Just When you Thought Labour MP's Could not Get Any More Ridiculous. They prove me wrong and do so

LABOUR MP Dawn Butler received a furious backlash on Twitter after she claimed "a child is born without sex" during a heated exchange with Richard Madeley on Good Morning Britain.

Ms Butler clashed with Mr Madeley over their definitions of transgender. The ITV Good Morning Britain (GMB) host stated that when a child is born "they are identified and observed in a particular way." The Labour Party politician hit back saying "a child is born without sex." Ms Butler's comments enraged some Twitter users and they did not hold back, with outspoken GMB host Piers Morgan simply writing "insane".  

Mr Madeley asked: "Do you think somebody that embraces transgender but nevertheless decides that there is a biological difference based on chromosomes based on a penis that may not have been removed after surgery, are you saying that person is transphobic?"

Ms Butler replied: "If you’re saying that a trans woman isn’t a woman then there are issues around that.

"Taking about penises and vaginas doesn’t help the conversation because what you’re saying then is a trans woman isn’t a woman by your own definition."


https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1243758/Labour-MP-Dawn-Butler-Richard-Madeley-sex-baby-ITV-Good-Morning-Britain-GMB-latest-video


Video on link

I speak to countless Labour Members on twitter daily and you should see the despair and embarrassment many of them feel. With the direction Labour has gone. One that denies biological sex and wishes to replace this with gender ideology. Its like enacted religious beliefs into law, replacing those based on science. That is how ridiculous Labour has become

Labour care about people at least.
The Tories cannot relate to the "little people", all Eton educated fat cats who have never experienced poverty or suffering and view those on low incomes as parasites to be stepped on and crushed.
Food banks in the year 2020 shows how the divide between the elite and the ordinary has never been wider and more obscene. The country has become Orwellian, you couldn’t make it up.

Apologies if you vote Tory but their callous lack of regard for the more vulnerable in society and their transparent desire to privatise the NHS just makes me loathe them. It's all about money and division with them. I see individuals as equal and think their mentality quite disturbing if I'm honest.
Apart from that there's nowt wrong with them, a fine bunch I'll get off my soapbox anyway, apologies.

+1

Fluffyx wrote:Labour care about people at least.
The Tories cannot relate to the "little people", all Eton educated fat cats who have never experienced poverty or suffering and view those on low incomes as parasites to be stepped on and crushed.
Food banks in the year 2020 shows how the divide between the elite and the ordinary has never been wider and more obscene. The country has become Orwellian, you couldn’t make it up.

Apologies if you vote Tory but their callous lack of regard for the more vulnerable in society and their transparent desire to privatise the NHS just makes me loathe them. It's all about money and division with them. I see individuals as equal and think their mentality quite disturbing if I'm honest.
Apart from that there's nowt wrong with them, a fine bunch  I'll get off my  soapbox anyway,  apologies.

Eh? I have worked for the NHS and understanding its shortcomings.
I believe in a system that is free on the point on entry, but the reality is our system is unworkable going forward
No other system in the world has the equivalent system

Also my view was on Labour Mp's, not left and right as people have varying differences in what they follow and often cross over each other
So you jut made an irrelevant and off topic point basically bashing any single Tory supporter. Of which I am not.
I used to be, but no party around has any sound policies

All of which has nothing to do with a Labour MP, having the least idea what biological sex is and buying into a gender ideology. Of which many female labour members are rightly up in arms over. When their sex based rights are being eradicated by the leader members of the Labour party

Thorin wrote:

Fluffyx wrote:Labour care about people at least.
The Tories cannot relate to the "little people", all Eton educated fat cats who have never experienced poverty or suffering and view those on low incomes as parasites to be stepped on and crushed.
Food banks in the year 2020 shows how the divide between the elite and the ordinary has never been wider and more obscene. The country has become Orwellian, you couldn’t make it up.

Apologies if you vote Tory but their callous lack of regard for the more vulnerable in society and their transparent desire to privatise the NHS just makes me loathe them. It's all about money and division with them. I see individuals as equal and think their mentality quite disturbing if I'm honest.
Apart from that there's nowt wrong with them, a fine bunch  I'll get off my  soapbox anyway,  apologies.

Eh? I have worked for the NHS and understanding its shortcomings.
I believe in a system that is free on the point on entry, but the reality is our system is unworkable going forward
No other system in the world has the equivalent system

Also my view was on Labour Mp's, not left and right as people have varying differences in what they follow and often cross over each other
So you jut made an irrelevant and off topic point basically bashing any single Tory supporter. Of which I am not.
I used to be, but no party around has any sound policies

All of which has nothing to do with a Labour MP, having the least idea what biological sex is and buying into a gender ideology. Of which many female labour members are rightly up in arms over. When their sex based rights are being eradicated by the leader members of the Labour party

This true, no other country has the equivalent of our NHS and that is why it is the envy of the world.
The system is not unworkable, it is simply all about priority. The government could put funding into the NHS and resume it's survival, more than that, it could ensure its stability and growth. But there is no money to be made in sustaining the NHS ergo why The Tories want healthcare to go private. Which many people in low incomes can ill afford. But the Tories don't care about that either.

It was a slight ,ok very off topic post, but that's because I don't feel singling out one lone member of the Labour party and their views on a particular topic reflects the party as a whole, nor does it support any such hypothesis that all "Labour Mp's are getting more ridiculous ".

I like to think I am more polite than to "bash " Tory voters because I feel some may be misguided and younger electorate's may not understand the true mentality of the party. But I do occasionally lapse onto bashing the Mp's and the party itself yes. I think they are potentially very dangerous.

So we are completely off topic now and no concern over Labour leaderships wishes to enforce policies in law. That have no bases in science and if people do not believe them. To be considered as hate speech?

All the current potential leaders have signed up a declaration on this attacking an LGB organisation and a women's organisation. The later fighting to keep female protected categories in sport

The NHS is not the envy of the world

Look at survival rates for cancer, heart disease etc

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/uk-still-behind-cancer-survival-despite-advances/

Survival rates for cancer sufferers in the US is largely dependant on whether the victim has plenty of wealth or a decent insurance policy.
No money or no insurance = no hope.

The insurance market is a betting parlour. Really, it began in shipping. Sea loans on goods might be cancelled if disaster befell the ship, but only for a fee. That fee became a premium for payment of the goods.

Eventually, as banks and insurance enterprises became separate, it became acceptance of a risk in return for a premium (the fee). At this transition, insurance became more of a betting system: insurance companies would 'pay off' if any disaster came along; otherwise they kept the premium.

Essentially, the insurance placed a bet that all would go well, and if it didn't it would pay the loss. If either the chance of loss or the cost of the loss went up, the premium to purchase the bet likewise went up.

Eventually, life insurance and medical insurance had to face the reality that the bet would ultimately be lost. Everyone dies. Life insurance handles this by treating it as a loan throughout the duration of the life, paid back when the risk holder reached 60, 65, or a certain age. Medical insurance did not have that duration of interest-free money, and so insurance companies hedge their bet by having an aggregate limit, and by excluding certain high-risk factors (look on the Exclusions page of your policy). If you study those exclusions closely, you may find you don't have any, or very little insurance coverage.

Any gambler knows how to hedge his bets. But the average guy finds out only after the loss. These chances make the insurance market a bad way to deliver health services. Better a system like NHS.

Brutus wrote:Survival rates for cancer sufferers in the US is largely dependant on whether the victim has plenty of wealth or a decent insurance policy.
No money or no insurance = no hope.

So folks treated by medicare, Medicaid, the VA or in the county hospital don't get good care?

Maddog wrote:

Brutus wrote:Survival rates for cancer sufferers in the US is largely dependant on whether the victim has plenty of wealth or a decent insurance policy.
No money or no insurance = no hope.

So folks treated by medicare, Medicaid, the VA or in the county hospital don't get good care?  

Maddog, is it true that on US insurance plans if you have to go to hospital outside your network area, or use a doctor not in your network, then you have to pay thousands of dollars?

Is it also true that you sometimes have to pay a lot up front before insurance covers it?

Is it also true that insurance doesn't cover all health care?

I'm asking out of genuine interest and to confirm things I've heard and read, from other Americans, but from someone who is not either left leaning or a Democrat.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So folks treated by medicare, Medicaid, the VA or in the county hospital don't get good care?  

Maddog, is it true that on US insurance plans if you have to go to hospital outside your network area, or use a doctor not in your network, then you have to pay thousands of dollars?

Is it also true that you sometimes have to pay a lot up front before insurance covers it?

Is it also true that insurance doesn't cover all health care?

I'm asking out of genuine interest and to confirm things I've heard and read, from other Americans, but from someone who is not either left leaning or a Democrat.

You need to stay in your network unless it an emergency. If I make an appointment with a doctor not in my network, they probably won't pay. But my regular doctor who I know is in my network, would recommend a specialist also in my network.

Before Obamacare we could carry policies that had very high deductibles. That's what I used to carry. You could save 200 bucks a month or so, if you paid the first 5 grand or so every year of your coverage. After you paid your deductible, the insurance kicked in. Those plans were popular with the self employed as they were cheap, but covered an expensive major procedure or illness.

Insurance companies can deny coverage based on the plan. I doubt my policy is comprehensive enough to pay for a sex change operation. It will cover what I need, and like in any free market there are very comprehensive plans that cover everything, if you want to write the check every month. Although most individuals dont get those plans, because they dont make financial sense. Those are usually plans that employers offer as part of their benefits package.

Then there is government coverage for the poor, the elderly and veterans. Also, there are policies that augment those government programs. Something like BUPA I guess.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) covers all who show up at emergency wards of Hospitals.

However, it is indiscriminate in the kind and costs of medical care. If everyone knew about, and used it, it would make the cost of the NHS pale.

All the more reason for the US to implement a comprehensive socialized medical program like the NHS.

Maddog wrote:

Brutus wrote:Survival rates for cancer sufferers in the US is largely dependant on whether the victim has plenty of wealth or a decent insurance policy.
No money or no insurance = no hope.

So folks treated by medicare, Medicaid, the VA or in the county hospital don't get good care?  

Do the Maths...

30% of Americans can't afford or access adequate medical insurance.

Private hospitals and funds cover 90% of the medical assets in the USA --  meaning that only 10% is in public hospitals, university hospitals and the VRA system..

So that the poorest 30% can only access 10% of the nation's health services;
Compared to the "middle and higher income" sectors == nearly 70% having varying access to some 90% of those services.  Nearly 15 times as much is available, if their insurance will cover it..

While the top couple % can please themselves...

I cannot imagine being without the NHS, no offence Maddog, but the American system sounds fraught with complexities to me.

We are so lucky in the UK to have an implemented system where both physical and mental health is treated free to those who desperately need it.
If only the Tories could see past making money all the time and nuture such a vital system. They would want healthcare to be free if their loved ones were unable to afford it but because they are well off they are simply incapable of empathy.
It's a truly sad time for British society which is so much more colder, clinical and grabby than it was even as little as a decade ago.

Fluffy wrote:If only the Tories could see past making money all the time and nuture such a vital system.

What is more important?  Saving a newborn baby's life, or a new fighter plane for the admirals and generals?  Since 1942, the US has only used military hardware to invade and offend other nations, so I don't see the utility.  However, if that's your newborn child, the utility to you is 100%.

Here in America we are so mindful of protecting some capitalist's ability to make bets on our health, that we actually vote against anyone who wants to take our health insurance away and replace it with comprehensive healthcare.

Imagine that...protecting someone who wants to bet over the baby's life.  Capitalism makes for a sick world.

Fluffyx wrote:I cannot imagine being without the  NHS, no offence Maddog,  but the American system sounds fraught with complexities to me.

We are so lucky in the UK to have  an implemented system where both physical and mental health is treated free to those who desperately need it.
If only the Tories could see past making money all the time and nuture such a vital system. They would want healthcare to be free if their loved ones were  unable to afford it but because they are well off they are simply incapable of empathy.
It's a truly sad time for British society which is so much more colder, clinical and grabby than it was even as little as a decade ago.

It is much more complex. And like is happening in all countries, care is getting more expensive and people are struggling to pay for it. Whether it's a government or an individual.

On second thought, it's not really complex for the poor or the wealthy. It can be for those of us in the middle.

Original Quill wrote:

Fluffy wrote:If only the Tories could see past making money all the time and nuture such a vital system.

What is more important?  Saving a newborn baby's life, or a new fighter plane for the admirals and generals?  Since 1942, the US has only used military hardware to invade and offend other nations, so I don't see the utility.  However, if that's your newborn child, the utility to you is 100%.

Here in America we are so mindful of protecting some capitalist's ability to make bets on our health, that we actually vote against anyone who wants to take our health insurance away and replace it with comprehensive healthcare.

Imagine that...protecting someone who wants to bet over the baby's life.  Capitalism makes for a sick world.

Your last sentence is so true.
Yet people cannot see that greed is like a sickness and poisons everyone who feels it.

Maddog wrote:It is much more complex. And like is happening in all countries, care is getting more expensive and people are struggling to pay for it. Whether it's a government or an individual.

That's easy. If the nation controls all of medical care, including pharmaceuticals, the cost won't climb. In fact, they can lower the cost.