SCOTUS Appears Inclined to Uphold Tenn. Law on Transgender Care

Insurance doesn’t pay for cosmetic surgery so who cares anyway

 

It pays for sex changes? Which one? And how much does that cost?

Maybe because it's a horrible trend when young girls are doing it. Seriously, botox at 22? Destroy yourself much? 40yo gonna be a lot of fun for you!!!

 

Most insurances will pay for gender reassignment surgery. Idk the cost but it’s a lot. You have to see a psychiatrist first and jump through a lot of hoops

 

I can't imagine mine would. They won't even pay for PT to see if that works instead of surgery. But, oddly enough, will pay for the knee replacement.

 

I'm sorry but I am having a very hard time understanding the point you are making.

The point I am making is this: Take that CNN clip from earlier in the thread. If that was an interaction on social media between two people at the same company, that white guy could go complain to HR that the African American guy was using transphobic terms and demand HR take action against him, since transgender people are members of a protected class. The company is then placed in a difficult position because they could be subject to a lawsuit if the corrective action or lack there of, are not seen to be good enough. And this is what I mean by Democrats forcing people to operate on their terms. If you disagree with them that an non-transition man, is not a women, then you are using a slur and should be disciplined.

 

that’s strange. I specialize in hip and knee replacement surgery and most of the time the insurance won’t authorize the surgery unless you’ve failed 6 weeks of PT but I guess all insurances are different

 

BCBS.

 

Yikes! Wouldn't want to be the HR person in that situation. And if it was a black female, double yikes!!!

Look, I agree with you generally (and think - outside of death threats - SM should be off limits), but let's not walk into the trap of trying to quantify which is worse: MAGA shithousery or Liberal shithousery. It's all shithousery.

 

I disagree but will leave it at that at this point as I think we both understand where each other stands.

 

Because this leads nowhere. Which is pretty much my point. This is just the nature of political discussion these days. And, to be honest, just a silly game of gotcha that avoids real issues.

 

Well being is not scientific. There is no way to measure well being by tests. Risks to health far out way the benefits, especially when hormones and surgery are involved. We don't know yet how individuals are affected by hormone levels, that is something AI will likely solve. Messing with that could shorten lifespans significantly, there hasn't been 80-90 year olds that have had this done and lived their entire life.

And as long as people are not covered or have to wait for medical care, MDs and DOs should be working on what's needed most, healthcare. There is a significant shortage and now PAs and APRNs are likely your primary care. Not acceptable. The only reason they are doing it is because in our corrupt medical system, they can make more $ as a surgeon than a PC doctor. Something really wrong with that...

 

From a payment standpoint, this is a barrier issue between mental and physical health. There is a mental health aspect to this. Mental health is often covered by a different insurance and doesn't generally cover surgical procedures. However, there is also a physical aspect to this as well (dysphoria, in this case, partially arises from the state of your physical body causing mental unease).

However, I don't think the standard complaint in regards to this topic is the insurance aspect of it. It is a rare enough procedure that insurance increases due to the risk of this procedure are going to be fairly low. Generally, the complaint is more related to social acceptance of transgendered people and the notion that gender and sex are not perfectly correlated.

 

While that conversation might be important in other contexts, it isn't here. These are kids who were born a boy and identify as a girl or born a girl and identify as a boy. They are pursuing treatment so their appearance matches their internalized gender.

 

These hormone treatments are not new. It is up to the patients, their families, and medical providers to consider the risks and benefits and make the decisions. The government shouldn't be taking that away from them. Nor do you have any right to substitute your judgment for theirs.

Yet again, the doctors can make their own decisions on what they want to do. You don't get to strip a group of people of their right to make their own healthcare decisions because you think they don't deserve the healthcare they're getting. That is repulsive.

 

You make more as a surgeon because the job is way more demanding. It’s also much more difficult to become a specialized surgeon than a GP.

 

So do you believe that anyone and everyone should have access to any antibiotic? Resistance can be pervasive across a society and needs to be controlled. It isnt appropriate to use science and full freedom on everything in our society. There needs to be regulations on what should and shouldnt be done. Too much of it is emotional and not based on fact. If i wanted to end my life with a certain death (cancer for example or ALS), its illegal in Florida and most of the US. I care about that way more than some 5 year old that cant even color wanting their penis chopped off.

And I dont believe it is solely the choice of the doctor and patient. Its never has been that way ever, its cloaked in monetary and insurance decisions all the time. Doctors are usually driven by monetary constraints (What will medicare or insurance pay for, what kind of drug can i prescribe that is cheapest, not necessarily the best for the condition). If it was purely science driven, healthcare would be alot different.

 

Medical decisions should be between the patient and his/her medical staff. If the patient is a child, then include parents/guardians. There should be standards of care, but why should the state step in if the child, parents, and full medical staff treating the kid, including mental health professionals all say the treatment should be X? Why should the state have that authority?

Same goes for expensive treatments and insurance. If a treatment is potentially life saving but too expensive, is it fair to say poorer people can't get the treatment if insurance doesn't cover? But this is an argument for socialized medicine, not trans.

 

Do you believe the government should be able to categorically deny groups of people access to antibiotics? (Ex. no antibiotics for gay people, period.) Because that's what's actually at stake here. They're denying treatments recommended by healthcare professionals, desired by patients, and consented to by their parents. But to answer your question more directly, I trust doctors to decide whether antibiotics are appropriate for a patients' needs. I don't believe we need the state legislature telling doctors how and when to prescribe antibiotics.

You should be able to end your life under those circumstances. But that's a wholly separate issue. And five year olds aren't eligible for gender-reassignment surgery, so your example here is in bad faith. The fact that you have to resort to such extreme hyperbole only shows the weakness of your arguments.

Yet, insurance and money aren't the issue here. Insurers are on board. Doctors are on board. Patients are on board. Their parents are on board. A state legislature outlawed the treatments, but only for transgender people. And it wasn't because of science. Nor is your stance based on science.

 

I think you misunderstand my argument, this has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ right in my mind, you want to do stuff to your body after a certain age, so be it. That's your choice. This is about allowing people to make life altering and sometimes shortening decisions without sound scientific data to back it up. And of course insurance companies and doctors want this, it adds to the business. Not all doctors have that mentality, but some do and a lot are brainwashed into a system that values $ over lives.

There is no genetic data or modeling available to show what happens to reassignment surgery in 20, 30, 40 years. The FDA uses the model, did it kill you? No, send it out. Then we find out 20, 30 or many years later that certain unattended consequences happen. No good doctor would recommend this as it's not medically necessary. We need to help people who have this condition, not butcher them and tell them they are something they are genetically not. That's wrong on so many levels.

 

First of all, these things are not outlawed in Europe. They are rethinking some of the protocols but there are no outright bans.

I’ve been very skeptical about the social agenda around gender and the desire to make it a civil rights issue. My take is this is a medical issue, and should be left to the medical establishment, and thus should be left to the doctors, patients and parents if applicable.

Under what notion do we think we should make medical treatments illegal?

I’m not for biological males in women’s sports. I generally dislike the push to make gender a “social construct”. The issue is complicated in that there happens to be a great deal of overlap between declaring oneself transgender and other mental illnesses/conditions. I think asking people to announce their pronouns is just ridiculous. Providing sex change operations to illegal aliens in prison is comical.

Having said that gender dysphoria is a real and documented condition. There are cases where treatment is likely appropriate. If we want to pressure the medical community to review and tighten diagnostic protocols, or seek more evidence based treatments options, that’s fine. But banning specific medical treatment options is just wrong.

Once again big government nanny state Republicans strike again.