Politics & Current Events
MommyLiberty5013
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Tax Payer Dollars to Fund Sex Changes
In San Fransisco. I offer this as a discussion on whether or not tax payer dollars should be used for elective surgery or not. Period. Not about sex changes themselves.
This begs a question too: should tax payer dollars be used for liposuction, Lasik, botox, breast reduction or augmentation, facial surgery, or even cosmetic dentistry?
This is the type of stuff that has fiscal conservatives wrapped around the axel. How do people not understand that we have a money/budget crisis nationwide?
Re: Tax Payer Dollars to Fund Sex Changes
I don't think it's something that only fiscal conservatives are opposed to. I would go out on a limb and say that most people are opposed to having elective surgery funded by taxpayer dollars.
But, that said, some of the things you said aren't cosmetic. Sex reassignment surgery certainly isn't. Breast reductions can be deemed medically necessary and be covered by insurance (my godmother's was). If a doctor deems it medically necessary, I think it should be covered. If not, pay for it yourself.
This. What you consider elective can be necessary for someone else's health, physical or mental. That is for a doctor and a patient to decide together.
Surgery to correct gender identity disorder is not elective surgery. This issue was raised a few years ago before the Tax Court (O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner) and the court ruled that it was a recognized medical disorder, with gender reassignment surgery the main way to treat the disorder. The court did say, though, that the breast augmentation O'Donnabhain did as part of the surgery was not deductible, as that was completely cosmetic.
It also seems that the program that will administer the gender reassignment surgery is San Francisco's program to provide low cost insurance and health care to people who can't otherwise afford insurance. Since this is a medically recognized treatment for a medically recognized disorder, it makes sense why they would offer this to people who have been diagnosed with this disorder.
Iran does this already.
Iran.
That story is not exactly accurate:
To be eligible for coverage under the new program, individuals will have to be employed by the city for at least one year. There is also a $50,000 lifetime cap and a 15 per cent of 50 per cent deductible, which is determined based on whether or not the physician is within the city's health network.
On average, male-to-female surgeries cost about $37,000, while female-to-male surgeries will cost about $77,000.
The program will also cover hormone treatments but will not fund cosmetic procedures. Employees also must undergo a rigorous medical review process that can take up to six months, and a doctor must deem all procedures medically necessary.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230848/San-Francisco-foot-city-employees-sex-change-operations.html#ixzz2Bps7Gwuc
Gawd, why don't you just move there???!!!???
I got nothing, I agree with everything PPs said about it not beng elective.
THANK YOU.
The city is not paying for random people to have (nonelective) surgery. The city is adding an additional benefit to its health insurance plan for city workers, who receive that plan as part of their compensation package for performing work.
I'm assuming that like most Americans, you get your health insurance through your job. This is no more of a hand out than your annual pap smear is. (plus, that plan is required under federal law to cover breast reconstruction surgery after a mastectomy, so yeah, insurance plans do cover the stuff you callously dismiss as "elective.")
Plus, it's 2012. Who seriously thinks gender reassignment surgery is elective?
Agree with pp on elective surgery.
And I understand that this is what fiscal conservatives are upset about (and if it were funding elective surgery, my guess is lots more people would also be upset.). My issue with fiscal conservatism as seemingly practiced now is that it doesn't take into account that some people have different priorities for what should be funded and what shouldn't.
They say Head Start programs should be cut, I say the military should be reduced. I also think that there are more programs worth saving than should have to deal with steep cuts and am willing to pay more to keep them. The fact that this couldn't even be part of the discussion earlier is what has me upset at fiscal conservatives.