Pozzible

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.

@tobetrained I’m not sure what you’re really getting at with your tax data about undocumented immigrants. In your post, are you saying undocumented workers are underpaying or not paying taxes? Well, duh. Many are working off-book or paying into Social Security and Medicare. They’re (at least, usually) working with invalid SS numbers. And they are not eligible to receive SS or Medicare benefits. *Personal note to @tobetrained. Your profile and pic are very hot! You really should try being an alpha male. If you do, please let me know!

And in almost all countries providing healthcare, education for doctors and nurses are highly subsidized or free for all the countries’ citizens pursing medical degrees. It’s true that they have employment requirements to “pay back” their free/reduced tuition. And after that commitment is fulfilled, there’s a relatively high number of these professionals who pursue employment elsewhere. However, are they coming to US? I asked ChatGPT5 (paid model) about physician migration: Why don’t greater percentage of German-trained physicians immigrate to US? I’m guessing there are several reasons: high cost of malpractice insurance, dealing with bureaucracy of their patients’ health insurance requirements including coding and pre-approvals, costs of running a practice, and general quality of life issues. Look at my lazy Norway meme from yesterday and consider that US does not provide heavily-subsidized child care, crime rates are much higher in US, and US does not ensure paid vacations. Sure, US doctors can take lots of vacations. But that, too, is a cost of running a practice that they don’t deal with in other countries. I’ve had three PCPs that have chosen to either retire very early(2) or even migrate to Europe (1 to…Germany. Are doctors’ salaries abroad unjustifiably low? Maybe so But there are so many other factors to consider. I suppose it’s another example of market-driven decisions So, I’m going to say these countries “have figured out)” how to provide universal healthcare. And maybe we can all agree that all sorts of professions in US are underpaid/undervalued. I contend that no one who works a full-time job should be unable to pay rent, have health and child care, meet transportation needs, and support a family.

It was ill-considered - and frankly, lazy - for me to post that meme. That said, I personally believe the gist of it was on the right track. Considering the size and strength of the US economy, it’s mind-boggling that we don’t guarantee basic healthcare to everyone. Every, single country in the world that we would want to compare ourselves to, or consider ourselves superior to, has figured out a way to do it. We can quibble about marginal tax rates, indolent members of society, whatever you like. The fact that we don’t ensure all Americans ALL basic needs is totally embarrassing to me. It’s not that you guys don’t bring up good points. You do. But today, in particular, I just can’t. We’re watching everything fall apart - or more accurately, be demolished - right before our eyes. The king has soared over our heads to take a dump on the American public. He’s extorting universities, media companies, law firms, and entire countries to get his way. He’s rounding up hard-working people and incarcerating them without due process. And now, we’ve seen him both symbolically and literally take a backhoe to the White House. But we can eat cake. 😢

Incest so fascinates me. And now, it is so appealing. I would have loved to have had sex with one certain uncle. However, I still can’t imagine wanting to have sex with my dad or brother. Looking at old photos, I think they were incredibly hot. I just didn’t see it at the time. I did, however, have a mad crush on one of my coaches and fantasized about having sex with him. So @PozBearWI, your post caused me to think about that coach again. And when I did, for the first time, I thought that it might have damaged me, after all. Two years after high school I came out. Almost immediately I fell head over heels. And just as quickly, he broke my heart. For the next year I just pined for him and couldn’t imagine having sex with anyone else. Now I suspect that if I’d had sex with my coach crush, the same thing would have happened. As much as I fantasize now about it, I suspect at that age any relationship I had would have scarred me terribly. I had (maybe still have) such a distorted view about sex/relationships/love that maybe I was destined to have my heart broken - multiple times. I wonder if I would have felt differently if I’d grown up with the internet and readily-available porn. I honestly suspect I would have. My parents were so committed to each other and I expected to fall just as deeply” in love” as I assumed they were. Not once did I ever see them argue. And I just thought that that was what love would always be like. Decades later, when I was in a “promising” relationship, a simple argument left me in tears and alone. Maybe, that kind of upbringing, for me, just gave me a terribly distorted view. I’ve never been able to get that balance right. Rereading this, it feels incredibly sappy, self-indulgent, even ridiculous. But I do like sex an awful lot! And I found a recent newspaper photo of my old coach. I’d still love for him to fuck me.

As long as we’re discussing healthcare, I strenuously disagree. Every country in the developed world has figured out how to provide universal healthcare. We certainly have terrific healthcare in the USA - for those of us who can afford it. The ACA, along with subsidized premiums, has extended very basic healthcare to a much greater percentage of our population than before. However, we pay much more per capita than any other country for healthcare. I’m don’t have the time right now to get into the weeds, but I’m sure you’ll have response. Then I’ll gladly provide rebuttal.

Of course, you’re right on this as far as the hard Right goes. as Grover Norquist said probably 30 years ago, “We want to shrink government down so that it’s small enough that we can drown it in the bathtub.”(I think many Republicans view things differently.) It’s profoundly sad to me. I believe that government can do great things. And that unfettered capitalism will lead to a much worse life for the vast majority of the population. We’re a different country than the one I was once so proud of. 🥲

Thanks so much @hntnhole! Reasoned political debate is something I also highly value on this site. As you have surely noted, sometimes I get carried away. And your responses on wide-ranging topics are always interesting and well-reasoned!

No, no, no. The filibuster is a tactic to delay a vote. (This gets way into the weeds, I’ll grant you.) Even the specific Wikipedia source cite that you previously used includes this important nugget tucked away. “Even bills supported by 60 or more senators (as well as nominations) may therefore be delayed by a filibuster.” If the Republicans want to change the rules about the filibuster they can. They just have to make a rule change which only requires a simple majority. That’s exactly what McConnell did after the Gorsuch nomination was filibustered. The Republicans voted to pass a change to the rules about filibusters to add that filibusters couldn’t be used to delay a vote to confirm a new Supreme Court nominee. To do this they just needed to 51 votes to pass that rule revision. At any time, the Senate could completely eliminate all filibusters by passing a rule change with 51 votes. I’m not sure I can fault your logic here. Except that you assume that this issue outweighs all others in the next election. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. However, in the mean time, most of the 24 million people who will face exorbitant increase in premiums will largely lose their health insurance which would cost countless lives. And as @laguyinhou noted, this would almost certainly result in premium increases to millions of voters who get health insurance through their employers. Also, if these massive numbers lose their health insurance, many hospitals (mostly rural) will close down due to loss of revenue from most of their visitors. An impact that can’t be undone in the future. I know you previously made that argument in response to me. Though I haven’t gone back to read them, I expect that’s exactly what many Dems said. However, I think the Democrats calculus this time is that the harms of allowing the ACA subsidies to lapse would be so catastrophic that it outweighs the horrific option of these federal workers having to wait to get their paychecks. I don’t think any Democrats like that choice, and I agree with them. The problem is, that we live in unique times. At some point, a “regular” president would negotiate a solution. Trump may not. Trump may not care that there are enormous numbers of people (those who lose insurance and federal workers awaiting delayed salaries) will face horrific outcomes no matter the choices they make. Yes, and this is not uncommon. Frequently Congress will opt to only pass a rule based on a short period into the future. This is especially true when it will have major economic impacts. This was how the incredible tax cuts for billionaires worked. When Trump got his tax package through in first administration, it only changed the tax rules for a limited number of years, so that the CBO calculations showed a smaller (though still enormous) impact on the federal deficit. Republicans are in control again when those cuts were due to expire, so they passed legislation extending those cuts. This is the reason the ACA subsidies were time-limited too. But Dems aren’t in charge, so the only way they can hope to extend subsidies is by negotiating to end shutdown. It’s a helluva mess. I know it’s more complicated than I can explain, but I think those answers sort of get the ideas across. Another reason Dems may feel this shutdown is especially important is that trying to fix things after the next presidential election may not occur as we expect. Many worry that 2028 may not be a free and fair election. Trump is readying us to not be surprised if (or when) he declares an insurrection. If he does declare an insurrection he can say that it’s impossible to conduct an election until after the insurrection is resolved. Am I being too dramatic? Maybe. But Trump is definitely making changes that create a path for such actions. Sometimes I think I’m lucky to be so old.