Hypothetical Dystopia

Federal health-care programs and those funded with federal dollars are barred from discriminating against transgender people, a senior official with the Department of Health and Human Services told LGBT advocacy groups in July — a sweeping decision that will impact most health-care services across the country.

—

This is huge. I cannot stress the importance of knowing your rights. ObamaCare (I personally hate that term because I feel like it takes away the validity and importance of our Health Care as if saying….”this is just one person’s opinion and doesn’t really count…Why can’t they continue to say Affordable Care Act?…but I digress)….mandates that ANY healthcare agency receiving FEDERAL funding is not allowed to discriminate against transgender folk. 

However, there is still a question mark when it comes to transition related care. In the article it said, “Although the decision does not specifically address transition-related care — surgery and other medical procedures that some transgender people undergo in the course of moving to their self-identified gender — a leading transgender advocate says the decision is a “tool” to get protections that would cover transition-related care.”

I am curious to know what is meant by “tool”…what does that look like and what does that exactly entail? While we are still figuring out what exactly is defined as discrimination under the Affordable Care Act, here is the exact place within the document to point people to if you feel you have been discriminated against: “Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act — the 2010 health care overhaul known as ObamaCare — forbids discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, national origin, disability or age in health programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance or by programs administered by an Executive Agency or any entity established under Title I of the ACA, as the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights described the provision.”

-Ryan

Memo: ObamaCare Will Bar Discrimination Against Transgender People

(via ryansallans)

While STD and unintended pregnancy rates are the result of complex factors, the aggressive lack of interest the Texas government shows in getting health care to its residents shouldn’t be discounted as a major part of why it’s so bad there. It’s a simple formula: When people don’t get treated for STDs, they’re more likely to pass them on. When women don’t have the money to go to a doctor, they’re unlikely to get onto some of the most effective forms of birth control. The results are startling. For instance, the chlamydia rate in Texas from 2003-10 rose from 310 cases out of 100,000 people a year to 467 cases per 100,000, which means a net gain of 50,000 cases, a 73 percent increase in cases. How much of this increase is due to people ignoring symptoms because they simply can’t afford to see a doctor?

— Perry refuses ACA: How will this affect sexual health outcomes? (via becauseiamawoman)

I’m going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find, that includes Obamacare,

—

Republican presidential candidate MITT ROMNEY, essentially telling 30 million Americans without health insurance that they’re “non-essential.”

Good job, Mitt.

(via The Huffington Post)

Let’s see, what would Republicans consider essential?

The military. Tax cuts for the rich. Subsidies for oil companies. Creationism.

Everyone else? Sorry, the Republicans don’t care.

(via liberalbutnotpartisan)

(Source: inothernews)

Can we talk about the nonsense of caring about which news outlet first reports a big piece of news? I’m not talking about a genuine scoop—a report that wouldn’t have otherwise come to light—but about news that we’re all eventually going to find out anyway. Who Mitt Romney selects to be his running-mate, for instance, or whether the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate.

I know I’m often out-of-the-loop when it comes to journalism norms and conventions, but this one honestly confounds me. Has any publication ever received a Pulitzer for being the first to report a major announcement? Is there some secret reward at stake—free cookies for a year? A trip to Hawaii? Do colleagues buy you a drink to congratulate you on beating the other networks by ten seconds?

Because if this is just about bragging rights, it needs to stop. Now. And not just because it can lead to some outlets rushing to report incorrect information, as CNN and FOX did with the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform. But because the race to be first is no longer just a feature of news coverage but often the main factor driving it.

—

Amy Sullivan, The New Republic. Who Reported It First? Who Cares?

With the Supreme Court about to announce their decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act our (mostly cable) media were chomping at the bit to be first out of the gate with some BREAKING NEWS.

CNN, as we know, fell flat on its face. It’s been struck down, they reported incorrectly. Their amplification machine went into overdrive with banner headlines on CNN.com and posts on social media until Wolf Blitzer — in purely Wolf Blitzer moment — helpfully illuminated us all.

“It’s getting a little more complicated,” he said.

As Sullivan points out: “His remark, of course, referred to the network’s own coverage. The court’s decision couldn’t have gotten more complicated because it was final, set down on paper.”

Sullivan’s article is well worth the read. Yes, there’s some importance to speed, she writes, but the media focuses too much on getting it first on too many stories where getting it first really isn’t important. Like, say, a Supreme Court announcement that everyone will hear about when it’s actually announced.

If the topic interests you, check out her follow-up. And if your journo-geekery runs real deep, head over to SCOTUSblog where Tom Goldstein walks 7,000 plus words through a minute by minute account of how CNN and Fox got their reporting wrong, and who the whole media scrum works in cases such as this.

(via futurejournalismproject)

There was no relationship between the NAACP in Boston and Governor Mitt Romney and his administration,” Alkins says. “The only time that the NAACP had any interaction with the administration and the governor was to protest when he eliminated the affirmative action office.

— Mitt Romney and the NAACP: It’s complicated. (via motherjones)