Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Tom Sawyer]

This thread isn't about UHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The decision is made by the government, saying what is the standard of care. That standard of care is allowed to slip to keep costs down. For example, long wait lists to see specialists. We have some of that--but if the primary care doc suspects it's urgent they'll get you in anyway.

Your hypothetical UHC system is nothing like the actual UHC systems in place in real nations today. You are arguing against a straw man.

But even if you were not, you would be better served by having decisions made by an elected government who can be voted out of office if they don't act in the patients' best interests, rather than having an insurance company make those calls.

You need to stop contemplating your navel, and to start looking at reality, if you want anyone to take you seriously on this subject.

Reality: So long as the UHC system works for most people (who don't need much health care) the politicians are doing the voter's will by denying care.

However, under our system that insurance company can be held liable.

 

[laughing dog]

This thread isn't about UHC

Neither are LP's posts.

 

[southernhybrid]

The problem with UHC is you have the same people deciding what is proper care and funding that care. It's easier to cut the standards than do it right and there's no meaningful accountability.

You have that backwards.

In UHC the decision on what is proper care is made by medical professionals. These are not the people funding that care - the funding comes from government.

A system where the funding comes from an insurance company, and the insurance company also decides what is or is not covered might have the problem you describe. But that's not UHC.

No. The decision is made by the government, saying what is the standard of care. That standard of care is allowed to slip to keep costs down. For example, long wait lists to see specialists. We have some of that--but if the primary care doc suspects it's urgent they'll get you in anyway.

Another example, minor but an example of what's going on: Medicare has decided that hormone replacement is inappropriate for any woman over 65, period. Since they're the government they can simply refuse to pay for it with no consequences. Never mind women for which the minor risk is nothing compared to the quality of life issues. Never mind transsexuals. No private insurance company could get away with that sort of garbage.

Do you realize that it's private health insurance companies that administer Part D for Medicare? Do you realize that it's those insurance companies that decide which drugs to cover? And, did you realize that an individual can call the insurance company or have their pharmacist or doctor call the company and get the HRT covered? Of course it's covered under the largest copay, which means that the individual will have to pay 50% of the cost. I am a Medicare recipient over the age of 65 who has convinced Silver Scripts to pay for part of my HRT for the past three years. The problem is that our drug costs are absurdly high, and our corporation controlled Congress doesn't want us to be able to negotiate for drug prices. What I once paid 55 per month for when I had no drug coverage insurance back in 2006, I now pay half of 188 dollars a month for the exact same drug. The full retail price is over 300 dollars according to my pharmacist. Why are hormones so expensive? Please do some DD before you make statements that aren't true. And, I'm sorry that I added to the derail, but it really annoys me when someone makes claims that aren't at all true. That is all.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[LordKiran]

View attachment 15502

So are corporations people or aren't they? Now I'm confused...

 

[Toni]

Or how about treating girls and women well enough that they are able to get the education, training, and jobs that they need to make their own way in life and don’t have to spread their legs for random strangers 4-10 times a day.

You're assuming they have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution. Most of them don't. (Not singling them out--most men can't, either.)

I’m assuming that the many, many pieces I’ve read are accurate and truthful, as well as my familiarity with some women I grew up with who, at least for a time, turned tricks, and that a great many prostitutes enter that line of work out of desperation, usually from some pretty dire situations. Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

No, it's not even remotely curious. As has been mentioned to you in every other thread on this topic where you've subtly and not-so-subtly implied that the people who disagree with you on the matter are really just closeted misogynists, every single statement about female prostitutes can apply equally as well to male prostitutes. It's just that most prostitutes are female, so it's more common to use "her" instead of "him and her".

Also, the same would also apply to transgendered prostitutes as well, despite your utter lack of concern for those with nonstandard gender identities. It's telling how little they appear to matter to you.

 

[laughing dog]

Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

No, it's not even remotely curious.

I agree. It may not be misogyny but simple sexism. Because Toni is dead on - no one suggests that males who do not have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution should turn to prostitution. I'll wager that thought never even crosses their minds. Why do you think that is?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

No, it's not even remotely curious.

I agree. It may not be misogyny but simple sexism. Because Toni is dead on - no one suggests that males who do not have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution should turn to prostitution. I'll wager that thought never even crosses their minds. Why do you think that is?

Because it's not. It's perfectly fine for adult males to choose to become prostitutes. There's just far less of a market for it. It's similar to the reason that there are very few women who make a living playing professional football. That reason is simple sexism on the part of the NFL.

It's also very telling that you not only completely ignored the part of my post about transgendered prostitutes, but intentionally deleted it out like it didn't exist. I feel justified in not-so-subtly implying that this is because of a bigotry you're trying to hide where you want to pretend that transgendered people don't exist and that's the underlying motivation behind your entire position. That is how logic works and there is nothing completely lame and stupid about basing my argument against you on that assumption.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree. It may not be misogyny but simple sexism. Because Toni is dead on - no one suggests that males who do not have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution should turn to prostitution. I'll wager that thought never even crosses their minds. Why do you think that is?

Because it's not. It's perfectly fine for adult males to choose to become prostitutes. There's just far less of a market for it.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue that no one suggests males without other abilities to turn to prostitution.

It's also very telling that you not only completely ignored the part of my post about transgendered prostitutes, but intentionally deleted it out like it didn't exist. I feel justified in not-so-subtly implying that this is because of a bigotry you're trying to hide where you want to pretend that transgendered people don't exist and that's the underlying motivation behind your entire position. That is how logic works and there is nothing completely lame and stupid about basing my argument against you on that assumption.

Why respond to irrelevancies?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue that no one suggests males without other abilities to turn to prostitution.

It's also very telling that you not only completely ignored the part of my post about transgendered prostitutes, but intentionally deleted it out like it didn't exist. I feel justified in not-so-subtly implying that this is because of a bigotry you're trying to hide where you want to pretend that transgendered people don't exist and that's the underlying motivation behind your entire position. That is how logic works and there is nothing completely lame and stupid about basing my argument against you on that assumption.

Why respond to irrelevancies?

Because they're funny. The constant no-so-subtle implications that the people on the other side of the argument hold their positions because of some type of misogyny and the like stopped being insulting a long while back and just became really humorous because of how lame they are. When somebody posts a funny comment that makes me laugh, I enjoy responding with another funny comment designed to make other people laugh. I also enjoy finding a way to work Superman and Batman into the conversation, but there hasn't been an opportunity to shoehorn either of them into the topic yet (keep tuning in, though).

 

[Toni]

Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

No, it's not even remotely curious. As has been mentioned to you in every other thread on this topic where you've subtly and not-so-subtly implied that the people who disagree with you on the matter are really just closeted misogynists, every single statement about female prostitutes can apply equally as well to male prostitutes. It's just that most prostitutes are female, so it's more common to use "her" instead of "him and her".

Also, the same would also apply to transgendered prostitutes as well, despite your utter lack of concern for those with nonstandard gender identities. It's telling how little they appear to matter to you.

I think you need to go back and read the caution that some mod or another put in this thread with fresh, objective eyes.

Your accusations against me are baseless and I believe are intentionally insulting since I don’t believe that you are actually stupid.

 

[Toni]

You know what? Never mind. This is obviously a boys club. I really don’t need this misogynist shit.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I’m assuming that the many, many pieces I’ve read are accurate and truthful, as well as my familiarity with some women I grew up with who, at least for a time, turned tricks, and that a great many prostitutes enter that line of work out of desperation, usually from some pretty dire situations. Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

Yes, it is. I'm going to think about that some more.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

Who was saying that a woman's best course of action is to turn tricks??? Her having the privilege of having the option to make a ton of money at it doesn't mean she must or should do so. Its an option. That's it. And its an option that men and uglier women don't have, either at all or to the extent that attractive women do.

You know what? Never mind. This is obviously a boys club. I really don’t need this misogynist shit.

Its funny how you accuse everybody who disagrees with you of having misogyny in their heads, and don't listen to them, while you simultaneously complain that people don't listen to you and claim to know what's in your head.

I also enjoy finding a way to work Superman and Batman into the conversation, but there hasn't been an opportunity to shoehorn either of them into the topic yet (keep tuning in, though).

Same bat time? Same bat channel?

 

[laughing dog]

Who was saying that a woman's best course of action is to turn tricks???

No one said that. LP wrote "You're assuming they have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution.”.

It’s funny that you mischaracterize anyone’s position with whom you disagree but you complain when others accurately portray the shallowness or hypocrisy of your position, Jolly Penguin.

 

[Derec]

Maybe you've never read accounts by girls and women who have escaped from forced prostitution, but I have.

And I still have no idea why you think these women would be better off if you persecute consenting adults.

How many women do you know who would willingly have sex with 6 or 8 men a day, day after day after day? Because I'm telling you: after 6 or 7 times, stuff gets sore, no matter what kind of lubricant you use.

Given the prevailing prices, the average sex worker can make a very good living just seeing 1-2 clients 5 days a week or so. Even at 6 clients a day, at average of $20/BJ and $40/sex (bare bottom of the market pretty much) you are looking at grossing $180 per day if half want blowjob only, which is equivalent to a $22.50/h job for a full 8 hour day. Not bad for maybe 3h of active work.

If y'all think it's so great, why don't you just help each other get off? Whaat? You aren't attracted to other guys? Here's a bit hint for you: the prostitutes are not attracted to their customers either. A lot aren't attracted to men at all. I realize that for a lot of guys, that's part of the turn on. And what does it matter as long as you throw a few bucks their way.

There are male prostitutes catering to men too, and not all of them are gay. As long as they consent to it, what's the problem? As to your suggestion, sex work is not for everybody obviously. I would not like to clean toilets for a living either, but it's legitimate work nevertheless.

 

[Derec]

Sure.

Hard to find it now, but Kamala herself said before that one of the reasons she was going after BP is because it is a marketplace when one can hire a sex worker easily. Not sex trafficking is the real issue, but the fact that it was a convenient marketplace for sex work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/opinion/when-backpagecom-peddles-schoolgirls-for-sex.html

Note that the author is an activist. He says he has been writing about this since the 90s.

A devastating new subcommittee report shows that the company protects pimps from their carelessness by deleting hints that a girl is underage. For example, if a pimp tries to post an ad for a “Lolita,” “little girl,” “school girl” or “amber alert,” those terms are automatically stripped from the ad — but it is still posted, so the girl will still be sold for sex.
One Backpage document indicated that by 2010, more than 70 percent of its ads in the adult section were being edited like that, suggesting that the company was far more involved in manipulating content than it ever let on.

Editing is one thing, but the author (nor the politicians) did not provide any evidence that the edited ads are linked to underage prostitution. An ad with "Lolita" in description is not necessarily for an underage hooker any more than schoolgirl porn features actual schoolgirls. Take the 70% figure. Nobody is claiming anywhere close to that number are actual underage sex workers. That means that editing is done for other reasons and cannot be used as evidence that BP management knew that any particular ad was underage.
Again, if the aim was to curb trafficking and underage prostitution, law enforcement should have worked with BP, not against. But the aim has been to shut down online sex trade writ large. That's why it is not just BP but virtually every US website dealing with sex work, including discussion boards, that have gone dark since this draconian law has been passed. If the real aim was sex trafficking, why is the legislation so draconian? Why is it shutting down everybody?

Sure, some people selling sex are adults acting on their own to make money, and that’s not a concern of mine. If Backpage carefully verified names and ages, I’d be fine with that. But Backpage has more stringent rules for selling a dog than for selling a kid.

Quite a bit of hyperbole. Note that if sex work was legal, BP would have more leeway to police ads. But since we live in a world where politicians like Kamila Harris want to shut down all sex trade, that means that these websites were under constant threat by overzealous politicians.

I’ve written repeatedly about Backpage over the years because the stories haunt me. My first column about Backpage involved a 13-year-old girl whom I called Baby Face. Her pimp had kicked her down a stairwell for trying to flee, and she was hurting and bleeding and couldn’t bear another rape, but her pimp sold her on Backpage anyway. He took her to an apartment building and waited outside after telling her which apartment to go to.

And what percentage of BP ads are for girls like that? I have never seen anything approaching a 13 year old.
Note that if you have are a pimp with a 13 year old, you want to market her as such to perverts who like them that young and are willing to pay big. Pretending she is 18 is defeating the purpose - you face a lot more risk but you can't charge more than an adult sex worker charges.
These horror stories served their purpose in passing this legislation and shutting down online sex trade in the US, but I do not think these horror stories are any different than horror stories of gays preying on children. Did it happen in isolated cases? I am sure it has. But it wasn't commonplace and neither is this.

Derec, the least you could do is be honest: you don't really care that children are being prostituted through Backpage, Craigslist and many, many other sites.

I do. I just don't think this is as widespread a problem as it is made out to be. And working with these sites instead of persecuting them would have been a better course of action if the goal is shutting down predators and not just shutting down all sex trade like you, Kamila Harris etc. want.

You just care that your favorite venue for obtaining prostitutes got shut down.

It's not just BP. All ad sites and even discussion fora got shut down.

It's not like you are really different than most of the posters in this thread. They may not actually pay for prostitutes--or maybe they do. But they sure don't really care about the collateral damage of kids being forced into prostitution--that is being raped for other people's profit. After all, eventually these girls will turn 18 and be fully legal--and experienced. Assuming that they survive.

Sigh. If they are <18, they should not be in the biz. If they are in the business against their will, they should be protected and the traffickers arrested. But consenting adults, both providers, ancillary participants and customers should not be persecuted.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Who was saying that a woman's best course of action is to turn tricks???

No one said that. LP wrote "You're assuming they have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution.”.

It’s funny that you mischaracterize anyone’s position with whom you disagree but you complain when others accurately portray the shallowness or hypocrisy of your position, Jolly Penguin.

That's either the weakest trolling I've seen from you yet, or you are not paying attention to Toni. Why are you ignoring what Toni has said, and I quoted in the very post you quoted? Why do you hate women? Why are you a misogynist, laughing dog?