What's new

The Growing Thirst for Cruelty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
This certainly ranks as cruel….”I refuse to treat this veteran because he’s a Democrat”.


Doctors at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals nationwide could refuse to treat unmarried veterans and Democrats under new hospitalguidelines imposed following an executive order by Donald Trump.

The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.

Medical staff are still required to treat veterans regardless of race, color, religion and sex, and all veterans remain entitled to treatment. But individual workers are now free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not explicitly prohibited by federal law.

Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.

Doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity, documents reviewed by the Guardian show. The changes also affect chiropractors, certified nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, licensed clinical social workers and speech therapists.

In making the changes, VA officials cite the president’s 30 January executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. The primary purpose of the executive order was to strip most government protections from transgender people. The VA has since ceased providing most gender-affirming care and forbidden a long list of words, including “gender affirming” and “transgender”, from clinical settings.

Medical experts said the implications of rule changes uncovered by the Guardian could be far-reaching.

They “seem to open the door to discrimination on the basis of anything that is not legally protected”, said Dr Kenneth Kizer, the VA’s top healthcare official during the Clinton administration. He said the changes open up the possibility that doctors could refuse to treat veterans based on their “reason for seeking care – including allegations of rape and sexual assault – current or past political party affiliation or political activity, and personal behavior such as alcohol or marijuana use”.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is the nation’s largest integrated hospital system, with more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually.

In an emailed response to questions, the VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, did not dispute that the new rules allowed doctors to refuse to treat veteran patients based on their beliefs or that physicians could be dismissed based on their marital status or political affiliation, but said “all eligible veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law”.

He said the rule changes were nothing more than “a formality”, but confirmed that they were made to comply with Trump’s executive order. Kasperowicz also said the revisions were necessary to “ensure VA policy comports with federal law”. He did not say which federal law or laws required these changes.
 
This certainly ranks as cruel….”I refuse to treat this veteran because he’s a Democrat”.


Doctors at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals nationwide could refuse to treat unmarried veterans and Democrats under new hospitalguidelines imposed following an executive order by Donald Trump.

The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.

Medical staff are still required to treat veterans regardless of race, color, religion and sex, and all veterans remain entitled to treatment. But individual workers are now free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not explicitly prohibited by federal law.

Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.

Doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity, documents reviewed by the Guardian show. The changes also affect chiropractors, certified nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, licensed clinical social workers and speech therapists.

In making the changes, VA officials cite the president’s 30 January executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. The primary purpose of the executive order was to strip most government protections from transgender people. The VA has since ceased providing most gender-affirming care and forbidden a long list of words, including “gender affirming” and “transgender”, from clinical settings.

Medical experts said the implications of rule changes uncovered by the Guardian could be far-reaching.

They “seem to open the door to discrimination on the basis of anything that is not legally protected”, said Dr Kenneth Kizer, the VA’s top healthcare official during the Clinton administration. He said the changes open up the possibility that doctors could refuse to treat veterans based on their “reason for seeking care – including allegations of rape and sexual assault – current or past political party affiliation or political activity, and personal behavior such as alcohol or marijuana use”.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is the nation’s largest integrated hospital system, with more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually.

In an emailed response to questions, the VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, did not dispute that the new rules allowed doctors to refuse to treat veteran patients based on their beliefs or that physicians could be dismissed based on their marital status or political affiliation, but said “all eligible veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law”.

He said the rule changes were nothing more than “a formality”, but confirmed that they were made to comply with Trump’s executive order. Kasperowicz also said the revisions were necessary to “ensure VA policy comports with federal law”. He did not say which federal law or laws required these changes.
And of course the right either acts like they’re never going to lose power or that the left won’t act as irresponsibly as they do. This is why it’s baffling to me that anyone with half a brain cell could claim that both sides are the same. Just imagine the outrage of President AOC doing this but to republicans and red states. It’s absurd just to think about it. So much of our current situation is dependent on voters voting for the most entertaining candidates hoping that they won’t actually fulfill their campaign promises. IMO, it’s time for voters to feel how hot that stove truly is.
 
And of course the right either acts like they’re never going to lose power or that the left won’t act as irresponsibly as they do. This is why it’s baffling to me that anyone with half a brain cell could claim that both sides are the same. Just imagine the outrage of President AOC doing this but to republicans and red states. It’s absurd just to think about it. So much of our current situation is dependent on voters voting for the most entertaining candidates hoping that they won’t actually fulfill their campaign promises. IMO, it’s time for voters to feel how hot that stove truly is.

Yup, those who voted for Trump suffering massively for their hateful idiocy would be fine by me. Unfortunately everyone will suffer along with them.
 
Yup, those who voted for Trump suffering massively for their hateful idiocy would be fine by me. Unfortunately everyone will suffer along with them.
If it reminds voters how important it is to elect responsible and thoughtful adults to government, then good. Frankly, I’m tired of the nonsensical politics I’ve experienced for most of my adult life. From the insipid tea bagger movement to birtherism to Trump. It’s time for people to wake the **** up and empower government to function in order to make lives better instead of using government as a form of entertainment or a way to lash out at minorities because your daddy didn’t give you enough love and attention growing up. I know that 30 percent of the population is lost and will remain lost in the fantasy that Fox News and social media algorithms have created for them. But I’m hopeful that some pain might be enough to awaken a portion of the electorate that has taken our democracy for granted. It’s not partisan to want civically responsible leaders. What we have right now are a bunch of trolls and broken children obsessed with getting attention.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it reminds voters how important it is to elect responsible and thoughtful adults to government, then good. Frankly, I’m tired of the nonsensical politics I’ve experienced for most of my adult life. From the insipid tea bagger movement to birtherism to Trump. It’s time for people to wake the **** up and empower government to function in order to make lives better instead of using government as a form of entertainment or a way to lash out at minorities because your daddy didn’t give you enough love and attention growing up. I know that 30 percent of the population is lost and will remain lost in the fantasy that Fox News and social media algorithms have created for them. But I’m hopeful that some pain might be enough to awaken a portion of the electorate that has taken our democracy for granted. It’s not partisan to want civically responsible leaders. What we have right now are a bunch of trolls and broken children obsessed with getting attention.

The system works perfectly, the rich continue to get tax cuts, the communal wealth continues to transfer to the few and the rich get richer year after year.
 

The U.S. Army is now rolling out a new policy that disproportionately impacts Black soldiers, and one officer is questioning the motivations behind the announcement.

Military.com reported Friday that the Army is now planning to prohibit shaving waivers, requiring all soldiers to adhere to strict new grooming standards. Previously, soldiers who suffered from the skin condition pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) were allowed to ask for a waiver to bypass requirements to stay clean-shaven, as PFB patients can often have painful bumps and scarring from the use of a razor.

Soldiers who have PFB — which causes ingrown hairs that lead to skin irritation — may be able to have laser treatments covered by the Department of Defense. However, those treatments are costly and could amount to thousands of dollars per service member, and even laser treatments can cause scarring and may even alter skin pigmentation. Under the new policy, which is slated to take effect in the coming weeks, Soldiers who request shaving waivers for more than 12 months over a two-year period could be kicked out of the Army.

According to the American Osteopathic College of Dermatology, up to 60% of Black men suffer from PFB. And Military.com reported that Black Americans make up roughly one in four new Army recruits over the past several years even though they make up just 14% of the U.S. population.

"Of course, this is racially motivated," an unnamed senior noncommissioned officer told Military.com anonymously out of fear of retaliation. "There's no tactical reason; you can look professional with facial hair."
 

The U.S. Army is now rolling out a new policy that disproportionately impacts Black soldiers, and one officer is questioning the motivations behind the announcement.

Military.com reported Friday that the Army is now planning to prohibit shaving waivers, requiring all soldiers to adhere to strict new grooming standards. Previously, soldiers who suffered from the skin condition pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) were allowed to ask for a waiver to bypass requirements to stay clean-shaven, as PFB patients can often have painful bumps and scarring from the use of a razor.

Soldiers who have PFB — which causes ingrown hairs that lead to skin irritation — may be able to have laser treatments covered by the Department of Defense. However, those treatments are costly and could amount to thousands of dollars per service member, and even laser treatments can cause scarring and may even alter skin pigmentation. Under the new policy, which is slated to take effect in the coming weeks, Soldiers who request shaving waivers for more than 12 months over a two-year period could be kicked out of the Army.

According to the American Osteopathic College of Dermatology, up to 60% of Black men suffer from PFB. And Military.com reported that Black Americans make up roughly one in four new Army recruits over the past several years even though they make up just 14% of the U.S. population.

"Of course, this is racially motivated," an unnamed senior noncommissioned officer told Military.com anonymously out of fear of retaliation. "There's no tactical reason; you can look professional with facial hair."
This is going to hurt readiness. They have loosened restrictions on tattoos because so many potential recruits have tattoos. The pool of viable recruits is shrinking based on entrance requirements around BMI, drug use, criminal history, education, etc.. They're trying to push out LGBT people, now black people? Are they trying to recreate the SS?
 
This is going to hurt readiness. They have loosened restrictions on tattoos because so many potential recruits have tattoos. The pool of viable recruits is shrinking based on entrance requirements around BMI, drug use, criminal history, education, etc.. They're trying to push out LGBT people, now black people? Are they trying to recreate the SS?

Id have thought, drug use, criminal history and a lack of education would be an advantage for a soldier? Its a prerequisite it seems to be a republican congressman.
 

"This is the most deeply immoral piece of legislation I have ever voted on in my entire time in Congress,” said Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“[W]e're debating a bill that’s going to cut healthcare for 16 million people. It's going to give a tax break to…massively wealthy people who don't need any more money. There are going to be kids who go hungry because of this bill. This is the biggest reduction in…nutrition benefits for kids in the history of the country.” Murphy continued: “We're obviously gonna continue to offer these amendments to try to make it better. So far not a single one of our amendments…has passed, but we'll be here all day, probably all night, giving Republicans the chance over and over and over again to slim down the tax cuts for the corporations or to make life a little bit…less miserable for hungry kids or maybe don't throw as many people off of healthcare. Maybe don't close so many rural hospitals. It's gonna be a long day and a long night.”

“This bill is a farce,” said Senator Angus King (I-ME). “Imagine a bunch of guys sitting around a table, saying, ‘I've got a great idea. Let's give $32,000 worth of tax breaks to a millionaire and we’ll pay for it by taking health insurance away from lower-income and middle-income people. And to top it off, how about we cut food stamps, we cut SNAP, we cut food aid to people?’... I've been in this business of public policy now for 20 years, eight years as governor, 12 years in the United States Senate. I have never seen a bill this bad. I have never seen a bill that is this irresponsible, regressive, and downright cruel.”

“When I worked here in the 70's,” King said, “I had insurance as a…junior staff member in this body 50 years ago. Because I had that insurance that covered a free checkup, I went in and had my first physical in eight years…and the doctors found a little mole on my back. And they took it out. And I didn't think much of it. And I went in a week later and the doctor said, ‘You better sit down, Angus. That was malignant melanoma. You're going to have to have serious surgery.’… And I had the surgery and here I am. If I hadn’t had insurance, I wouldn’t be here. And it’s always haunted me that some young man in America that same year had malignant melanoma, he didn’t have insurance, he didn’t get that checkup, and he died. That’s wrong. It’s immoral.”

Senator King continued: “I don’t understand the obsession and I never have…with taking health insurance away from people. I don’t get it. Trying to take away the Affordable Care Act in 2017 or 2018 and now this. What’s driving this? What’s the cruelty to do this, to take health insurance away from people knowing that it’s going to cost them…up to and including…their lives.”

In fact, the drive to slash health insurance is part of the Republicans’ determination to destroy the modern government.

(This): “There are two ways of viewing the government's duty in matters affecting economic and social life,” FDR said in his speech accepting the 1932 Democratic nomination for president. “The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small business man.” The other “is based upon the simple moral principle: the welfare and the soundness of a Nation depend first upon what the great mass of the people wish and need; and second, whether or not they are getting it.”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top