#Immediate Health Care Coverage

[drchucktingle]

POUNDED BY DR. GLOBUS

wanted to post today about recent health journey of chuck. ALL STARTED at texas show when i began to feel tightness in throat. i have learned this is called GLOBUS which is a tingler character name if ive ever heard one. got through appearance and had blast but felt terrible

plane journey home was even worse. first thought i strained my voice, then tested for covid (negative) and then figured it was just some kind of virus. had running nose and hoarse and extreme pain behind face and MOST of all this golf ball throat

figured i would get better as viruses tend to go but I DID NOT. after a few weeks went to way of urgent care and they took one look and said you have EXTREME FORM OF ACID REFLUX called laryngopharyngeal reflux (also great tingler character name)

basically this is when your stomach acid comes all the way back up into your throat and erodes it. they immediately put me on medications name of pepcid plus tums plus gaviscon and on and on. was inhaling a dang pharmacy every morning

problem is, NO CHANGE. in fact it started getting worse. in addition to previous symptoms i now couldnt keep any food down. upset stomach all the time. could barely sleep. plus it is scary to have a sickness that gets WORSE over time like this

more doctor talks. i up doses of medication to combat sickness but does not seem to work. one night wake up and think 'dang i need to go to er my stomach is going to just melt or something' (keep in mind because i cant keep food down i am always hungry too).

i go to hospital and they say 'WHOA we need to intervene right now we are doing some tests and putting you on SERIOUS LIFE CHANGING MEDICINE. but here is catch to do the tests we need you to stop all your medication for 48 hours and it will be HECK but you gotta do it bud'

so i stop all medication in preparation for new SICK LIFE and suddenly… i start feeling better. not just a little but after weeks of this awful way i wake up in ONE DAY and feel fully cured. now heres twist: at the same time this was happening I started taking allergy medicine

you may already know where i am going with so i will just hit you with it. my INITIAL SICKNESS was just extreme seasonal allergies that required nothing more than claritin and flonase. however i was misdiagnosed with ACID REFLUX and medication was making my stomach a wasteland

the second i stopped taking acid reflux meds and started on allergy trot i was better almost instantly. today i feel HECKIN GREAT. (SIDE NOTE: after 4 years of chronic pain i am so thankful to not have some OTHER long term health trot to deal with. DANG)

so what is lesson here? first of all please do not think this is in ANY WAY anti-doctor rant or anti-medicine. my doctors were trying their best and made a mistake, they are just people. ALSO while acid reflux medicine made me sick, allergy meds made me better. i am SO fortunate

but what is REALLY fortunate is that chuck is covered under SWEET BARBARAS HEALTH CARE (she gets very good coverage under the frozen lake). most artist buckaroos, even WILDLY successful ones, do not have health care which is huge issue that should be talked on more.

point is EVERYONE should have healthcare. this whole adventure was bad, but it also only cost me 50 dollars. hundreds of thousands of other buckaroos would have to deal with this PLUS it would completely upend their life to cover medical expenses because of a SIMPLE MISTAKE

so that is my story, usually there is more of a lesson to these rants but this one is really just ‘dang what a trip.’ so grateful for my health and my way and the fact i can get simple allergy medicine over the counter. most of all THANKFUL FOR MY BODY it is such a treat to exist

thank you for reading and remember to advocate for yourself and your feelings both BODY and MIND at the doctor. listen to your trot and do not forget that LOVING YOURSELF AND THE SYSTEMS OF YOUR BODY proves love just as much as loving others. trot on buckaroos

[cassandracain52]

You made me think about immunocompromised Tim so now you suffer the consequences (my thoughts) :D

Disclaimer: I haven't actually read that particular arc yet - I'll get around to it, I swear! But I do know roughly what happens.

With the whole spleentuation Tim turns the Red Robin costume into what basically amounts to a Hazmat suit. He doesn't actually change much - he goes for full face coverage and introduces some airtight seals. It makes upkeep slightly more laborious and makes him a lot scarier than he wants to be but it's this or risking getting benched for an infection for an unreasonably long time. Bruce returns and doesn't even question the look until he finds older Red Robin costume without the Hazmat qualities and in an attempt of casual bonding asks Tim why he changed it. You can imagine how the rest goes.

Second scenario:

Bruce vanishes before the pandemic, when he returns the family is very careful with like, disinfecting everything and they always have gloves and masks on their person. He writes it off as a side-effect on the pandemic until he realises how much more careful everyone is around Tim

Third scenario:

Tim uses his general lack of an immune system as a way to get out of things he doesn't want to do where there'll be a crowd. Mostly Gala's. Like:

Tim: I'm worried I'll get sick when I go to the opening of the Lexcorps factory we need to make An Appearance at.

Bruce: You went to ComicCon last week, you'll be fine.

Tim: 🥺

And like, what's Bruce going to do? Tim is right he SHOULD be a lot more careful. He SHOULDN'T go to the gala. So he folds like wet paper without fail every time. Tim cuts his public appearances down to an absolute minimum. Jason is seen more often and he's supposed to be dead.

Tims coup de resistance (is that the saying) is getting to attend a business meeting virtually because one of the three (3) people there was travelling two weeks ago

4.

Bruce: Tim you should go to sleep staying up this long is not good for your health your immune system will thank you.

Tim: what immune system.

Bruce: What do you mean what immune system.

Tim *chuckles*: I'm in danger.

Bruce: What do you mean what immune system.

5.

Damian sneezes once and refuses to take off his mask for six days straight on the off-chance he'll get Tim sick. He was literally digging through the dusty attic. He is not sick. Tim isn't even around half the time. You don't need to sleep in the mask Damian. DAMIAN.

”Jason is seen more often and he's supposed to be dead.” <<<asfghjkl XD this is taking me OUT😭 I never really thought of Tim using this as a “get out of jail free” card but he so would. But only for things he doesn’t want to do. That party of maybe 200 guests at most? Nope sorry can’t do it, too risky. That concert with 50,000+ people? Completely fine

All these scenarios were so fun!! I especially appreciated “What do you mean what immune system.” and Tim just immediately starts sweating bullets cause Oh Did He Forget To Mention That?

and Damian would so be super paranoid to accidentally get Tim sick but also would never admit that because Tim Must Never Know He Worries About Him

Damian wearing a full mask, gloves, and maintaining a ten ft distance at all times because Jon (who has seasonal allergies) sneezed kinda close to him: You’re a disgrace to this family Drake. Do us a favor and die

Tim not falling for this for a second: Uh-huh so can I just- [attempts to take approximately One Step Closer]

Damian rapidly scrambling back: nO I HATE YOU STAY AWAY-

Please feel free to share your thoughts again🤣

[earhartsease]

depressing news for US people with mental health issues (depressingly unsurprising) - first part pasted below:

The rapid growth of the new 988 mental health hotline has been greeted with positive media coverage. As many people expected, calls, texts, and chats to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, now renamed “988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline,” started climbing immediately with the launch of the 988 number in July of 2022. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the nonprofit that was given centralized control over the 988 system, Vibrant Emotional Health (VEH), have been releasing monthly updates on key metrics.

In April 2023, compared to April 2022, calls answered increased by 52%, chats by 90%, and texts by 1022%. The trend was heralded by federal Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to CNN: “Our nation’s transition to 988 moves us closer to better serving the crisis care needs of people across America. 988 is more than a number, it’s a message: we’re there for you.”

However, as previously reported by Mad in America, a percentage of people who contacted the former National Suicide Prevention Lifeline were subjected to geolocation tracing of their phone, computer, or mobile device. The Lifeline advertised itself as a place for confidential discussions about suicidal feelings but, according to its own policy, if a call-attendant believed a person might be at “imminent risk” of taking their own life in the next few hours, days, or week, the call-attendant was required to contact 911 or a Public Safety Answering Point to send out police and/or an ambulance to forcibly take the person to a psychiatric hospital.

Many Lifeline users described the experiences of betrayal, public exposure, police interactions, loss of freedoms, and forced psychiatric treatment as dangerous, harmful and traumatizing.

So, since the transition to 988, has anything changed? As contacts to 988 rise, how many people are getting forcibly subjected to these types of unexpected, unwanted interventions?

It appears detention numbers are climbing dramatically, too—even as VEH, SAMHSA, and many news outlets continue to obfuscate the facts publicly.

[hellyeahscarleteen]

"Last month, the UK’s four-year-long review of medical interventions for transgender youth was published. The Cass Review, named after Hilary Cass, a retired pediatrician appointed by the National Health Service to lead the effort, found that “there is not a reliable evidence base” for gender-affirming medicine. As a result, the report concludes, trans minors should generally not be able to access hormone blockers or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and instead should seek psychotherapy. While the review does not ban trans medical care, it comes concurrently with the NHS heavily restricting puberty blockers for trans youth.

The conclusions of the Cass Review differ from mainstream standards of care in the United States, which recommend medical interventions like blockers and HRT under certain circumstances and are informed by dozens of studies and backed by leading medical associations. The Cass Review won’t have an immediate impact on how gender medicine is practiced in the United States, but both Europe’s “gender critical” movement and the anti-trans movement here in the US cited the report as a win, claiming it is the proof they need to limit medical care for trans youth globally. Notable anti-trans group the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine called the report “a historic document the significance of which cannot be overstated,” and argued that “it now appears indisputable that the arc of history has bent in the direction of reversal of gender-affirming care worldwide.”

Most media coverage of the report has been positive. But by and large that coverage has failed to examine extensive critiques from experts in the US and elsewhere. Research and clinical experts I interviewed explained that the Cass Review has several shortcomings that call into question many of its findings, especially around the quality of research on gender medicine. They also question the credibility and bias underpinning the review. I spoke with four clinical and research experts in pediatric medicine for gender-diverse youth to dive into the criticisms.

“I urge readers of the Cass Review to exercise caution,” said Dr. Jack Turban, director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco and author of the forthcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Amanda Marcotte at Salon:

Republicans know that their war on legal, accessible birth control is unpopular. But that's not stopping them because, as they learned from convicted felon Donald Trump, the way to hide what you're up to is simple: Lie. Lie a lot. Lie every time you open your mouth. Lie with a straight face, and have faith that the weak "fact checks" offered by the mainstream media don't matter. The Republican comfort levels with lying are sky-high in the era of Trump. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., does it with a smirk, satisfied that no one can stop him. It is somehow still staggering how much they lie about birth control and their nefarious intentions toward it. The good news is that Democrats are taking action to cut through the GOP's thick forest of falsehoods.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., held a vote on the Right to Contraception Act, which guarantees the right of an individual "to obtain contraceptives and to voluntarily engage in contraception." The legislation also protects the right of licensed health care providers "to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information, referrals, and services related to contraception." Despite loudly insisting they have no desire to take away birth control, all but two Republicans voted against the bill. This follows a 2022 vote on the bill in the House, in which all but 8 Republicans voted against the right to use contraception.

Republicans' excuses this week ranged from obvious lies to obfuscation tactics which ultimately amount to lies. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., called the vote "phony" because "contraception, to my knowledge, is not illegal." But of course, no one is saying it's illegal — yet. The point of Wednesday's vote was preventive, to ensure the right to birth control in the face of overt calls, including from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to "revisit" the legality of contraception now that the right to abortion is no longer federally protected.  Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., whose State of the Union response introduced the nation to what a strange and dishonest character she is, went in for an appropriately weird lie. She falsely claimed the bill would "offer contraception like condoms to little kids." It does no such thing, though I have a lot more questions for Britt about how she thinks puberty works, and if it's induced by the sight of condoms instead of the natural process of growing up. 

Dishonest actors like Cornyn are being empowered by Trump, whose lies are even more hamfisted. Trump was recently asked by a reporter if he plans to restrict birth control and he simply said, "Some states are going to have different policy than others." Journalists know this is his way of avoiding a straight answer while letting the religious right know he supports any law they pass. Trump's campaign staff, clearly panicked that he'd let his anti-contraception stance slip, immediately took to Truth Social to claim he had "NEVER" and would "NEVER" support restrictions on birth control. This, however, is a blatant lie. During his time in the White House, Trump passed policies to cut off contraception coverage on health insurance, appointed health advisors who would like to see most methods banned completely, and ended federal funding for birth control at about 1,000 family planning clinics. 

Republicans use two big, interlocking lies to conceal an anti-contraception agenda from the public. First, they deny they intend to take birth control away, by limiting their definition of "birth control" to condoms and the rhythm method. To justify that shell game, they lie about how the most popular and effective forms of birth control work, claiming they are "abortion." They ping-pong between these two lies, so that the fact-checkers can never keep up. 

[...] So many lies in such a short sentence! Plan B is not an abortion. As the Washington Post noted, "Emergency contraceptive pills such as Plan B and Ella work by inhibiting or delaying ovulation, thereby preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg." The second lie is her implication that if folks "consider" something to be true, that makes it the equivalent of a fact. But many people also "consider" the Earth to be flat or believe Ernst is a hobgoblin in a lady suit. Doesn't make it true! Then there's the dishonesty of focusing only on Plan B, which is a drug stigmatized because it's taken after intercourse. What Ernst fails to mention, however, is that emergency contraception and the birth control pill are the same drug, just different doses. They work identically, by suppressing ovulation. The Christian right opposition to Plan B is a stalking horse for banning all hormonal contraception. Ernst's failure to admit that is a lie by omission. 

The Right To Contraception Act vote in the Senate laid bare the GOP’s hypocrisy on contraception: They seek to wage war on contraception and birth control by deceiving the people, including falsely equating most common forms of birth control and contraception to “abortifacients.”

[xoxovalerie-c]

Blog Post Week 3: Due 9/12

How does the government strategically utilize media to shape public opinion and influence decision-making processes?

Virginia Eubanks highlighted how marginalized groups, people of color, and those with lower socioeconomic class, are being impacted by automated systems that are government-funded. These groups are often easier targets because they lack the resources needed to navigate through challenges through these systems. Many public services today rely on these systems such as health insurance. When these automated programs flag individuals, marginalized individuals are less equipped to handle this problem. Eubanks discusses how programs like EBT were manipulated to reinforce negative stereotypes. For example, republican governor Paul Lepage used data from EBT transactions to claim that people in marginalized groups were misusing government aid on items like alcohol, cigars, lottery tickets, etc. Lawmakers and the professional middle-class public eagerly embraced the misleading tale he spun from a tenuous thread of data (Eubanks, 2019). This shows how government intervention could occur with automated programs causing harm to this community. 

How has the increasing use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement contributed to wrongful arrests?

The increasing use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement has contributed to wrongful arrests, as demonstrated by the case of Nijeer Parks. Parks was wrongfully arrested, and despite his awareness of the error, he hesitated to voice his concerns due to his prior legal history (Hill, 2020). Law enforcement officers often rely on computer systems to search for warrants when pulling someone over, which heavily impacts marginalized communities. Facial recognition algorithms have a documented history of flagging individuals from these groups. For example, a case discussed by Nicole Brown highlighted how officers exploited the technology by warning individuals of surveillance while using it to their advantage. Despite its increasing integration into law enforcement practices, facial recognition technology has a significant error rate, with a reported error rate of approximately 35% (Brown, 2020).

In what ways do healthcare algorithms perpetuate disparities by prioritizing white patients?

In healthcare settings, the increasing reliance on algorithms has introduced significant inequality by prioritizing white patients. Algorithms, which are designed to predict healthcare needs and outcomes, can perpetuate racial disparities even without using race (Brown, 2020). Brown discusses how these algorithms tend to identify white patients as more likely to experience severe health issues. This occurs because the algorithms are often trained on data that reflects existing healthcare utilization patterns, where white individuals are more frequently represented due to higher rates of health insurance coverage. As a result, the algorithms prioritize these patients, leading to a misallocation of resources and failing to adequately address the needs of underrepresented and marginalized groups who may have less access to healthcare services. This systemic issue impedes efforts to provide equitable care and address the needs of all patients effectively.

Why do people continue to embrace and rely on these applications despite growing concerns on privacy, data misuse, and more? 

People continue to embrace and rely on applications like for instance the Ring app which is very popular. This application allows their users with the ability to monitor their home in real-time through their phones, enhancing security and peace of mind. It contributes to also neighborhood watching. Additionally, the benefits of these applications outweigh the potential risks as users prioritize immediate convenience and functionality over long-term privacy concerns. 

Hill, K. 2020. Another arrest, and jail time, due to a bad facial recognition match. The New York Times

Eubanks, V. (2019). In automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor.

Brown, N. (2020). Race and technology. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8uiAjigKy8

[squirrelstone]

The recent rise in "personal responsibility" conditions is honestly so concerning. Things that were once considered luck of the draw or the result of a bad environment are now being turned into morality issues, and the result is a decline in quality of medical care.

If you're fat or are considered clinically obese (BMI of 30+; these do not always overlap but both are treated poorly in the U.S. health system), you've dealt with this for ages, and it's spreading to other conditions because insurance companies have realized that if they can find a way to blame you, they have an argument to deny you coverage. A lot of these things can be quality of life issues for years before (or even if) they turn deadly (ex. arthritis), but I've watched the wording around things as significant and immediate as acute cancer cases change to blame the individual who's fallen ill.

Those screening guidelines for cancers that are common and easy to screen for and moving earlier and earlier in a person's life, and while I don't have a record of it because it's anecdotal and I'm not going to violate this family's privacy, I've got a friend who's father was denied partial coverage for their colon cancer treatment because he didn't start screening at 45. The man in question started screening when he turned 50 in 2017, before the guidelines were changed.

Nearly every medical condition I've had in the past ten or so years has been blamed on myself or my parents, on what I eat, what I do, anything the doctors could come up with to say "this was 100% preventable, and it's on you for not preventing it," completely ignoring socioeconomic factors, family history, or any other context of the situation in question. I've been blamed for getting a concussion by being too active (dropped a flagpole on my head in color guard), and in the same breath told I need to exercise more to lose weight and that if I had been exercising more, I wouldn't have pulled the shoulder muscle I was seeing another doctor in the same building about an hour after the neurology appointment for my concussion. I'd joined color guard specifically to get more active and more involved by the way, but it was still my fault for two injuries caused by accidents. My clumsiness and my newness to the sport were turned into moral failings.

I only see this getting worse and worse, so put your foot down with your doctor if they try to blame you for anything, get it notated in your chart that they wanted to blame you, and prepare for some long-ass calls with your insurance cause pretty soon, you could cross at a crosswalk properly and still be blamed if a car runs a red light and hits you.

[hesitationss]

so incredibly fucked how whenever ever we get inklings of capitalism or fascism failing we immediately get ppl saying ‘oh but think about the ppl that will be affected by this they will suffer if the system is slightly inconvenienced and they will use either sympathetic language or misappropriate social justice language. like with the railway workers in the USA seeing mainstream news coverage about it being potentially devastating for the economy as a reason for the government to take action by crushing these workers instead of materially improving their conditions. or when shinzo abe got shot and the queen died and all us global brown ppl who have been directly affected by these families’ crimes celebrating and ppl being like ‘life is hard for people in japan and the UK’ like yeah duh they are fascist and colonial forces from east to west. the logical conclusion should be that these forces should be abolished beyond their deaths, not telling ppl to watch their mouth lol. like we honestly live in a dystopic society wherein every minor oppressive failure is ‘actually bad because ppls lives could get temporarily worse’ that is NOT because of these minor actions though. anyone who has done even an inkling of historical or decolonial research knows that because colonialism was such a violent force that the process of decolonization will also be violent. it is impossible for it to not when england expects however much money to have been dedicated to the queens war crime celebration funeral. and the thing in the suez canal too. i saw some anarchists be like ‘um think of the working class people who will suffer from their jobs being halted’ as if they are not already full of exploitation migrant labour or being ransacked by the western world… like actually i am praying for the wests downfall and global indigenous sovereignty and the removal of all US military bases and sanctions. I also think all south american, asian, and african nations should kick western resource extraction companies out of their land and we should all be making fair trade deals w each other. and in canada we should abolish the treaties which are coercive by nature and completely rehaul the extraction industries - no more canadian owned mines and man camps and to get rid of the contemporary indian agent and require everyone in med school to serve in remote areas w free health care etc etc like in cuba… anyway… every time there is small usually accidental failure of capitalism everybody’s inner liberal comes out so they can be the most sympathetic or whatever… it’s annoying i hope the US dollar and the pound drop more 🙏🏼

[hero-israel]

So with the shit show that is happening with some settlers and the right wing extremists enacting violence in Israel and all the other chaos, how are you doing? taking care of yourself? not spending way too much reading the news? any tips to deal with the never-ending waves of virtual antisemitism? because FUCK, some people on the internet will immediately call for "kill all Jews" solution and the aggression of it it taking a toll.

It's very kind of you to ask. I am not Israeli, and you are, so I hope you and your loved ones are secure and getting through all this as best as possible.

Yes, I have cut down on how closely I follow media coverage of this. My tentative read on the situation is that Bibi will not actually allow the judicial reform plan to pass, because he has gotten unmissable signals from the global investment and financial communities, but he can't afford to say that and stay in power so he is constantly ACTING like he'll do it, so nothing can go "back to normal." It is an awful situation politically, diplomatically, emotionally, morally. The wink-and-nod approval to settler rampages is appalling. Basically, this.

The hope I keep coming back to is that Israel has weathered so many worse crises, and the current moment simply must pass and they can get more serious-minded leadership. Even serious-minded right-wing leadership if that's the most natural off-ramp (Bennett is much further right than Netanyahu and would never have done this).

It is monumentally American-privileged of me that I can afford to stop reading Israeli news. The news here is no better.

As for avoiding antisemitism.... sometimes we have to recognize when a virtual fight doesn't have real-world impact, and isn't worth fighting, or doesn't need to be fought by oneself at one particular time. I'm still here, but I don't go turning over rocks on other sites to see how much hate they can show me. Be thankful for the generations of Jewish organizations and philanthropy that have been set up for this; it is some actual person's actual job responsibility, not yours, not mine. No one else will take care of your mental health for you, or mine for me, and we all have to recognize the signals requesting a lowered volume - and respond to them appropriately.

[wistfulcynic]

in December 2008 i moved permanently from the USA to the UK and promptly got an ear infection. It was intensely painful, like an ice pick through my skull. i took some OTC painkiller and lay in bed, moaning and miserable. 

my (English) husband looked at me like i’d grown a third head. 

“if it’s that bad why don’t you just go to the doctor?” he said. 

“i--i can go to the doctor in this country!” was my reply. 

at that time, it had probably been 5-6 years since i’d seen a doctor. Not since i stopped being on my dad’s insurance. Even when i’d had my own insurance (via my grad school institution as part of my teaching assistantship compensation, the same insurance as the professors had. Probably pretty good. Still too confusing and scary for me) i never felt like i had the spare cash to cover a copay, was always afraid that what i needed wouldn’t be covered by the insurance. i ignored an abscess in my mouth for weeks until it finally burst in a geyser of pus you definitely don’t want me to go into further detail about, because i was worried that would count as dental and i didn’t have dental coverage. 

you get the picture. Health care in the US sucks hard. 

when my ear was infected, my husband phoned his local GP surgery (with which i was not registered, i was an immigrant on a spouse visa, only arrived the previous week), got me an appointment later that day. They saw me, diagnosed me, gave me a prescription for antibiotics for which i paid (i think, at the time) roughly £7. Cleared up in a few days. 

all i paid for was the prescription. 

some years later my husband made me go to the doctor again. i was having random symptoms i wasn’t even sure were symptoms, a weird laundry list of stuff that could be connected or could be nothing. i went to the GP with this list, worried that they’d take one look at a heavyset woman and immediately go “lose weight fatty!” or “diabetes!” They did not. The doctor was a young-ish woman who listened carefully to everything i told her, looked at my list of symptoms, and said “we’ll test for other things, but I’m 99% sure this is a problem with your thyroid. i’m going to start you on some medicine while we wait for the test results.” 

prescriptions were by then something in the neighbourhood of £8. 

a few days later i got a call from the lab that had run my blood tests. They told me that my thyroid levels were through the roof, so high they were actively dangerous. Cardiac arrest was a likely outcome if it was left untreated. They advised me to get a prescription immediately, and were audibly relieved when i told them i already had one. 

if i’d not been living in a country with free-at-the-point-of-service health care, i would not have seen a doctor. The NHS saved my life. 

why am i going on about this? Well. It’s because NHS workers have planned a strike for later this month, and the press are already on the attack. Fearmongering about how this will throw the system into chaos, patients will go untreated, etc etc blah blah all with the very unsubtle spin of “blame the workers. Blame the strikers. They’re putting your lives in danger.” 

zero mention of how dire the situation is in many hospitals. Not enough nurses (because Brexit among other reasons) and the ones we do have are overworked and underpaid. Too many patients not enough beds. Old buildings, old equipment. 

none of which is a problem with the system. The system’s great. The system works. The problem is the predatory Tory government who would love nothing more than a privatised, US-style insurance-based healthcare system off of which they and their cronies can profit. The problem is how the government has been starving the NHS of funds for over a decade, under the guise of “austerity” and how we all need to muck in together. Except them, obviously. They’re different. 

the problem is absolutely not the people striking because they, like nearly all of us in this country, are shamefully underpaid. Because they deserve compensation for their hard and dangerous work. Compensation they are not being given, despite their attempts at negotiation. 

whenever collective action happens there are always people eager to blame the workers. Greedy nurses, refusing to treat us when we need them because they think their pay is more important. How dare they? They have a responsibility to do their jobs! i am urging all my UK mutuals and anyone who reads this not to be taken in by these spurious arguments or any spin doctoring from the news rags. Side with the workers! Side with the nurses. Side with the people who want the NHS well-funded and thriving. A robust national health service is a universal good. Ours is creaky and wobbling but that is from mistreatment, not because the principle is unsound. i promise you, however frustrating you find the NHS, an American-style system is far, far worse. 

[foreverlogical]

Transgender people in Idaho will no longer be able to use Medicaid and other publicly funded programs to help cover the cost of gender-affirming medical care under a new state law set to take effect in July.

Republican Gov. Brad Little quietly signed the measure on Wednesday, a day after receiving it from Idaho’s GOP-controlled Legislature. Little’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

The law, which is set to take effect July 1, bars the use of public funds for puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for transgender minors and adults and prevents government-owned facilities from providing them.

Those who intentionally violate the law could face misuse of public funds charges, which carry a penalty of up to $10,000 in fines and imprisonment between one and 14 years.

Idaho joins a growing coalition of Republican-led states to ban Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for transgender people of all ages, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Medicaid policies of three states explicitly exclude transition-related care for minors.

A federal judge in June struck down a Florida rule excluding gender-affirming health care from Medicaid coverage, writing in a 54-page opinion that Florida had adopted the rule “for political reasons.” That same month, a federal judge in Arkansas blocked the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, including in the state’s Medicaid program.

Little has said on several occasions that he does not believe public funds should be used for gender-affirming care. In a May letter to Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare, Little said he was opposed to using Medicaid funds for puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for transgender children and adults.

“Hardworking taxpayers should not be forced to pay for an adult’s sex reassignment surgery,” he wrote.

Little in April signed legislation making it a felony for health care providers to administer gender-affirming care to minors in Idaho. In a letter to House leadership, Little wrote that while it is important to protect minors “from surgeries or treatments that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies,” as lawmakers, “we should take great caution whenever we consider allowing the government to interfere with loving parents and their decisions about what is best for their children.”

A federal judge in December temporarily blocked the state’s ban from going into effect. In February, Idaho appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Aug 6, 2023

The American Academy of Pediatrics said last week that it will commission a systematic review of the evidence for pediatric sex-trait modification, known euphemistically as “gender-affirming care.” This marks a turning point in the battle over the controversial medical protocol. To those who favor evidence-based rather than eminence-based medicine, it is a step in the right direction.

But it is a small step. Two key questions: Will the systematic review follow a transparent, impartial scientific process? And what should the AAP do in the meantime?

In explaining the decision to commission a systematic review, the AAP’s CEO, Mark Del Monte, said that the academy’s board “has confidence that the existing evidence is such that the current policy is appropriate. At the same time, the board recognized that additional detail would be helpful here.”

If the AAP’s position is that it is “confident” the systematic review will vindicate its position and merely add “additional detail,” that raises suspicions about the honesty and independence of the process and shows the need for strong guardrails against AAP influence over the inquiry.

The AAP is, first and foremost, a trade union. “Professional medical association” is a less apt description than “association of medical professionals.” Teachers unions care about education but give their own and their members’ interests priority over those of students. So too the AAP has strong incentives to defend its own interests and those of member doctors—especially those who have publicly endorsed or facilitated sex-trait modification—even when that is harmful to patients.

The AAP and prominent members have consistently assured policy makers and judges that sex-trait modification is safe and effective and based on strong science. Insurance companies have based their coverage decisions on these claims. Democrats have used them to cast opponents as bigots. The Biden administration regularly cites the AAP in its efforts to guarantee minors unfettered access to hormonal drugs and life-altering surgery. Parents have accepted AAP claims and agreed to allow doctors to disrupt their children’s natural puberty, flood their bodies with synthetic hormones, and amputate their healthy breasts.

Should we therefore expect AAP leadership to be genuinely curious about the findings of a systematic review? Should we trust that the AAP won’t try to influence the outcome by tinkering with the process?

Unlike narrative literature reviews, systematic reviews follow a transparent, reproducible methodology on the same body of research. Anyone who uses the same methodology should arrive at more or less the same result. The existing systematic reviews on the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, conducted by health authorities in three European countries, all found “very low” quality evidence for these interventions.

Given the finding of every existing systematic review to date that the evidence for “gender-affirming care” is exceptionally weak, the AAP should immediately recommend extreme caution in the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in treating youth gender dysphoria. This is a no-brainer; health authorities in the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Finland and France have done it. “There is not enough evidence to support the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness to make the treatment routinely available at this time,” said the statement from England’s National Health Service.

Systematic reviews can take six to 18 months to complete. Because the AAP apparently recognizes the superiority of systematic reviews, it should defer, while the review process is under way, to the systematic reviews conducted by the U.K. National Institute for Health Care Excellence in 2020 and updated last week. A slew of new systematic reviews touching on a wide range of topics related to pediatric gender medicine is expected to come out in the U.K. well before the AAP systematic review is completed. When they do, the AAP should embrace their findings.

Last August the AAP president said that her organization’s policy was based on “the best science.” But if systematic reviews are the appropriate way to evaluate the evidence, and if every systematic review to date has found that the evidence is exceptionally weak, how can the AAP continue to maintain that its current approach is evidence-based? Mr. Del Monte was evasive on this point. The Europeans, he said, “engaged in their process, we’re engaging in our process.”

In a press release, the AAP has promised a “policy update process” that is “transparent and inclusive.” The AAP “will invite members and other stakeholders to share input.” Will those members include the pediatricians who have demanded that a systematic review be done? Will it include researchers who have found evidence of socially influenced transgender identity? Will “other stakeholders” include “detransitioners,” who were inappropriately prescribed drugs and surgery when they should have received only mental-health support? Will it include parents of children who thought they were transgender and wanted drugs and surgeries, but changed their minds and now feel better?

The organization’s consistent attempts to suppress debate on this sensitive issue, the recent remarks of its chief executive, and its profound conflict of interest as a trade association don’t inspire confidence that it will act scientifically and in the best interests of children and families.

Mr. Del Monte and the AAP can rest assured that the group’s actions will be carefully watched over the months ahead. If the AAP wants to regain the public’s trust, it must allow for a truly transparent and inclusive process, not one that involves only those who agree with its existing position. Above all, the AAP must commit itself to follow the science, wherever it leads.

[ Via: https://archive.today/PQWiO ]

==

Anyone who's been following this topic for any amount of time knows what the outcome of every other review has been, and therefore knows the result we should expect. If it comes out in contradiction to the UK, Finland, Sweden, Norway and other countries, we'll know how ideologically corrupted US institutions like the AAP have become.

[meret118]

The United States reached a major milestone in reproductive health care on Thursday: The FDA approved a birth control pill for over-the-counter sale without a prescription.

The medication, known as Opill, is already available with a prescription and has been approved for contraceptive use for half a century. It is more than 90 percent effective at preventing pregnancies, making it more effective than other over-the-counter options like condoms or spermicides. It uses only one hormone, progestin, which needs a few days to take effect; other birth control pills usually include estrogen as well and can be effective immediately if started at the appropriate time in the menstrual cycle.

The OTC version of Opill is expected to reach the market in early 2024. When it finally arrives on shelves, the US will join more than 100 other countries that already allow for certain contraceptives to be sold over the counter. Advocacy groups and some politicians have been calling for years for OTC birth control to be approved.

. . .

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover at least one prescription contraceptive as part of their benefits, but not any over-the-counter medication. So, barring any policy change, people’s ability to access Opill over the counter will depend on the price its manufacturer, Perrigo Company, sets.

. . .

One exception could be people on Medicaid in the 10 states that already cover over-the-counter contraceptives without a prescription. (Other states still require a doctor’s prescription for OTC products, and, in at least six states, OTC birth control of any kind has not been covered historically.)

Efforts are already underway to try to ease the cost burden of Opill. Biden has ordered his administration to consider various strategies for covering the cost of the drug. He asked the federal Health, Labor, and Treasury Departments to consult with employers, pharmacists, and insurers about how they could provide that coverage. He also asked the relevant agencies to draft guidance for best practices for providing “seamless coverage” of OTC birth control. Those discussions could draw on the examples of states like Delaware, which already cover OTC contraceptives through their Medicaid program.

[public-trans-it-deactivated20240]

My health insurance just pulled some SUPER illegal shit.

Ive been getting my HRT out of network so far, but today I finally called my health insurance to see about how to get coverage.

And this woman on the other end had the voice of a FUCKING ANGEL and was super sweet and supportive and after asking my name, when she heard I was calling for transgender care she immediately asked if I wanted to go by a different name and used that and called it cute and every time she had to pause to read or double check something she would just drop into this super husky whisper as she read it out and my face is bright fucking red right now this is fucking ILLEGAL how can I act professionally under these circumstances while listening to this angel hum to me as she worked all while I'm baring my soul to her about what I want out of my own future?

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

Well this is unexpected! The Supreme Court accidentally released their decision in Moyle v. United States, and it appears that they are poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho. That doesn’t mean this is a win. If the draft ruling obtained by Bloomberg stays the same, the justices will dismiss the case as “improvidently granted”—meaning the Court shouldn’t have accepted the case to begin with. The ruling would reinstate a lower court’s decision to allow Idaho doctors to perform life-saving and stabilizing abortions, and is not a decision on the merits of the case. In that way, it’s similar to the SCOTUS decision on mifepristone: while it may seem positive at first glance, all the ruling does is kick the issue down the road. It’s a way to ensure that the Court doesn’t release an unpopular anti-abortion opinion that would hurt Republicans before November. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, the ruling “is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho.” Let’s back up a minute for those who need a refresher on the case and what EMTALA is. (For those who don’t, you can skip ahead to EMTALA’s Significance or the Ruling Details.) For a look at the draft ruling, click here.

EMTALA Refresher

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is the federal law that requires hospital emergency rooms to provide patients with life-saving and stabilizing care—including abortions. After Roe was overturned and an Idaho abortion ban went into effect, the Biden administration sued the state, (correctly) pointing out that the law prevents doctors from adhering to EMTALA. The American Medical Association agreed, saying that Idaho’s law “undermines core medical ethics.” The proof was overwhelming: During oral arguments, we heard about women being airlifted out of Idaho for emergency care, OBGYNs advising patients to get extra life insurance or coverage for Life Flights out-of-state, and doctors fleeing Idaho en masse, unable to give their patients the standard of care. The most recent data shows that the state has lost about a quarter of its OBGYNs and half of its maternal fetal medicine specialists. That means maternity ward closures, growing maternal health deserts, and, I imagine we’ll see soon, increased maternal deaths.

[...]

Ruling Details

While today’s leaked draft ruling doesn’t give us a decision on the merits, there’s a whole lot of important and telling language from the Justices. Justice Jackson, in particular, absolutely lays into her conservative colleagues (and the ban itself). She points to the crisis in Idaho—from patients denied care to those who had to be airlifted out of the state—writing that ���this months-long catastrophe was completely unnecessary.” “More to the point, “ she continues. “It directly violated federal law.” Justice Jackson also criticizes the Court for “shirk[ing] its duty” to provide an answer to what is obviously an urgent issue. [...]

Alito also writes that EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions, but that the federal law “unambiguously demands” doctors to treat women and their “unborn child” equally. (Going out of his way to make one of many nods to fetal personhood.) He claims that the law mandates that hospitals “protect” fetuses “at every stage” that a woman is being treated—even writing that a transfer to another hospital can only be done if a physician “certifies” that the medical benefits outweigh increased risks to the fetus. Then, in one of the most infuriating sections of opinion I’ve ever read, Alito goes on a tear mansplaining pregnancy complications like PROM (premature rupture of membranes) and what he says are the differences between threats to women’s health or their life. As you can imagine, his point is that these deadly complications aren’t as bad as we’re making them out to be.

[...]

What’s Next

The immediate result of this ruling—once it’s officially released—will mean that Idaho doctors and hospitals can provide emergency abortions. (Really, the bare minimum of care.) But without a final say on the issue, it also means that the 5th Circuit ruling allowing Texas to flout EMTALA will stand.

Earlier today, Bloomberg published the leaked opinion of SCOTUS case Moyle v. United States, and it was a 6-3 opinion that would permit Idaho to conduct emergency abortions by dismissing the case on an “improvidently granted” case.

The official Moyle opinion could come down as soon as tomorrow, and it may mostly be the same or be changed significantly from the leak.

See Also:

The Guardian: US supreme court draft opinion would allow emergency abortions in Idaho – report