This is how we our country is perceived...

[Flamingeaux]

Seriously. Consider both sources.....

 

[zavandor]

So as I said initially, you think the law was written just as righting propaganda anti-lgbtq+, not for practical effects.

But when a party fuels hate and discrimination, the most deranged people will take it as validation and might become more extreme. In the end, there is cause for concern, which is what the travel advisory is about. And why Florida is perceived as an anti-lgbtq+ state abroad.

I really don't see the cause for concern. I think that it will have very little impact on the LGBTQ+ community. I could be wrong and if the data says otherwise I will agree with a travel advisory. But without any data showing any harm it is hard to see why there needs to be any mention of a travel advisory.

Furthermore it is clear that this was fueled by the media to scare the LGBTQ+ community from visiting Florida in the hopes to score a political win. I would rather rely on facts.

Yes, I did... I watch some news and just looking at San Francisco you can see there are problems. Chicago & New York have similar issues. Overall the stats may be down but it is fact that there are many localized areas of crime.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime...i-los-angeles-republicans-democrats-desantis/
Yet voters do have cause for concern, she and others say. Experts do not yet know whether homicide rates will continue to fall. Localized problems, including carjackings in New Orleans, rattle entire communities. Violent crimes, which appear to be falling, are still more common than they were in 2019, before the pandemic, the murder of George Floyd, and the resulting protests, according to a July study by the Council on Criminal Justice.

 

[zavandor]

I don't think the laws were written as propaganda. Now there are many laws across several states so I am not talking about any of them specifically. From what I can tell the major push from republicans has been to stop grooming of children with respect to their gender and keeping it from parents. Additionally a major theme is stopping the transitioning of children to another gender before they turn 18. I am for those laws to protect children.

As for adults I think they should be able to do whatever they want (without harming another person - ie; no assault/battery or murder) when it comes to how they live their lives. From what I have heard/read about this is the goal of the laws. Not just generally aiming to disrupt the lives of anyone in the LGBTQ+ community.

For any laws that are ambiguous they should be clarified. And the voters in whatever state if they disagree with the laws then they should vote new people into office that will better represent what they want from government.

The discussion focused on the law that allows doctor to refuse not life threatening health care to lgbtq+ people.
People who visit Florida are worried that they might be refused care and for them it is certainly worrying.

You say the law was not created to disrupt the life of lgbtq+ people, you say no one has ever been impacted and no one will ever will. And yet, you are blind to recognize why that law was created: propaganda.
You seem outraged by the propaganda you believe someone is mounting against you and yet fail to acknowledge the propaganda created by your party.

Also, bringing in grooming of children by lgbtq+ people is a trick I won't fall in. You are losing the argument, so you dial up a notch, add an insult and hope people will follow. I won't.

I have reported your post and hope the moderators will delete it and ban you.
But otherwise (or in the meantime): please link a scientific paper showing lgbtq+ people groom children into changing their gender.
I bet you can't.

 

[EACarlson]

The discussion focused on the law that allows doctor to refuse not life threatening health care to lgbtq+ people.
People who visit Florida are worried that they might be refused care and for them it is certainly worrying.

You say the law was not created to disrupt the life of lgbtq+ people, you say no one has ever been impacted and no one will ever will. And yet, you are blind to recognize why that law was created: propaganda.
You seem outraged by the propaganda you believe someone is mounting against you and yet fail to acknowledge the propaganda created by your party.

Also, bringing in grooming of children by lgbtq+ people is a trick I won't fall in. You are losing the argument, so you dial up a notch, add an insult and hope people will follow. I won't.

I have reported your post and hope the moderators will delete it and ban you.
But otherwise (or in the meantime): please link a scientific paper showing lgbtq+ people groom children into changing their gender.
I bet you can't.

I don't think that law says what you think it does, but please give me the statute number that you feel may be used to refuse care to someone based on them being trans. The only thing I can find specifically calls out that only gender clinical interventions may be refused. I don't want my doctor to be forced to provide treatments they are not competent with or agree with. I've changed doctors over this regarding other issues.

 

[tink2424]

The discussion focused on the law that allows doctor to refuse not life threatening health care to lgbtq+ people.
People who visit Florida are worried that they might be refused care and for them it is certainly worrying.

You say the law was not created to disrupt the life of lgbtq+ people, you say no one has ever been impacted and no one will ever will. And yet, you are blind to recognize why that law was created: propaganda.
You seem outraged by the propaganda you believe someone is mounting against you and yet fail to acknowledge the propaganda created by your party.

Also, bringing in grooming of children by lgbtq+ people is a trick I won't fall in. You are losing the argument, so you dial up a notch, add an insult and hope people will follow. I won't.

I have reported your post and hope the moderators will delete it and ban you.
But otherwise (or in the meantime): please link a scientific paper showing lgbtq+ people groom children into changing their gender.
I bet you can't.

First off I specifically stated that I wasn't speaking about any law in particular as there are many across a few states so I was generalizing. The generalization was about children & gender. I NEVER said LGBTQ+ people were grooming children, I said people. I also specifically mentioned removing parents from the care of their children by schools keeping information from them. This is a problem.

I also don't think doctors should be forced to treat patients that they don't agree with. I do think they should be required to treat everyone if it is a life threatening situation, then they don't get the chance. Doctors already do this now with many pediatricians refusing to treat children who aren't vaccinated or who don't follow the current vaccine schedule (ie; spacing out the shots).

Also, I didn't say the laws wouldn't affect anyone - I specifically said HARM. I don't seem HARM. Inconvenience, yes.

I am not outraged by propaganda as I expect it these days. I just don't buy into the small minority terrorizing most of the population with items that aren't true. We should not be allowing children to make life changing decisions as their brain is not fully formed yet. There is a reason we have age limits for a lot of things.

And good luck with the reporting. I didn't break any rules...

I don't think that law says what you think it does, but please give me the statute number that you feel may be used to refuse care to someone based on them being trans. The only thing I can find specifically calls out that only gender clinical interventions may be refused. I don't want my doctor to be forced to provide treatments they are not competent with or agree with. I've changed doctors over this regarding other issues.

The poster doesn't even mention a specific law as far as I remember but you are correct. They seem very upset and unwilling to even listen to another point of view.

 

[bsmcneil]

I don't think that law says what you think it does, but please give me the statute number that you feel may be used to refuse care to someone based on them being trans. The only thing I can find specifically calls out that only gender clinical interventions may be refused. I don't want my doctor to be forced to provide treatments they are not competent with or agree with. I've changed doctors over this regarding other issues.

Wait, are you under the presumption there are medical providers forced to provide treatments with which they disagree (either as a course of treatment or a personal opinion)? Who is "making" these doctors write Rx, Dx, etc? I've never had the experience of a dr saying, "I don't think this is what's wrong or what will help - but since you asked for it, I have to do it."

Further, the last sentence is exactly how it should be - if you don't like a doctor or you're so insistent that your viewpoint be the winner, change doctors. But why should the government (long bemoaned to get out of the classroom but stay in the bedroom or an OB/GYN office) get to decide that people don't have access to care. The issue for so many people is - just because you don't like or understand something, what gives you the right to have your opinion outweigh the studied and almost universal advice of medical providers (when it comes to medical care)?

 

[EACarlson]

Wait, are you under the presumption there are medical providers forced to provide treatments with which they disagree (either as a course of treatment or a personal opinion)? Who is "making" these doctors write Rx, Dx, etc? I've never had the experience of a dr saying, "I don't think this is what's wrong or what will help - but since you asked for it, I have to do it."

Further, the last sentence is exactly how it should be - if you don't like a doctor or you're so insistent that your viewpoint be the winner, change doctors. But why should the government (long bemoaned to get out of the classroom but stay in the bedroom or an OB/GYN office) get to decide that people don't have access to care. The issue for so many people is - just because you don't like or understand something, what gives you the right to have your opinion outweigh the studied and almost universal advice of medical providers (when it comes to medical care)?

Completely agree with your first point, it is a solution in search of a problem. The only thing I've seen that makes any kind of sense is to prevent nuisance lawsuits when a provider refuses to provide a certain treatment.

I'll ask you the same question I asked the PP, what specific statute denies access to care? The only denial of access to care I am aware of in the FL statutes is that gender clinical interventions have to be done by a physician, in person and only on adults.

 

[GoingSince1990]

While I deplore the sly bigotry of anti-LGBT laws brought in by people like DeSantis, I don’t think the international travel warning system should be politicized in this manner. If a gay Canadian couple traveled to WDW and came to no harm there (as they almost certainly would not), even though their government had warned them that it was dangerous for them, they might react by ignoring travel warnings for other countries where they could genuinely be at risk.

 

[tink2424]

Wait, are you under the presumption there are medical providers forced to provide treatments with which they disagree (either as a course of treatment or a personal opinion)? Who is "making" these doctors write Rx, Dx, etc? I've never had the experience of a dr saying, "I don't think this is what's wrong or what will help - but since you asked for it, I have to do it."

This actually does happen now with just about all providers. They are FORCED to prescribe standard of care to their patients or risk losing their license or being sued. They aren't allowed to just do what they think is in the best interest of the patient. One good example of this is statins - if you have high cholesterol they are required to prescribe you a statin. Statins are okay drugs but they have side effects that may not make them the best choice for every patient. This is just one example of what I'm sure is many.

 

[RedHead0186]

This actually does happen now with just about all providers. They are FORCED to prescribe standard of care to their patients or risk losing their license or being sued. They aren't allowed to just do what they think is in the best interest of the patient. One good example of this is statins - if you have high cholesterol they are required to prescribe you a statin. Statins are okay drugs but they have side effects that may not make them the best choice for every patient. This is just one example of what I'm sure is many.

Forced/required by who (or what)?

 

[Sheryl2059]

Here in lefty liberal overreaching CA Ive never had a doctor insist on a particular drug or treatment disregarding any concerns I may have. We discuss options because in the end its my life. On the other hand if I were to ask for something that I think would otherwise not be a problem, as far as it goes for Joe Schmoe patient without any kind of medical training, if a doctor considered it possibly harmful it would then fall under him/her discussing it with colleagues.

The question is if there are medical areas where 'the state' says you and your doctor cannot do something, no discussion. Before all this transgender political bruhaha it was weed. Doctors may or may not have seen it as a reasonable alternative to pharma drugs in certain circumstances. But for many many years 'the state' told them 'no'. It knew better than your doctor.

So it boils down to whether or not you think the state has the power to tell you and your doctors what you can and cannot do. It does, or it does not. Choose. Of course the reality is that the answer is 'it depends'. There is no cookie cutter black and white. But depends on what. Few can really truthfully answer that one beyond the typical punch line or slogan.

 

[Beer Me]

This actually does happen now with just about all providers. They are FORCED to prescribe standard of care to their patients or risk losing their license or being sued. They aren't allowed to just do what they think is in the best interest of the patient. One good example of this is statins - if you have high cholesterol they are required to prescribe you a statin. Statins are okay drugs but they have side effects that may not make them the best choice for every patient. This is just one example of what I'm sure is many.

At risk of going way off topic - doctors are not required to prescribe statins. Instead I would say primary care providers are encouraged to follow nationally accepted clinical guidelines.

These well established clinical guidelines recommend the use of statins when certain conditions are met (not just lab values but age, family history etc). Included in these guidelines are situations where counseling regarding lifestyle changes is an acceptable alternative to statin therapy.

If a provider consistently goes against those guidelines it could potentially impact quality metrics required by Medicare. The consequences of failing to meet minimum quality requirements can include lower reimbursements from Medicare.

But prescribing statins is never required.

 

[Sheryl2059]

If a provider consistently goes against those guidelines it could potentially impact quality metrics required by Medicare. The consequences of failing to meet minimum quality requirements can include lower reimbursements from Medicare.

That could be described as the usual 'do what I say or you dont get the money' issue. Hardly a government specific problem. It is however a part of society that we accept and do ourselves. Including to our children that so many say they do what they do in order to 'protect' them. Do 'this' and dont do 'that' or you dont get your allowance. The interesting part is when the child doesnt care about the money.

Kind of a funny way of thinking. If government is the parent and we are the children, what happens if we tell the parent that we dont need nor want their money? I suppose then it becomes a matter of 'punishment'. Which is not a viable solution in the long term. Both applied by governments, and by parents. Children grow up and they dont forget.

 

[tink2424]

Forced/required by who (or what)?

State medical boards... the AMA... just to name a few.

At risk of going way off topic - doctors are not required to prescribe statins. Instead I would say primary care providers are encouraged to follow nationally accepted clinical guidelines.

These well established clinical guidelines recommend the use of statins when certain conditions are met (not just lab values but age, family history etc). Included in these guidelines are situations where counseling regarding lifestyle changes is an acceptable alternative to statin therapy.

If a provider consistently goes against those guidelines it could potentially impact quality metrics required by Medicare. The consequences of failing to meet minimum quality requirements can include lower reimbursements from Medicare.

But prescribing statins is never required.

You just answered your own question there. It will impact reimbursement and more importantly if they are ever sued due to the patient having an issue if they didn't at least document that they wanted to prescribe a statin then they will likely lose their case and possibly their license.

Another really good example of the government stepping in and not allowing doctors to practice as they see fit was ivermectin & COVID. So there is just one of many areas. I'm not saying it is right I'm saying that the government as well as the AMA are so involved in what physicians can and can't do it is ridiculous and doesn't benefit American's as a whole.

That could be described as the usual 'do what I say or you dont get the money' issue. Hardly a government specific problem. It is however a part of society that we accept and do ourselves. Including to our children that so many say they do what they do in order to 'protect' them. Do 'this' and dont do 'that' or you dont get your allowance. The interesting part is when the child doesnt care about the money.

Kind of a funny way of thinking. If government is the parent and we are the children, what happens if we tell the parent that we dont need nor want their money? I suppose then it becomes a matter of 'punishment'. Which is not a viable solution in the long term. Both applied by governments, and by parents. Children grow up and they dont forget.

Very much agree... it is the carrot & stick approach.

In my opinion the government and the AMA need to be out of all of it. It should be up to the doctor & the patient to figure out the right treatment options. Its one of the reasons we are seeing more and more doctors that are moving away from taking any insurance and going cash based. They don't want to be told what to do but they are still subject to the AMA guidelines in case they are sued.

Maybe all this has to do with why as a highly industrialized nation we have poor medical outcomes in comparison to other similar nations.

 

[RedHead0186]

State medical boards... the AMA... just to name a few.

You just answered your own question there. It will impact reimbursement and more importantly if they are ever sued due to the patient having an issue if they didn't at least document that they wanted to prescribe a statin then they will likely lose their case and possibly their license.

Another really good example of the government stepping in and not allowing doctors to practice as they see fit was ivermectin & COVID. So there is just one of many areas. I'm not saying it is right I'm saying that the government as well as the AMA are so involved in what physicians can and can't do it is ridiculous and doesn't benefit American's as a whole.

Very much agree... it is the carrot & stick approach.

In my opinion the government and the AMA need to be out of all of it. It should be up to the doctor & the patient to figure out the right treatment options. Its one of the reasons we are seeing more and more doctors that are moving away from taking any insurance and going cash based. They don't want to be told what to do but they are still subject to the AMA guidelines in case they are sued.

Maybe all this has to do with why as a highly industrialized nation we have poor medical outcomes in comparison to other similar nations.

Incentivizing someone to do something (or dis-incentivizing someone to not do something) is not the same as requiring it or forcing it.

We have national specialty/medical societies to make recommendations and provide guidelines. And they are just that: guidelines. And these guidelines shift as new research is released and new information is made available. If we truly left it up to individual physicians and their patients, without any guidance from a larger 'body,' then how would physicians stay up to date with the latest information/treatment plans/drugs/etc.?

Now, with any organization comes the risk of 'politics.' And I know the AMA has some issues in that area, as does the CDC. And as you noted, many physicians are moving away from taking any insurance, because insurance companies, IMO, are some of the worst offenders at telling physicians what they can (or usually cannot) do to treat a patient. So our system is flawed, for sure, but I'm not sure I 100% agree that we need to strip it down completely to a 1:1 between a physician and their patient(s).

 

[xipotec]

Lots of "not my problem , so not a problem" thinking by people whom are totally unaffected by this....

Those same people will look the other way when being LGBTQ is fully outlawed....

Every one of them is complicit and actively ignoring all the laws being passed against this harmless/maginallized community.

They will say the same thing when reeducation camps come along.

 

[xipotec]

While I deplore the sly bigotry of anti-LGBT laws brought in by people like DeSantis, I don’t think the international travel warning system should be politicized in this manner. If a gay Canadian couple traveled to WDW and came to no harm there (as they almost certainly would not), even though their government had warned them that it was dangerous for them, they might react by ignoring travel warnings for other countries where they could genuinely be at risk.

The warning is directly related to unfriendly laws being enacted.

So it makes total sense. As a foreign visitor has not idea of the climate and what laws may about to be passed.....

 

[tink2424]

Incentivizing someone to do something (or dis-incentivizing someone to not do something) is not the same as requiring it or forcing it.

We have national specialty/medical societies to make recommendations and provide guidelines. And they are just that: guidelines. And these guidelines shift as new research is released and new information is made available. If we truly left it up to individual physicians and their patients, without any guidance from a larger 'body,' then how would physicians stay up to date with the latest information/treatment plans/drugs/etc.?

Now, with any organization comes the risk of 'politics.' And I know the AMA has some issues in that area, as does the CDC. And as you noted, many physicians are moving away from taking any insurance, because insurance companies, IMO, are some of the worst offenders at telling physicians what they can (or usually cannot) do to treat a patient. So our system is flawed, for sure, but I'm not sure I 100% agree that we need to strip it down completely to a 1:1 between a physician and their patient(s).

Fair enough... I just know that I have a lot of friends that are in the medical profession and they feel forced due to the threat of lawsuits and losing their licenses (which are state based so governmental as opposed to the AMA).

In my opinion having guidelines and updated learning about what works and what doesn't is helpful for providers. My issue is with the coercion as I see it. But I see your point as well.

Lots of "not my problem , so not a problem" thinking by people whom are totally unaffected by this....

Those same people will look the other way when being LGBTQ is fully outlawed....

Every one of them is complicit and actively ignoring all the laws being passed against this harmless/maginallized community.

They will say the same thing when reeducation camps come along.

I see where you are going here and agree to an extent. We should not be outlawing LGBTQ+ in any way shape or form. My issue is that we have gone too far when it comes to kids & I think that is where a lot of people are. Adults can do what they want but kids shouldn't be able to make these decisions.

In terms of reeducation camps I think there is such a divide in this country but in all actuality I think most people really fall in the middle. People at the top & the vocal minorities are stirring up issues that in most cases aren't even real. I think if we had more moderate leaders in this country we could really get stuff done.

 

[Sykes]

Lots of "not my problem , so not a problem" thinking by people whom are totally unaffected by this....

Pretty much this, but it's also important to acknowledge that many of these laws were intentionally written with extraordinarily broad and vague language with the specific intent of creating a chilling effect that harms the transgender community while simultaneously giving supporters the plausible deniability to say "well, it doesn't say that directly".

There is active harm happening right now from these laws. Transgender adults have been denied access to their hormone therapy because of these laws. Thankfully, many of these laws are being significantly pared down as they work their way through the court systems because they are so blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Sheryl2059]

An interesting question. Given the choice, of the two, which is worse? Government interfering what you and your doctor can do? Or insurance companies? Both desire control to maintain their very existence for their own particular reasons.

If you are anti-government, then both reflexively and politically the government is worse. Insurance? Thats just the free market in action. But what if you think the free market is running amok? Then reflexively its the insurance companies that are the worst. Governments are there for the benefit of 'the people'. So for one side, a %100 free market is the solution and the other its strict government control.

In reality, neither is much of a solution and we have seen both. Taken to their extremes %100 free market can be called 'anarchy' while the other called 'police state'. Another interesting dichotomy. Do you prefer anarchy? Or do you prefer police state? Or... do you prefer the constant and never ending battle to find somewhere in the middle at any given point in time? As annoying and difficult as that is, perhaps that is the only realistic option.