This is type of Democrats we need.

Glasses are a permanent fix too though and they are covered.

That's not true at all. They need removed at night. Put on the morning. Removed for activities. Unavailable when the dog decides to chew on them. Now contrast that with the surgery. Instead of fixating on word choice focus on the large degree of inconvenience of the devices compared to LASIK. It's undeniable and that makes those "treatments" inferior.
 
Why do you think I call people, pussies on sherdog?....Em I over the top? Yes, but like Ojeda, it's time to start challenging the pussies on the right.


All people, even right wingers are tired of corporations, but the Republican Corporate Cucks have brainwashed the right wingers....


We need to point out how much of Corporate cucks, Republicans are.......I mean listen to all the drain the swamp, corruption talk, etc in the 2016 election against Hilary....The right wingers already hate corporations but the Republicans still managed to get them to elect the biggest Corporate Con-man in history, Donald Trump...It's fucking sad.

However, the republicans have set themselves up.....an Ojeda or real anti-establishment/Coporate guy, could easily rally the right wingers/Liberals who hate corporations already and take over....Trust me.
 
That's not true at all. They need removed at night. Put on the morning. Removed for activities. Unavailable when the dog decides to chew on them. Now contrast that with the surgery. Instead of fixating on word choice focus on the large degree of inconvenience of the devices compared to LASIK. It's undeniable and that makes those "treatments" inferior.
I use glasses and they are not as inconvenient as you make them out to be. Its true they're not perfect but the vast majority of the time I don't really notice it and they are indeed a permanent solution. I would like to see LASIK covered nonetheless but glasses/contacts are not that terrible of an alternative.
 
This guy was in the new Michael Moore 'documentary' that no one but me saw.
 
I use glasses and they are not as inconvenient as you make them out to be. Its true they're not perfect but the vast majority of the time I don't really notice it and they are indeed a permanent solution. I would like to see LASIK covered nonetheless but glasses/contacts are not that terrible of an alternative.

For the record, I use glasses and I didn't make them out to be any thing they're not. I in no meant to suggest they're a terrible solution. And as stated, "permanent/temporary" wasn't the best label. I am however saying that for fixing eyesight problems it is clearly the superior option (for those willing to undergo elective surgery).

Does insurance not cover liver transplants because dialysis machines exist? :D
 
For the record, I use glasses and I didn't make them out to be any thing they're not. I in no meant to suggest they're a terrible solution. And as stated, "permanent/temporary" wasn't the best label. I am however saying that for fixing eyesight problems it is clearly the superior option (for those willing to undergo elective surgery).

Does insurance not cover liver transplants because dialysis machines exist? :D
I think glasses are a little more convenient than a dialysis machine.
 
Doesn't this make sense though? Its right wingers who relentlessly call gender dysphoria a mental illness(and they have a point since it is recognized as such in the most recent DSM) but suddenly it shouldn't be covered? If you don't think it should be covered do you not believe that it is a mental illness?

I think the issue here is that those on the right would tend to think gender conversion hormones are a poor way to treat gender dysphoria.
 
Nobody wants literal "open borders", it's hyperbole (possibly to reach the lowest common denominator) and you know what it means. Don't play dumb.
ShowImage.ashx
 
The message there is in the relationships of dialysis to transplant and corrective lenses to surgery. ;)
Sure but glasses are nowhere near as inconvenient as dialysis to the point that I think the analogy doesn't work.
I think the issue here is that those on the right would tend to think gender conversion hormones are a poor way to treat gender dysphoria.
How would you treat it?
 
How would you treat it?

I am ignorant of the best way to treat it. Was just pointing out how I thought you two were talking past each other there. Common sense would lead me to believe mutilating one's genitals is a bad idea in almost every circumstance, but I haven't studied medicine.
 
I am ignorant of the best way to treat it. Was just pointing out how I thought you two were talking past each other there. Common sense would lead me to believe mutilating one's genitals is a bad idea in almost every circumstance, but I haven't studied medicine.
That's the problem, the people who argue against it never seem to have an alternative, evidence based treatment. The only existing treatment is to transition so if you agree its a disorder of some kind why not facilitate access to the only existing treatment?
 
Sure but glasses are nowhere near as inconvenient as dialysis to the point that I think the analogy doesn't work.

That's fine. But you're shifting from a relative scale to absolute. Which would no longer seem to apply to the reasoning you gave for the cosmetic designation. But since we both agree covering gender crisis issues but not something that actually cures a common physical defect is unjustified, we're beating a dead horse.
 
I use glasses and they are not as inconvenient as you make them out to be. Its true they're not perfect but the vast majority of the time I don't really notice it and they are indeed a permanent solution. I would like to see LASIK covered nonetheless but glasses/contacts are not that terrible of an alternative.

Fuck all that. Lasik is one of the very few procedures that's decreasing in cost because it's not covered and people actually have to pay for it. Putting in my contacts takes a whole 10 seconds so I don't plan on getting it done, but I want nothing but catastrophic coverage for insurance so the premiums get cheaper and then people can just pay for what they use and shop around for elective stuff.
Doesn't this make sense though? Its right wingers who relentlessly call gender dysphoria a mental illness(and they have a point since it is recognized as such in the most recent DSM) but suddenly it shouldn't be covered? If you don't think it should be covered do you not believe that it is a mental illness?

You don't treat mental illness by playing along. I could see therapy or some psychiatric drug being covered but not cutting off wieners and throwing exogenous hormones at them.
 
I figured this thread ended with this post. But people are still posting in it. Why? It's over folks.


No way man. TYT are pretty bad it is true but it is a commentary program and they just give their perspective which is often quite valuable.

As someone who believes some things that I think are totally unbelievable and have to evidence to prove them I find it interesting that you cant see passed TYT's limitations too.
 
But the dems never advertise themselves as non beta / more everyman. They are unfairly labeled but they dont take the helm at getting a different image out there. Dems try to take high roads which hurt markability

Republicans embrace no holds barred street fights while dems continuously set the board up for a friendly game of checkers
Dems def seem to focus more on out of touch celebs, or regressive lunatics/soyfucks. Obama was pure genius, same for Bill in the run up to their first elections, so I never understood why they deviated so much from embracing that style. They appealed to far across partisan lines.

This guy feels too republican to catch on with Liberal voters IMO, but it's nice to see a grounded/hard nose guy get some support, even if it's coming from TYT.
 
Back
Top