🚀 go-pugleaf

Jennifer Usher wrote...
> "Grinch" <grinch@bah.humbug.org> wrote in message 
> news:Qderf.37847$7h7.30354@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> 
> 
>>(it's me...)  Sorry, I don't have HIV, the transexual is something my gay
>>brother dragged home from the bar.  Though I do happen to be gay, I was
>>smart enough to know better than to drag transexual crackwhores home from
>>some bar.  And yes, I know the difference between HIV and AIDS, but the
>>two terms can be used synonymously UNLESS one is quoting statistics (e.g.
>>a rosy report that "AIDS" cases have declined by 56% in the last three
>>while conveniently neglecting to mention that new HIV infections have
>>increased by 384% in that same time).  For practical purposes the two
>>terms are interchangable, both indicate you should avoid contact with
>>that person and his bodily fluids.
> 
> 
> I work in AIDS prevention research, so I tend to not see them as 
> interechangeable.  If that works for you, fine.

Hee hee!  AIDS "prevention?"  And of course I must ask if you are using
the terms interchangably, are you attempting to prevent HIV infections
from progressing to AIDS, or are you trying to prevent new HIV
infections period?  My opinion is that HIV/AIDS is a very profitable
industry, so many people with no useful skills make a living off of
things like "counseling" and similar crap, but if they actually
achieved their ostensible goal of stopping the disease then they would
find themselves unemployed.  And if you are simply trying to prevent
HIV from progressing to its terminal stage of AIDS, you are doing a
disservice because by postponing the patient's death you simply allow
him to infect more people.  It sounds cruel, but I mentioned my
brother and his transexual crackwhore and the 10 extra years the drugs
have given them were enough to infect thousands.


>>.......  So no, I do not consider transexuality or gender identity
>>dysphoria or whatever newage feel-good term they use as something 
>>requiring public or private insurance to cover.
> 
> 
> Well, let's take this a step at a time.  First off, if you happen to live in 
> San Francisco, and you don't have health insurance, the City has some pretty 
> good provisions to assist people in affording medical treatment.  Second, 
> the psychologist actually has a good point that apparently is beyond your 
> understanding.  Depression can be situational (i.e. your dog died) or it can 
> be what is referred to as clinical depression.  There is a difference.  We 
> all have days when we feel down, but we quickly get over it.  Clinical 
> depression is a serious medical condition that requires medication and other 
> treatment.  It is a chemical imbalance, not just the blues.  Unfortunately, 
> insurance often uses "mental illness" as an excuse to avoid adequately 
> covering certain conditions.

Yes, I know all about psychiatric disorders, chemical imbalances, and of
course the wonderful medications that treat these problems.  The article
I was referring to was written by a PSYCHOLOGIST, a field that I refuse
to recognize as a science.  Like "Dr." Phil, the writer had some Ph.D.
in a subject about as scientific as theology or lesbian eskimo studies,
but it does not qualify him to to diagnose things like meth psychoses
or clinical depression.  When he talks about "mental health coverage,"
he means public and private insurance should pay him $500 an hour to
listen to people whine about their dead dog or poor relationship with
their father.  Someone who is hallucinating or about to commit suicide
is different, but those are problems for the MEDICAL field of psychiatry
to treat, not something "Dr." Phil should be able to profit off of with
his newage feelgood headfucking psychobabble.

> 
> As to transsexualism, well, it is clearly not something you can grasp, so 
> let's just leave it at that.
> 
> 
>>I might add that I need a minor operation, not urgent or terribly 
>>expensive
>>but also not cheap and I am a bit uncomfortable, but I have NO insurance
>>at all.  I have to pay out of my own pocket for it but this trannie gets
>>the state to pay for his silicone breast implants.
> 
> 
> Again, if you live in San Francisco, and you have a medical condition, the 
> City can possibly help.  Check with a city clinic, and you who knows, you 
> might be surprised.  And cut the crap.  The state doesn't pay for breast 
> implants except possibly in cases where a person has had a masectomy for 
> breast cancer.  Sorry, but I live in San Francisco, so I know.

Um, I don't leech off the welfare state.  Anyway, I was referring to the
attempt to define transexuality as a legitimate medical disorder, which of
course would require the state to pay for surgery.  To become a woman he
needs his dick cut off and of course he needs fake silicone titties (well,
he already has titties from the black market estrogen he takes, but that
does have serious side-effects like clots so implants would be an
alternative that Medi-Cal would be required to pay for).  But he doesn't
WANT the surgery, he makes his living off the freak factor of being a
chick with a dick.

Anyway, here's the article:

Equal coverage for mental illness
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/15/EDG7RG7LR01.DTL&hw=mental+health&sn=002&sc=698