winning what? debates? you mean reasoning with a pigeon?

Hey MD: The fact that appointments we pay a bunch of money for are only 15 minutes is pretty fucked up in a lot of cases.

It is messed up, I agree. You can’t address much in 15 min. What you don’t necessarily see is the BS administrative burden that also comes with visits that may or may not be factored in to the face-to-face encounter duration.

Oh, and the fact that you all can cancel on us at the last minute with no problem, but if we cancel we get charged is absolute bullshit.

Not every practice does charge for cancellation. But if someone reviews your chart before the visit and you cancel the same day or night before, you might actually end up wasting provider time. Just an FYI.

And he doesn’t get convicted and he’ll campaign on how nasty the Dems are. An impeachment without conviction is a “win”.

It depends. Congress critters getting priority access to NIH/Walter Reed level care is one of those perks of being a politician. Of course, they can pay a lot for boutique medicine but I’d say, boutique medicine usually doesn’t provide the best care. And if they’d got to non-fed academic institutions, they’d get an earful about this fuckery.

So believe it or not, it would impact people in congress quite directly.

The US population is unhealthy and there is a strong relationship between covid mortality and obesity. So some of the susceptibility cannot be blamed on a single sitting president. That said, his lying in February and March cost a lot of lives up front and that’s where he could have made the strongest impact by showing leadership and preparedness (like getting masks so HCW wouldn’t have to wear the same N95 for a month). He used an Obama-era system to boost the development of the vaccine (moderna at least). And then he bitched about lockdowns, which should have been managed dynamically based on the local healthcare system resources/capacity. But the most telling thing was, the moment he LOST the election, he abandoned the vaccine deployment efforts, so Americans lost 2 months in the rollout.

The WH accidentally invented Schrödinger’s Sex.

Of course it’s also wrong because unlike dead/alive sex is a bimodally distributed continuum we binarize for simplicity. Also, don’t look up the Schrödinger dude’s sexual preferences because you’ll puke. But that stays on brand too.

If anything happened to Fauci, they’d see a massive exodus from HHS and it would start a movement those gerontocrats needing doctors would not appreciate.

What’s infuriating, and when I realized how homicidally bad trump is was February 2020, when there was all those rapidly published data trump had access to weeks prior to publication, and he kept on calling it the “flu”. Yet wingnuts had to go over tens of thousands of Fauci emails to attack him. Yet nobody’s criticized trump’s publicly recorded lying that caused tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

it’s annoying that politicians don’t call it what it is: import tax.

he is a digital frotteur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frotteurism). at the same time this is where everyone should draw the line.

Ha! Even more senators! Or should I say SANEators:D

yup. a good PCP is hard to find, and even harder to keep in America.

Not universal, but absolutely common, unfortunately. The standard is 30 minutes for returns and 60 for news, but in private practice they tend to cut it much shorter.

I know this is a popular notion, but have you guys thought about:

1. If the doctor sees someone who is 30 minutes late, their entire schedule slips. So y’all complain if they don’t see you if you are 15 minutes late (usually that’s the policy), but also complain if you have to wait.
2. Have you guys thought about that primary care appts are in 15-20min increments (30min tends to be generous), which means, they either don’t address your issues if they are complicated. Or they’ll tend to run late?

Many people have no transportation, and it’s even harder to make it on time if one’s sick, so it’s just the right thing to try to squeeze in those who are late, but y’all can’t have it both ways.

source: am MD. And yeah I rather run late but see everybody and address everything I can, than finish on time and help nobody/few.

Can you point me to the part of the text where they provide clarification from a biological standpoint? This language sets up the interpretation: “the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female […] grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality”. So if this is an “incontrovertible reality” then why do people have such an easy time refuting it?

Which gives me flashbacks about having to learn the specific adrenal enzyme dysfunctions that lead to erroneous sex-assignments at birth. But again, I don’t think people need biology degrees to have an understanding of this and I’d like society to stop trying to give “good faith” interpretations to texts that are explicitly written in bad faith.

s clearly indicates the ‘belonging’ occurs ‘at conception’, not the production of disparately sized cells. When the production occurs is not specified at all and nothing in the definition depends upon when it occurs, merely that it does at some point. This creates it own set of problems, but not the ones everyone is pointing and laughing

Firstly, I have an MD and would have never commented on this without reading the specific text from the WH. Med school curricula cover this in molecular biology, embryology, medical genetics, pediatrics and obstetrics, and endocrinology.

Secondly, the definition implies that zygotes can be classified as male/female at conception, which they obviously cannot be without further clarification. Your “good faith” reasoning is that you can retrospectively make that assignment, but there are no criteria to determine how that assignment ultimately happens, which therefore requires additional layers of “good faith” reasoning. Which takes us back to, yeah, the WH definition is hot garbage.

You’re talking about genotype. They define sex based on phenotype. It assumes that the genotype can only be binary (it can be X0, XXY, XYY etc). It also assumes that genotype equates with phenotype, which is also wrong given in utero hormonal exposures, testosterone insensitivity, etc.

The WH definition makes no sense for anybody familiar with biology beyond 10th grade level.

**TL;DR: The issue is that there is no “good faith” interpretation of the text for anybody who studied 11th grade biology or above. **

It essentially makes a bunch of statements and assumptions with very very concrete omissions:

1. The zygote (fertilized egg) is a “person”. It’s a philosophical question, but considering that in IVF studies, successful implantation rates are around 10-15% (implantation does not guarantee survival past the 3rd trimester). So it’s actually very unlikely that the particular zygote will become a human being with agency. So good faith arguments would argue for special protections, but not personhood to it and that’s how you spot that the endgame is to use this false argument to override the agency of the actual person carrying the pregnancy.

**2. There is no sex assigned at conception. ** A single-cell zygote only has 2 sex-specific parameters: sex chromosome sets (or the lack thereof), and DNA methylation patterns. Neither of those guarantee manifestation of a male or female phenotype. So based on that, we are all asexual. The default sex for humans is actually female, and the primary function of the Y chromosome is to inhibit the development of the female form signs of that initiate in everyone first. So by that default, we are all female. And then the best faith assumption is that they mean is chromosomally determined sex at conception, but chromosome variations like XXY and XYY aren’t uncommon, and there are conditions where male chromosome sets yield female phenotype due to testosterone insensitivity (see testicular feminisation).

So no, the EO reads like someone trying to make biological definitions who has a <11th grade understanding of biology.

Besides this being a distraction, it’s more likely that in this case Canada would end up politically annexing the USA:

• The 2 Senators and 50 something electoral votes for “Canada State” would mean that Canadians would end up controlling US politics. :D

Of course if one assumes that elections remain binding in the Turd Reich.