This is what people who are worried have resorted to.
I can quite imagine the Trumpsters using this to claim that lazy ill people only need half as much medicine.
This is what people who are worried have resorted to.
Joint Chiefs to Trump: GTFO
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-military-ban-no-modification-241029?cmpid=sf
(I sent that to my mom )
It goes back to my point about this tweet...No modifications till it comes down officially through SecDef....
Technically, he's the Commander in Chief, so new enlistees don't really have much protection unless they successfully make a Constitutional challenge in court.I didn't think the President could just change the rules on stuff like that? Isn't it a matter of the Uniform Code, which can only be changed by Congress?
Or am I completely wrong?
Browder's prepared remarks. What a story...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee/534864/
Thanks. Hopefully it won't come to court cases and he'll just back down quietly.Technically, he's the Commander in Chief, so new enlistees don't really have much protection unless they successfully make a Constitutional challenge in court.
Those currently serving though... he's opening the US up to lawsuit.
http://www.newsweek.com/lgbt-advoca...nsgender-military-ban-and-well-see-you-642464
Those people have contracts with the military, they have retirement and medical benefits tied to those contracts that they'll only receive if they are given an honorable discharge.
Not to mention the fact that they'll need to be replaced... and the military is a hell of a lot more than just slugging a rifle through the mud. We're talking high ranking NCO's and Officers in intelligence services and the like.
The irony is that should it go to court it will probably cost more in litigation than it would to just pay for the surgeries.Thanks. Hopefully it won't come to court cases and he'll just back down quietly.
I don't think anyone believes for one minute that money has anything to do with it.The irony is that should it go to court it will probably cost more in litigation than it would to just pay for the surgeries.
The irony is that should it go to court it will probably cost more in litigation than it would to just pay for the surgeries.
First, that's not my point. Paying for surgeries is one of the justifications given for the ban. Secondly, if the issue was paying for surgeries, it would be much easier to just require that any gender reassignment surgeries be paid for privately rather than through Tri-care rather than to attempt to ban an entire class of people from serving their country. Finally, the reason why the surgeries are paid for by the government is because the soldiers are entitled to Tri-care services as part of their service to the nation in the armed forces.I can understand acceptance of transgender people in armed forces, but don't really get why the military should pay for the surgery itself?
First, that's not my point. Paying for surgeries is one of the justifications given for the ban. Secondly, if the issue was paying for surgeries, it would be much easier to just require that any gender reassignment surgeries be paid for privately rather than through Tri-care rather than to attempt to ban an entire class of people from serving their country. Finally, the reason why the surgeries are paid for by the government is because the soldiers are entitled to Tri-care services as part of their service to the nation in the armed forces.
The funny thing is that the surgeries cost 1/5th (and that's using the high end estimate of the cost of the surgeries) of what the military spends on providing soldiers with Viagra.Not a critical view, just a query. Your last line clarified it.
I can understand acceptance of transgender people in armed forces, but don't really get why the military should pay for the surgery itself?
An authoritative 2016 study by the Rand Corporation suggests the concern is unfounded. The study estimated that transgender health care costs for the estimated 2,450 active duty
transgender troops would increase the health budget by $2.4m to $8.4m annually - just 0.04% to 0.13%.
By comparison, the Pentagon spends about $84m annually on erectile dysfunction medication, according to a Military Times analysis - 10 times the upper estimate for transgender related costs.
If looks could kill........
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon
Jesus Christ.
I would like to exit this simulation and come back to the real world where Hillary is president.
Futurama 80's Guy said:“You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon
Jesus Christ.
I would like to exit this simulation and come back to the real world where Hillary is president.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon
Jesus Christ.
I would like to exit this simulation and come back to the real world where Hillary is president.
So...Mooch is blaming Priebus and Bannon, and presumably doesn't like either of them. Priebus and Bannon also don't like each other, while Bannon and Kushner have also got beef. Trump's aligned closely with Bannon, but Kushner's sleeping with someone Trump probably used to sleep with , and so they're closely aligned. Then you've got Trump's entire party, who's he's kind of aligned with default but doesn't actually like. What a mess.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon
Jesus Christ.
I would like to exit this simulation and come back to the real world where Hillary is president.