rule comes the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding.
I'm sure this is somehow Bushes fault, but I cannot figure out why.
Should be covered as much as any other cosmetic surgery is.
Ramyrez said: »
I really don't have a problem with it as much as I have a problem with things so many insurers (ACA included?) won't cover that are a bit more pressing.
Flavor of the month cause, though, etc.
Flavor of the month cause, though, etc.
Maybe you should not be so.. how do you say... passive? I dunno, perhaps if people would develop a problem with paying for stupid things more money would be available for more pressing issues?
Just a thought!
Jetackuu said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Who wants to take a shot at talking this down?
ObamaCare regulation pressures insurers to cover sex change operations
I'm sure this is somehow Bushes fault, but I cannot figure out why.
ObamaCare regulation pressures insurers to cover sex change operations
Quote:
The Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation Friday that will pressure health insurers to cover sex change operations, which could then be subsidized by taxpayers through Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
The final rule comes the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding.
The final rule comes the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding.
I'm sure this is somehow Bushes fault, but I cannot figure out why.
Should be covered as much as any other cosmetic surgery is.
No cosmetic surgery should be covered through tax payer dollars, Period.
So we are just going to spam the same post over and over again? Ok, next topic.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Yep, no big deal. Supreme Court also declined to hear a Obamacare case today.
Small difference between declining and kicking it back down to a smaller court. Thanks for being so truthful.
Altimaomega said: »
No cosmetic surgery should be covered through tax payer dollars, Period.
Last I checked they scrubbed the public option, so I'm not sure how you came to this conclusions. I wouldn't necessarily agree to that ultimatum either.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
So we are just going to spam the same post over and over again? Ok, next topic.
I made a post in a thread that nobody had been in today. Ramy posted back and instead of quoting him i just replied. I Didn't think other people would jump on it like a hawk, so I deleted it and quoted Ramy..
Mostly so people don't get confused and whine. Guess, I just can't win huh?
Altimaomega said: »
maybe you should not be so.. how do you say... passive? I dunno, perhaps if people would develop a problem with paying for stupid things more money would be available for more pressing issues?
Maybe I don't consider it a stupid thing as much as, as Jet said, a cosmetic thing that has a very profound effect on someone's psychological well being.
Like I said, it isn't that I think it's a dumb thing to be covered, I just think prioritizing it to be covered is effected by it being a current hotbutton issue.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Altimaomega said: »
No cosmetic surgery should be covered through tax payer dollars, Period.
Last I checked they scrubbed the public option, so I'm not sure how you came to this conclusions. I wouldn't necessarily agree to that ultimatum either.
Considering this is going through the ACA, or soon will be, you should check again?
Altimaomega said: »
No cosmetic surgery should be covered through tax payer dollars, Period
Except reconstructive surgery which falls under cosmetic surgery is a thing and is the reason why.
Altimaomega said: »
No cosmetic surgery should be covered through tax payer dollars, Period.
What about burn victims? Soldiers harmed in the line of duty?
Technically anything that isn't restoring function is cosmetic, but I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing them to reject "cosmetic" skin grafts so a guy that had his face blown off for his country can appear relatively normal in public.
Also, before you try, I'm not drawing a connection between self-sacrifice for our country and a gender change. There is no equivalence there beyond falling under the same procedural umbrella.
I'm just saying a blanket statement about plastic surgery being covered publically is problematic.
[+]
Actually, its the opposite where cosmetic surgery falls under the umbrella of reconstructive.
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Considering this is going through the ACA, or soon will be, you should check again?
Na, it still wouldn't be funded that way, try again.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Actually, its the opposite where cosmetic surgery falls under the umbrella of reconstructive.
Kinda what we were getting at, I believe.
Ramyrez said: »
Altimaomega said: »
maybe you should not be so.. how do you say... passive? I dunno, perhaps if people would develop a problem with paying for stupid things more money would be available for more pressing issues?
Maybe I don't consider it a stupid thing as much as, as Jet said, a cosmetic thing that has a very profound effect on someone's psychological well being.
Like I said, it isn't that I think it's a dumb thing to be covered, I just think prioritizing it to be covered is effected by it being a current hotbutton issue.
But I thought the entire reason the ACA was pushed so hard was because people couldn't afford medical care and would get sick/dead?
Now I am being forced to pay for other medical procedures as well? This is part of the whole, once one thing becomes acceptable they move onto the next unacceptable thing.
What's next?
There is already a tax law signifying what is considered reconstructive and what is considered cosmetic.
It wouldn't be that hard to copy/paste that law into what can be publicly funded what cannot.
Hypothetically speaking, of course. At this point, I'm just waiting to see if ACA is going to survive next year or not. This is pretty much the last time that law can die.
It wouldn't be that hard to copy/paste that law into what can be publicly funded what cannot.
Hypothetically speaking, of course. At this point, I'm just waiting to see if ACA is going to survive next year or not. This is pretty much the last time that law can die.
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Altimaomega said: »
No cosmetic surgery should be covered through tax payer dollars, Period.
What about burn victims? Soldiers harmed in the line of duty?
Technically anything that isn't restoring function is cosmetic, but I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing them to reject "cosmetic" skin grafts so a guy that had his face blown off for his country can appear relatively normal in public.
Also, before you try, I'm not drawing a connection between self-sacrifice for our country and a gender change. There is no equivalence there beyond falling under the same procedural umbrella.
I'm just saying a blanket statement about plastic surgery being covered publically is problematic.
Yup, totally he same thing. Glad we had this discussion.
I expect some personal attacks to be coming soon and then this topic to die.
Altimaomega said: »
Yup, totally he same thing. Glad we had this discussion.
I expect some personal attacks to be coming soon and then this topic to die.
I expect some personal attacks to be coming soon and then this topic to die.
I enjoy that you entirely ignored like 90% of what I said there just to segway into begging for personal attacks and bickering instead of just admitting you made a blanket statement that didn't quite fit what you wanted to say.
[+]
We aren't agreeing with altima, therefore, victim card. Circle of life indeed.
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Yup, totally he same thing. Glad we had this discussion.
I expect some personal attacks to be coming soon and then this topic to die.
I expect some personal attacks to be coming soon and then this topic to die.
I enjoy that you entirely ignored like 90% of what I said there just to segway into begging for personal attacks and bickering instead of just admitting you made a blanket statement that didn't quite fit what you wanted to say.
You went to a total extreme, which is what happens with EVERY single topic. I should have just ignored 100% of what you said, but I had to point out the horribleness.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.