Let’s say Don is now supportive of medical assistance (MAID) in dying. That’d be a better way to look at it. I wonder if that became a point of discussion whether he could actually be persuaded to support it. Although, there is an issue with some medical assistance in dying policy being too lenient, so not sure how to thread that needle.
First gender affirming surgery was 1930 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/ A little more than a few years ago…
It’s about Swift and not one of the richest people in the world who lives in the kleptocracy that passed this legislation and historically has made a big fuss over this issue?
But how do you make them more whale-friendly?
There are other ways to wildly speculate as well if we are doing so evidence-free.
Maybe Ben was being pressured by someone to submit false information and he wanted to ensure his work was scrutinized more and falsehoods uncovered without explicitly bringing attention to the fact that this was his intention.
Fuck. I thought I might have more time to see him one day. Waited too long
It’s impossible to know exactly what we don’t know. This is a big issue, but there are people taking it seriously. It seems likely new antibiotics which will work are going to be developed. For example: this new class that was discovered a couple months ago using AI.
Welp. I guess we better buckle up as it’s about to get much much worse considering the new text-to-video AI capabilities coming https://openai.com/sora Very worriesome
Dang, I was just planning on a trip to Alaska to get scratched by stray cats. I guess I’ll have to cancel now that this newfangled Alaskapox has popped up.
Too bad they failed to include a double/triple negative to really hammer down the confusion.
It’s my understanding that the individual mandate requires people to buy health insurance from private companies, this means those companies can thrive while offering terrible coverage for high costs without any chance of losing business because of their shady practices. This sounds to me like a plan that a conservative would concoct if they really wanted Laissez-faire / croney capitalism but wanted to placate the left by making it sound like this was entirely government funded.
If this is true, it’s a win-win for the right. Keep it in place and the private medical companies are secure to maintain high profit margins surreptitiously. If it fails, blame the left and you get an easy justification for going back to having no government involvement at all whereby less people pay monthly because there is no individual mandate but the private medical companies are free to charge even more to the people who do pay and when those that don’t pay need medical treatment (everyone eventually in their lifetime) they can charge an arm and a leg and laugh all the way to the bank while medical debt for citizens skyrockets. The best part? If this plan is put in place carefully enough and messaging is carefully crafted, you’ll get nominally left people advocating for it!
Am I wrong?
Pelosicare? More like Romneycare?
(Centre for American Progress)
Section 6. Except as provided for in Section 4, nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting or preventing psychologists, psychological technicians, and master’s level licensed mental health professionals from rendering the services for which they are qualified by training or experience involving the application of recognized principles, methods, and procedures of the science and profession of psychology and counseling. Section 7. Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a new or separate standard of care for hospitals or physicians and their patients or otherwise modify, amend, or supersede any provision of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987 or the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1996, or any amendment or judicial interpretation of either act.
If affirming care means socially affirming as well as medical (drugs / surgery) then the law isn’t entirely against affirming care because it doesn’t mention anything against social affirmation and explicitly allows for psychologists to make appropriate decisions in that realm.
I’m not saying I’m for this law, but it is important to be precise about what the law is. It’s actually not a very long read.
Pathetic. Given the seriousness of what he said, and continues to say even this month, no one with a working brain could possibly believe anything in this sad non-attempt at an apology message. It doesn’t resolve anything, it doesn’t make clear that he understands what was wrong with what he said, it doesn’t specify what he is going to do differently going forward, and it isn’t even clear that it is truly a message from him or genuine.
Futurists look to reach the singularity and Evangelists look to invoke the rapture. Not everything any group looks to do is actually practical.