Can we have gender choice without ethnicity choice? Apparently Trump is against both.

[TheDude]

My biological make-up is that of a trans-gender Cherokee crocodile. You nor Trump will ever take this reality away from me.

 

[BrokeLoser]

President Trump says we can’t have either.
Does it seem fair that he can tell us we can’t decide our own biological makeup?
DAMNIT....I was hoping for some free college for my white kids...I planned to identify as a tax exempt species myself. This sucks!
Bad move President Trump....you just lost that huge LGBTQ’ers following you had.
‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration
‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

Is this the same Trump that said he was cool with Jenner using the ladies bathroom at Trump tower during the campaign? So he is either cool with transgender identifications or cool with men using the ladies room, right?

NEGATIVE...this is the sane Trump, the Trump whom continues to shed his bits and pieces of LefTardism.

 

[Slade3200]

President Trump says we can’t have either.
Does it seem fair that he can tell us we can’t decide our own biological makeup?
DAMNIT....I was hoping for some free college for my white kids...I planned to identify as a tax exempt species myself. This sucks!
Bad move President Trump....you just lost that huge LGBTQ’ers following you had.
‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration
‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

Is this the same Trump that said he was cool with Jenner using the ladies bathroom at Trump tower during the campaign? So he is either cool with transgender identifications or cool with men using the ladies room, right?

NEGATIVE...this is the sane Trump, the Trump whom continues to shed his bits and pieces of LefTardism.

Which Trump was the one that said Jenner could use the ladies room at Trump Tower?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Dear BrokeLoser
which is another reason why it makes sense
to separate health care plans and terms "per party".
Give taxpayers a choice of WHICH doctors under WHICH plans
terms and policies they want to fund and be under. Elect and vote
on that through your own party of choice, and that's enough people
statewide and nationwide to get group discount rates and manage
entire hospital districts under a collective system of registering members,
including donors, investors, and administrators who all believe in the same standards.

Then you can recognize transgender, or pot smoking, etc.
but agree to pay for all the consequences and costs of those choices.

And leave others to pay for plans that require spiritual healing
to cure addictions and thus lower the costs of therapy and treatment.

Govt cannot force anyone to practice healthier habits including
healing prayer that has been used to cure cancer, diabetes, and even
schizophrenia for FREE. That has to remain individual choice for
spiritual healing to work, it has to be freely chosen because the therapy
is based on forgiveness which can never be forced or it isn't real and fails.

So give taxpayers a choice of which health plans and policies
match their beliefs. And the LGBT can have whatever they believe in.
And so can prolife Christians. End of civil war over this mess!

That’s a great concept and something that I believe would be great to provide for suplimental care, kind of like dental, optical etc. however there needs to be something that covers everybody for primary care needs right?

For instance you don’t want people buying a plan that doesn’t cover cancer and then people get cancer and are stuck with no coverage. Or if somebody gets sick with a rare illness etc. thoughts?

Dear Slade3200
For areas that ALL people, parties and taxpayers agree on supporting and funding/terms, yes, that can be made state or national policy. The original plan for "insurance for all" involved CATASTROPHIC conditions only. Not ALL health care and decisions to be federalized.

Separate groups of people under separate plans
can STILL receive federal money for emergency assistance,
including disabled elderly vets, etc. And these groups decide
their own terms for using their emergency budget for THEIR members.

So again, you sign up for whichever plan covers you the best,
and you pay your taxes toward that. If we all agree on things
such as military or elderly care, then that can go into a uniform policy.
And leave out the areas like abortion that people disagree about funding
or

What’s your ultimate goal with this idea. To provide more people with more coverage or to lower costs?

BOTH. By reorganizing, and having accountability to pay for programs, then we'd have to look into the most cost effective measures. So the solutions would get promoted. Then with the shortfall in budgets between people with self sufficient plans and people without, we can set up microlending or business loans and charity grants, where groups with longterm solutions can apply to get help from more successful groups. But not through forced taxation, this would be voluntary investment so there would be incentive to have better plans that attract funding and support. Not just garbage promises that don't hold up. These have to be solid plans based on proven working models before investors and donors would agree.

I’m not seeing how this can both lower costs and increase care. You can reduce costs by reducing coverage but that reduces the amount of provided care. If we want a system where if people get sick they get treated no matter what is wrong with them then don’t we need a more dynamic system than what you are talking about? Don’t we also want to promote preventative care to reduce the more expensive treatments for the more severe cases?

To me reducing costs by reducing care and coverage is not a good solution. With our nations wealth we should be able to treat our people when they are sick or injured. We need to go after the cost of care and promote better, cheaper, quicker and more widespread care products and services.

This thread was never about healthcare...there’s a red “post new thread” button on the front page for you though.
Slade, you pride yourself on being a self proclaimed voice of reason...tell us, do you think we should be able to “choose” our ENTIRE biological makeup?
(I’ll totally understand if you pretend you didn’t see this post.)

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a great concept and something that I believe would be great to provide for suplimental care, kind of like dental, optical etc. however there needs to be something that covers everybody for primary care needs right?

For instance you don’t want people buying a plan that doesn’t cover cancer and then people get cancer and are stuck with no coverage. Or if somebody gets sick with a rare illness etc. thoughts?

Dear Slade3200
For areas that ALL people, parties and taxpayers agree on supporting and funding/terms, yes, that can be made state or national policy. The original plan for "insurance for all" involved CATASTROPHIC conditions only. Not ALL health care and decisions to be federalized.

Separate groups of people under separate plans
can STILL receive federal money for emergency assistance,
including disabled elderly vets, etc. And these groups decide
their own terms for using their emergency budget for THEIR members.

So again, you sign up for whichever plan covers you the best,
and you pay your taxes toward that. If we all agree on things
such as military or elderly care, then that can go into a uniform policy.
And leave out the areas like abortion that people disagree about funding
or

What’s your ultimate goal with this idea. To provide more people with more coverage or to lower costs?

BOTH. By reorganizing, and having accountability to pay for programs, then we'd have to look into the most cost effective measures. So the solutions would get promoted. Then with the shortfall in budgets between people with self sufficient plans and people without, we can set up microlending or business loans and charity grants, where groups with longterm solutions can apply to get help from more successful groups. But not through forced taxation, this would be voluntary investment so there would be incentive to have better plans that attract funding and support. Not just garbage promises that don't hold up. These have to be solid plans based on proven working models before investors and donors would agree.

I’m not seeing how this can both lower costs and increase care. You can reduce costs by reducing coverage but that reduces the amount of provided care. If we want a system where if people get sick they get treated no matter what is wrong with them then don’t we need a more dynamic system than what you are talking about? Don’t we also want to promote preventative care to reduce the more expensive treatments for the more severe cases?

To me reducing costs by reducing care and coverage is not a good solution. With our nations wealth we should be able to treat our people when they are sick or injured. We need to go after the cost of care and promote better, cheaper, quicker and more widespread care products and services.

This thread was never about healthcare...there’s a red “post new thread” button on the front page for you though.
Slade, you pride yourself on being a self proclaimed voice of reason...tell us, do you think we should be able to “choose” our ENTIRE biological makeup?
(I’ll totally understand if you pretend you didn’t see this post.)

Apologies I didn’t mean to hijack your thread. Although I did think the healthcare discussion was getting interesting. To answer your question, I think the gender identification situation has gotten out of hand. Especially when dealing with schools and children and birth certificates. I think we need a better dialogue about it and more research, however I don’t think people should just be able to just say what gender they want to be and that’s that. I am open to exploring a transition process I am open to exploring a transition process and set of standards.