Pozzible

Will Republicans pullback from their push against trans rights? [think before following links] https://www.facebook.com/humanrightscampaign/videos/1690320561589556/?fs=e&fs=e

If only. She’s the one who could have led on taxation. When will we learn to elect the woman. Such missed opportunities with Clinton, Warren, and Harris.

Don’t almost all democracies have parliamentary forms of government? Is there any government that was formed emulating US government? Seems to me that the biggest problem is our two-party system. I’m not sure it’s inherent in our system but I don’t know how that can ever change. Don’t we have more of a problem of ideological factionalism than in parliamentary democracies? Wouldn’t we be better off if our government had been dissolved after Iraq invasion? Or if Trump I had caused dissolution over COVID - either sooner or later than the 2020 election?

Ugh.

What should we call then?

That’s certainly a valid position. I’d contend though that at least one party (or bloc) must take responsibilities for their actions or lack of actions n a parliamentary system. Conversely, in our system of government it’s very difficult to make major policy decisions.

At first I was going to argue that the premise of the poll question was misguided. I don’t think that’s it though. I think the poll question is fine and that public may indeed think we’ve gone too far on trans issues. (I think they’re wrong, but the data shows that’s what they think.) So my real concern is the phrase you’ve used to introduce the idea. “Will Dems pull back from pushing….” To me that implies that Dems have been making a major push on trans rights, which I just don’t think is accurate.

Sorry that that was such a long AI response. So do you think the AI listing is an example of this? Because I don’t think those ideas are responding to anything mainstreamed by the Democratic party. The Republican ads set up straw men rather than respond to anything promoted by Dems.

As a liberal, supporting trans community is important to me. But I hardly think most Dems have been on a “push” for trans rights. Does anyone remember a single Democratic ad from ‘24 that emphasized that push? What I distinctly remember is Republican ads spouting extreme untruths. (Some of which were unfortunately probably effective..) So I just asked Chat GPT-5 about Republican ads… “Here are the major aggressive, inaccurate claims made by Trump and Republican candidates in 2024 about what Democrats support regarding trans youth, and why they’re false — focused on policies, medical care, and schools. Claim: “Democrats want to federalize puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors nationwide.” Why it’s inaccurate: Medical decisions for minors are governed by state laws, medical boards, and clinicians; there is no active federal plan to mandate such treatments for minors across all states. Most major medical associations (e.g., AAP, Endocrine Society) provide clinical guidance emphasizing individualized care, informed consent, and age-appropriate decision-making. Surgical interventions for minors are extremely rare and generally not recommended for prepubertal children. Reality: Policies vary by state — some states restrict or ban gender-affirming care for minors, others allow it under clinical guidance. Federal Democrats broadly support access to gender-affirming care and oppose discriminatory bans, but do not propose a federal mandate that overrides state medical or legal authority. Claim: “Democrats support routine genital surgeries on teenagers and even younger children.” Why it’s inaccurate: Major medical bodies do not recommend genital surgery for minors except in very rare, carefully considered cases, and typically not for prepubertal children. Puberty blockers are reversible and used to delay irreversible changes; cross-sex hormones are started with caution, often at mid-to-late adolescence, with informed consent. Full surgical interventions for minors are rare and usually reserved for exceptional, multidisciplinary evaluation. Reality: The mainstream medical stance is conservative about irreversible procedures on minors; claims of routine genital surgery are exaggerated. Claim: “Public schools are teaching children how to transition and encouraging irreversible medical interventions.” Why it’s inaccurate: Most school policies that Democrats support center on nondiscrimination, allowing students to use chosen names/pronouns, and access to appropriate facilities and support. School health services typically do not perform gender-affirming medical treatments — those occur in clinical settings with parents/guardians and medical teams. Reality: Education policies vary; curriculum discussions about gender identity are limited and often focused on inclusion and anti-bullying rather than medical guidance. Claim: “Democrats want to remove parental consent from all decisions about a child’s gender care.” Why it’s inaccurate: Democratic positions generally emphasize parental involvement and oppose state bans that remove families’ ability to seek care. Where Democrats oppose restrictive laws, their aim is to preserve families’ access to medical advice and clinician judgment, not to bypass parents. Reality: In most jurisdictions where care is provided, parental consent/participation is required for minors. Claim: “Gender-affirming care is experimental, harmful, and unproven for youth — Democrats hide this from families.” Why it’s inaccurate: While long-term randomized controlled trials are limited (as in many areas of pediatric medicine), decades of clinical experience and multiple professional organizations recognize gender-affirming treatments as evidence-based for alleviating gender dysphoria in appropriately assessed youth. Studies show mental-health benefits and reductions in suicidality among treated youth, though research continues. Reality: Medical consensus supports carefully screened, multidisciplinary care; the claim that Democrats “hide” harms is a mischaracterization of the medical and policy debate. Claim: “Democrats support allowing minors to legally change sex on birth certificates without parental or medical involvement.” Why it’s inaccurate: Most policy proposals supported by Democrats focus on enabling people, including adults and sometimes older minors depending on state law, to update legal documents; they do not broadly advocate unilateral changes for young children without parental or medical processes. Rules vary by state; many require documentation and/or parental consent for minors. Reality: Legal-change procedures differ widely; Democrats typically support reducing bureaucratic barriers rather than enabling unilateral, secret changes for young children. Claim: “Democrats want to punish or criminalize parents who oppose their child’s social transition.” Why it’s inaccurate: Democratic platforms and mainstream Democratic officeholders have not broadly advocated criminalizing dissenting parents; most oppose state intervention that removes parental rights. Legal actions that have occurred relate to alleged abuse or neglect in narrow cases, not a general policy to punish parents for disagreement. Reality: The claim conflates rare child-protection cases with general Democratic policy. Sources & context (summary): Professional medical organizations’ guidance: American Academy of Pediatrics, Endocrine Society, World Professional Association for Transgender Health — endorse evidence-based, multidisciplinary, age-appropriate care; emphasize consent and clinical oversight. State-level laws: Since 2021 many Republican-led states enacted bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors; Democratic responses focused on opposing bans and protecting access. Fact-checking outlets: Multiple fact-checkers examined ads/claims in 2024 and rated many of these assertions misleading or false where they portrayed routine, widespread, or federally mandated practices that do not exist. If you want, I can: List specific 2024 campaign ads or candidate quotes that made these claims with exact wording and fact-check links, or Summarize state laws enacted in 2024 restricting or defending care by state. Which would you prefer?”

You’re right on all of this, of course. It was a rather unserious idea. However, my comment stemmed from a “NATO expert’s” commentary in a television discussion. (I don’t recall who it was, but someone I’ve regarded as very knowledgeable. I know, great documentation I have here, isn’t it?) He did discuss putting pressure on Orban and Erdogan to accept it. Anyway, highly impractical.

I like Jeanne-Pierrre in the briefing room. The one book interview I watched was a fiasco. I didn’t watch the Bernie interview. I think he has a lot of ideas that are discussion-worthy. But not so practical if fully implemented.

My favorite was the one with the “pastor.”

A rare occurrence.

I just shudder looking at the Venezuela situation. I thought we had learned lessons from our adventures in Vietnam and Iraq. (But Trump learning lessons on anything is a losing bet.) Though I agree that the boat situation is a smokescreen, it’s highly illegal. The only war we should be involved with is getting all the financial and weaponry we can to Ukraine. If Trump really wants to win a Nobel 🙄, he would get NATO to fast-track membership for Ukraine.

I guess I first misinterpreted what you meant by being slammed.

I’m just going to bow out of this topic. I love political discussions. But I don’t like to feel like I’m just being obstinate. And I think we’ve reached that point. Cheers, guys!

<sigh>No. Not that easy.</sigh>

I think you should include it as an Easter egg in all your stories. Sorry, I’m out of reactions for today. So for story and comments, here they are: 🐷🍑🍆😈🏆❤️😂🐣

Well, Hillarycare tried in ‘93. And the original proposal for ACA might have essentially achieved - or at least put us well on the path to achieve - full UHC. Even the ACA legislation that was signed into law was pretty terrific. But the Supreme Court got its slimey, little hands on it, so now ACA is just a patchwork, small step. And why shouldn’t the wealthiest not pay anything for it? They’ve essentially exempted themselves from almost all tax requirements. (Watched a remarkable Facebook reel last night from a Boston University legal scholar about all the ways they corrupt the system. Here it is, but be warned that it’s 26 minutes long. Really explains well why we can’t have nice things. [think before following links] https://fb.watch/CYWXJ3QFmW/?fs=e @hntnhole and @tobetrained, sorry I’m out of reactions already today. Thank you both for contributing to respectful, thoughtful discussion.

What a great portmanteau word you’ve coined, “perviously.” (Pervy + previously)! Terrific, HOT story! Eager to read more! Thanks!

That’s an interesting way to view it. So, we should never have banned slavery because to reinstate it would be political suicide. I see how this works! 😉 I think almost everywhere is already a mixed system. And a good first step is for “government to require or provide super basic care with incremental private options.” Which is sorta what ACA along side premium subsidies does.

@tobetrained I responded to some of these ideas in a long response to your DM last night. I didn’t realize that you had already left that conversation and I was takling to myself. Adjusted salaries don’t take into account all the other social benefits that doctors/nurses get by living in their respective countries. Again, such things child care, vacations, crime, culture, happiness, quality of education for their families (and cost of healthcare for their families.) And all of that isn’t taking into account current political turmoil in US. I know things aren’t great in UK; but some of that is due to Brexit. And, of course, there are lots of different models for UHC around the world. I briefly lived in Finland and was incredibly impressed after two visits to the ER. But then other professions there are pretty terrific, too. The education system is remarkable. And teachers are highly respected, valued, and paid. If universal healthcare is such a failure, by now many of the countries would be abandoning it. Has ANY country moved from a UHC model to emulate US system? I asked Chat GPT5…. “Has any country that has had universal healthcare abandoned it for a market-based system?” “Surprisingly, the answer is no country that has fully implemented a universal healthcare system has ever dismantled it and replaced it with a purely market-based model. Once universal healthcare is established: Political legitimacy: Citizens view healthcare as a right, not a commodity; attempts to remove it are politically suicidal. Public dependence: Millions rely on coverage daily — removing it would cause mass instability. Economic inefficiency of private markets: Countries that rely more on private insurance (e.g., U.S.) show higher costs and worse outcomes, deterring others. Entrenched institutions: Hospitals, billing systems, and training pipelines are designed around universal coverage. In contrast The United States remains the only high-income democracy never to have adopted full universal coverage. U.S. reforms (Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid) expanded access but retained a mixed private/public structure. ✅ Bottom line: No country that has achieved true universal healthcare has ever abandoned it for a market-based system. The political and social costs of reversal are simply too high — and the evidence shows universal systems deliver more efficient and equitable outcomes. So, I remain convinced that almost all other countries have indeed figured out how to make UHC work.