82,000 in the federal risk pool. Remember: This is THE reason we are going to spend $1 trillion.
The concept of a high-risk pool reflects perverse regulations. Insurers are in the business of underwriting risk. They would willingly underwrite risk under the right conditions. The problem is the government doesn’t want to offend anyone by letting insurers force obese, hypertensive diabetics, for example, to adhere to protocols that would improve their health as a condition for health coverage. The government prefers to force companies; and now insurers to cross-subsidize known risks.
So according to the first link, the reason why California is passing this bill to ban these therapies is mainly because they “have driven young people to depression and suicide.” This sounds like a pretty good reason to me.
However, as I kept reading this article, I found myself a bit confused on my stand on this particular issue. It says that “therapists and conservative religious leaders who promote methods that they say can reduce homosexual desire have condemned the new law as a violation of free choice. They say that it will harm young people who want to fight homosexual attractions on religious or other grounds and warn that it will lead more people to seek help from untrained amateurs.” This also makes sense.
After reading all this, I believe the best way to approach this is, not neccesarily by banning this law, but by evaluating the mental and emotional stability of these people willing to go through these therapies beforehand, and if there are no red flags then let them go through with this process…otherwise, advise them to find some other way to overcome their struggle. Banning this law simply keeps those healthy people, mentally and emotionally stable (strong enough to go through with this process), from seeking a therapist’s help; and perhaps getting better in the long run.
How is it “junk science” if a child has an early sexual experience that alters his behavior in a way thats previously not characteristic in that individuals life? Isn’t that what psychologists do? Dont they try and help people with problems that have happened early in life that might be affecting them currently in life?
However, I would never want a minor to be guilted or pressured into having mental problems.
“PCIP runs until 2014. In 2014, everyone will have access to affordable health insurance choices through a new competitive marketplace called an Exchange, which prohibits discrimination based on a pre-existing condition.”
I didn’t know that about France. Quite fascinating actually…
82,000 in the federal risk pool. Remember: This is THE reason we are going to spend $1 trillion.
The concept of a high-risk pool reflects perverse regulations. Insurers are in the business of underwriting risk. They would willingly underwrite risk under the right conditions. The problem is the government doesn’t want to offend anyone by letting insurers force obese, hypertensive diabetics, for example, to adhere to protocols that would improve their health as a condition for health coverage. The government prefers to force companies; and now insurers to cross-subsidize known risks.
So according to the first link, the reason why California is passing this bill to ban these therapies is mainly because they “have driven young people to depression and suicide.” This sounds like a pretty good reason to me.
However, as I kept reading this article, I found myself a bit confused on my stand on this particular issue. It says that “therapists and conservative religious leaders who promote methods that they say can reduce homosexual desire have condemned the new law as a violation of free choice. They say that it will harm young people who want to fight homosexual attractions on religious or other grounds and warn that it will lead more people to seek help from untrained amateurs.” This also makes sense.
After reading all this, I believe the best way to approach this is, not neccesarily by banning this law, but by evaluating the mental and emotional stability of these people willing to go through these therapies beforehand, and if there are no red flags then let them go through with this process…otherwise, advise them to find some other way to overcome their struggle. Banning this law simply keeps those healthy people, mentally and emotionally stable (strong enough to go through with this process), from seeking a therapist’s help; and perhaps getting better in the long run.
The California article is interesting.
How is it “junk science” if a child has an early sexual experience that alters his behavior in a way thats previously not characteristic in that individuals life? Isn’t that what psychologists do? Dont they try and help people with problems that have happened early in life that might be affecting them currently in life?
However, I would never want a minor to be guilted or pressured into having mental problems.
Interesting legislation…
“PCIP runs until 2014. In 2014, everyone will have access to affordable health insurance choices through a new competitive marketplace called an Exchange, which prohibits discrimination based on a pre-existing condition.”
“The law appropriates $5 billion of federal funds to support PCIP, beginning on July 1, 2010 until January 1, 2014.”
http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/pcip/index.html
At a constant 82,000 people, that $5B would provide about $15,200 a year. How will this cost $1T?
It concerns me that we are now legislating inside people’s heads.
I agree that trying to “cure” homosexuality amounts to a psuedoscience and needs to be discontinued.