Skip to main content

I don't get it...

One of the most powerful countries in the world doesn’t believe in looking out for its citizen’s health preferring to see it as a luxury instead of a basic right.

With the repealing of Obamacare by Republicans, which was already a watered down compromise thanks to free enterprise loving conservatives, it will now leave 20 million Americans without coverage.

Republicans love to extol free-market capitalism and will apply it everywhere. Sure you can have access to great health care in the United States; you simply need to be able to pay for it. So if you are one of those blue collar coal miners who lost their job you are fresh out of luck if you need a colonoscopy because you might just have to declare bankruptcy to get it.

When I had my carotid artery dissection which led to my stroke I was in the Montreal General Hospital intensive care unit for 10 days and it cost me nothing. My taxes took care of that and while you may be triaged in an emergency room and need to wait a few hours those of us who represent true emergencies go to the front of the line. This is the way things should be.

I heard recently on CBC radio that parents were bringing their sick children to hospitals over this past Christmas break that should have stayed home and given cough syrup instead. But you can bet that someone truly in need would be seen right away.

Both times I have been in emergency situations (my stroke and my kidney stone attack) I was looked after within a reasonable amount of time and the only cost was a $600 bill for the ambulance I called.

I don’t understand why health care needs to be a luxury instead of a human right. I am not talking about elective surgery but instead lifesaving treatments that prevent needless deaths.

The only G20 country that still does not have adequate coverage for its citizens is the United States of America and under the current administration that is not about to change since Republicans have an aversion to any form of social assistance.

Call me crazy but I think that for profit healthcare is immoral and here big Pharma and the insurance companies conspire to make sure that coverage leans towards the affluent under the guise of maintaining quality.

It looks like Bernie Sanders' dream will remain a pipe dream.


  1. In Scandinavia the basic health insurance is a public affair. If I get ill and have to go to the hospital, I am not presented with a bill. I have already paid for their help care through my taxes.

    I know that some American right wingers think of this as a socialist waste of money, but the fact is that Norwegian health care is much cheaper than the American version, and more effective.

    Besides, Industry love the arrangement, even if they take part in paying for the system through taxes (which are not that high, by the way). The reason is obviously that the costs associated with having an ill employee is so much lower for them than for their American counterparts.

    The public health care system also represents a social safety net that reduces risk, increases mobility and encourages innovation.

    So even if you do not make a humanitarian argument the American policy makes no sense.

    1. the more we spread the cost over the entire population the cheaper it is for the single payer. Right now there are rich people and some young opting out of paying into the system which raises the cost for those in it. Plus the big pharmaceutical firms don't like cheaper no name brand competition. Add to that the litigation costs of malpractice and you have a broken system.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

looking past cross gender arousal

Jack’s latest Crossdreamers post got me thinking about cross gender arousal and how it could be avoided; also whether it even matters. This with particular focus on the inability to relate of someone on the outside looking in.

You see, sexuality is a very complicated thing to begin with and when you then add gender identity ambiguity it becomes a recipe to really confuse someone.

So imagine that you are a little boy who identifies as a girl but then along comes puberty and short circuits everything by having the sex you identify with also be the sex you are attracted to. For in essence this is what happens to all all male to female gender dysphoric trans persons who are attracted to women.

So I ask myself: can I imagine a scenario where this inherent contradiction would not produce sexual confusion? The answer is that I cannot.

I am in the unique position, like many of you, to have experienced an early identification with the feminine become sexualized later on. This brought confusion…

understanding the erotic component

I have written about crossed wires before in two separate posts. The idea is that one cannot pass through puberty and the development of sexual feelings for females and not have your pre-existing gender dysphoria be impacted through your psychosexual development. The hormone responsible for your libido is testosterone which is present in much stronger concentration in males and is why gynephilics are most likely to experience erotic overtones as the conflict between romantic external feelings and their pull towards the feminine become permanently intertwined.

Because I came from a deeply religious family where sex was not discussed much at all, I grew up with little access to information and was very much ignorant of matters relating to the subject. With no firsthand experience in intercourse until I married I was then faced with the reality that my ability to perform sexually had been deeply impacted by my dysphoric feelings. This began years of turmoil and self-deprecating thoughts …

another coming out

Recently I had lunch with one of the young estimators who occasionally works with me here in Toronto. We were chatting about work and our respective lives when she queried about my love life:

“So how is it going on that front. Meet anyone interesting lately?”

I reflected for a moment and then said:

“My situation is a little particular and if you don’t mind I can share something about myself”

She leaned in a bit and told me to please go ahead.

“I am trans” I said matter of factly.

She looked at me and smiled and said:

“Really? That’s so neat”

She is 35 years old and a lovely person which is why I knew I could confide in her. I then added that I had been reflecting on whether I would switch companies and begin working as Joanna and although she is totally open she also knows how conservative our business can be. So I told her that if I did decide to it would definitely be under a different umbrella.

Then yesterday I was coming back to my place and the lady who rents it to me, who is abo…