Would you support this bill?

[Barnes]

It's amusing that out of 17 people who voted yes, only one has even tried to share his reasons for doing. I suppose the rest are hiding in the proverbial shadows...

[DemPGH]

Personally, I'd like to see a more market-based solution, or things like charity developing more and being encouraged in Atlasia. This would make our individuals stronger, more compassionate and self-reliant

I've never liked the idea of charity as a driving force behind social safety nets, much less medical and psychological needs. I mean if people want to help their neighbor or a family member through some tough times or through university, that's altogether different, but charity as a driving force for the social safety net or for healthcare, for the love of all things good, means we're turning back the clock to a beggar model, essentially. It would create an even greater disparity in wealth, mobility, access, etc.

"Market-based solutions" aren't the end-all and the be-all either. You end up with monopolies and equity concentrated in one place all too often. E.g., I'm barely old enough to remember the mom-and-pop gas stations, for example, that are long gone now or operated by one of the monopolies.

Anyway, it will make for an interesting debate when it comes up!

[Prince of Salem]

I'd be interested to see how much it is costing.

At least $100,000,000 per year, according to official reports from the time the Transgender bill was passed. You can check it out here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never liked the idea of charity as a driving force behind social safety nets, much less medical and psychological needs. I mean if people want to help their neighbor or a family member through some tough times or through university, that's altogether different, but charity as a driving force for the social safety net or for healthcare, for the love of all things good, means we're turning back the clock to a beggar model, essentially. It would create an even greater disparity in wealth, mobility, access, etc.

"Market-based solutions" aren't the end-all and the be-all either. You end up with monopolies and equity concentrated in one place all too often. E.g., I'm barely old enough to remember the mom-and-pop gas stations, for example, that are long gone now or operated by one of the monopolies.

Anyway, it will make for an interesting debate when it comes up!

1. Mr. President-elect, isn't what you are saying about charity the same to what conservatives say about welfare? It's not like I want to cut all social programs, but we should really think twice before creating and funding a new one.

2. Of course they are no end-all or be-all, but it's still an alternative not to be dismissed. It's not much about cutting as it is about allowing to create. Of course, this time we are cutting, but that's because of the expense (see above).

3. Mr. President-elect, that's exactly what market-based solutions prevent: monopolies and equity concentrated in one place. By allowing more particulars to create, you don't only reduce the power of government bureaucracies, but you also relax their burden.

4. Well, the debate will come up soon! Senator Bore has been kind to introduce my bill to the Senate (though he opposes it) and it is now in the queue.

TNF's bill had bipartisan support btw with the votes of Federalists and Laborites, so the chances of this passing or even being sponsored are slim.

If you check out the process of the passing of the bill, you'll see that an amendment that was very similar to my proposed legislation recieved broad support from both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (it failed with the vote of then-Vicepresident Matt). And as I mentioned before, it already has a sponsor. So... no, and no ^^

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Not the governments job to cover sex change operations. Can we all just understand there's no such thing as group rights.

[TNF]

If you're worried about the budget, you should know that what we spend I these procedures is negligible compared to what it costs for us to subsidize religious organizations with favorable tax treatment.

Or what we lose in not taxing so-called charities that often act as a means for the rich to dodge taxation.

[Prince of Salem]

If you're worried about the budget, you should know that what we spend I these procedures is negligible compared to what it costs for us to subsidize religious organizations with favorable tax treatment.

Or what we lose in not taxing so-called charities that often act as a means for the rich to dodge taxation.

Well, that's important too, and we can agree on that ^^ Tax deductions only make things more complicated. I support eliminating most of them (if not all). And religious organizations should fund themselves like any other organization does

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No. I think most people who oppose it don't understand how necessary the procedure is to correct a wrong. This is not a cosmetic procedure. It's a corrective one. I signed it for that very reason.