Evil Academic Theories - Government Health Care.

[BrendaQG]

This is from another thread and it got me thinking....

Primary or secondary, intersexed or not, we're the same if we become the victim of a hate crime. I see, respect, and endorse the validity of the HBS and Blanchard's research. But what bothers me is how impractical, and potentially harmful, their labels can be.

But it's not just the labels that are harmful.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the "research" conducted at clinics like Clarke's includes more than defining or redefining conditions using hurtful labels- they allegedly engage in reparative therapy where they try to literally "beat" the transsexualism out of patients.

You know all those stories about shrinks using electro shock, torture, lobotomies, and heavy duty psyc drugs to try to "cure" gays using reparative therapy? That's what the Clarke institute specializes in for tg patients (well, minus the lobotomies so I hear). The reason why they are an addiction clinic today (dealing with patients suffering from substance abuse) is because they used to treat tg "conditions" as if they are an addiction and would use these nasty treatments against trans patients. And yes, that even includes (allegedly) transgender children.

This is why academic theory about transsexualism run amok is such an evil thing.

I have been daydreaming from time to time about being at one of those Health Care related town hall's.. Then asking president Obama about transsexual/transgender health care under his plan. Would our special needs be covered? Who would decide which of us qualifies for transsexual health services such as sexual reassignment surgery. I imagine him hamming and hawing about it a bit. But mostly I imagine the reaction of certain activist TS's to the implication of my speficically asking that question....since it is widely and falsely believed that I am a "Bailey supporter" due my neutral editing of related articles on Wikipedia, and my not kissing the ass of the so called academics who decided that they and only they get to have an opinion...


The point I am trying to make is, my question is if you are in favor of government run health care have you thought of what it's effects would be on the TS/TG (or even IS for that matter) health services? Lord knows none of us want what they have in Canada (where in at least one province the test of one person, Blanchard, determined who get's what.)

Suppose here in the USA you have to prove that you are HBS. Even though it is not taken seriously by any expert anywhere but certain well placed transpeople find it appealing. So much for being non-op...they could even force a choice of going post op or nothing at all... how about that?

Then there is the all too dangerous politicization of our particular health needs. "Do you want tax payer dollars to pay to have sex changes?" The media, conservative and liberal would say.

Last but not least perhaps this would lead to the nationwide adoption of a standard like we have here in Illinois. Here to get a sex change legally recognized it has to be done in the USA. With universal health care there would be no excuse to go overseas. Likely selecting a doctor would not be up to you for that.

Personally a vagina is a private thing, and I don't want uncle sam in my pants.

[BellaBellucci]

What a lot of people don't realize is that the "research" conducted at clinics like Clarke's includes more than defining or redefining conditions using hurtful labels- they allegedly engage in reparative therapy where they try to literally "beat" the transsexualism out of patients.

So they just did what many of our parents tried and failed to do to us. Lovely.

~BB~

[SarahG]

We have never, as a country, had a government funded health care program that did NOT *somehow* try to play morality enforcement against peoples' wills.

Reality is it simply doesn't matter whether or not they'll include trans health care. If they do, all that will happen is news agencies from NBC to FOX will come on, tell the American people that they're paying for "sex change surgeries for transvestites" and in the heat of the backlash congress will make it illegal for gov health care to fund trans surgeries.... JUST LIKE WHAT ALREADY HAPPENED to those in the VA system.

Our VA -used- to cover SRS, HRT, therapy, and even breast implants for those who needed them (i.e. after cancer, combat disfigurements etc). In response our so-called liberal press gave the "story" air time and the outcry forced the federal regulations to be re-written to exclude such funding. The regulation that arose was intentionally so vague that many VA hospitals interpret it to forbid the coverage of HRT for trans people (this is bullshit, at the most the regulation was aimed at preventing VA funding of SRS).

In at least one state; Wisconsin, it is against state law for Wisconsin funded health care for prisoners to cover trans related health care including HRT. Doesn't matter if you're diagnosed, postop, or how many years of hrt you've been on- if you get arrested in that state and do time, even if you were really innocent- you will NOT be getting HRT. The complications from going off of HRT when the body cannot produce sex hormones are serious, and in some cases can be life threatening especially if the patient already has an immune system disorder (i.e. aids).

The social conservatives have already spearheaded their protests & fear mongering against national health care by telling their sheep that it will be paying for transitions.

By last count over a dozen democrats in congress have already said they will not vote for any health care system that would fund reproductive rights (i.e. abortions). Someone would have to be completely fucking stupid to think these DEMOCRATS would be willing to likewise support any program covering trans health care.

Under the proposals I've last heard, ERISA plans will be forced to time-out of existence 5 years after the program's impelementation, meaning in 5 years from the start of the program (if it passes congress that is), everyone will be forced to LOSE their existing health care benefits to use the gov subsidized ones in the "exchange."

I say forced because anyone who fails to buy such coverage will be fined (by last word what, $1500?).

To be in the exchange at all, a given PRIVATE health care policy must at the minimum contain a list of specific things like preventative care, prescription drugs etc... and if the republicans (AND a tad over a dozen dem's) get their way... it cannot, cannot include trans health care, abortions, or possibly even birth control (most of the former two are currently funded by private health care).

If the VA is the quality of care we're to expect, we're in for a shit load of trouble. In addition to loosing hundreds of thousands to millions of our veterans' SSN's when a few laptops were lost & then stolen a couple years ago, the VA has in recent years gone to such lengths as nonconsenually testing experimental pharmaceuticals on our veterans.

...if that's how they'll repay the people who fight & die for our country, how do you think they'd care about those which our country routinely doesn't care about like trans people?

[BrendaQG]

I am sure it would not just be the social conservatives. They would be visible and active... but when push comes to shove supposedly liberal people won't like paying for transitions. I'll bet there are even some LGB people who would interpret government support for SRS as a homophobic measure (depending on who was in the government at the time). Curing homosexuality by SRS is what they may say it is.

I don't like the idea of my crotch becoming a political issue. But I see it coming. Like freight train way down the tracks and I can't move.

[SarahG]

I don't like the idea of my crotch becoming a political issue. But I see it coming. Like freight train way down the tracks and I can't move.

It's been a political issue going at least as far back to when Hirchfield and the other sexologists were experimenting in Prussia.

[trish]

Is there anyone here whose transition was or is being covered by a private insurance company? Don't most privates consider breast implantation, therapy and SRS optional treatments? If both the privates and the public option fail to cover treatment X, then treatment X can't be used to distinguish or favor one type of insurance over the other.

[SarahG]

Is there anyone here whose transition was or is being covered by a private insurance company? Don't most privates consider breast implantation, therapy and SRS optional treatments? If both the privates and the public option fail to cover treatment X, then treatment X can't be used to distinguish or favor one type of insurance over the other.

Actually most cover HRT and therapy.

Usually trans exclusionary clauses (in private health care) only state "transsexual surgeries or prescriptions related to transsexual surgeries" or something to that effect. Which means they won't cover SRS or FFS or the painkillers when you're recovering from those surgeries.

I have had about 6 or so different private health care policies, all with different companies (some HMO's some PPO's) since I started hrt, not one has cared about HRT and every one of them covered trans therapy*

Some private policies do cover SRS, I have seen a few people on other forums get it paid for at least in part that way. Often it does not cost your employer anything extra to get it covered, because the amount of people who would want to take advantage of it is so rediciously small to begin with- its just that the private health care policies bundled to employers usually start off as a "core" baseline policy and those starter kits (for lack of a better word) come with trans health care excluded, the employer has to actually ask for it to get it just like they have to ask to get anything else that's not "typical" for the plans.



* The problem here is that no trans therapist I've ever heard of actually takes insurance. Its usually a cash only field so its pretty fucking hard to find a trans therapist that takes ANY health care program... to say nothing of finding one in your network.

[BrendaQG]

Is there anyone here whose transition was or is being covered by a private insurance company? Don't most privates consider breast implantation, therapy and SRS optional treatments? If both the privates and the public option fail to cover treatment X, then treatment X can't be used to distinguish or favor one type of insurance over the other.

Actually most cover HRT and therapy.

Usually trans exclusionary clauses (in private health care) only state "transsexual surgeries or prescriptions related to transsexual surgeries" or something to that effect. Which means they won't cover SRS or FFS or the painkillers when you're recovering from those surgeries.

I have had about 6 or so different private health care policies, all with different companies (some HMO's some PPO's) since I started hrt, not one has cared about HRT and every one of them covered trans therapy*

Some private policies do cover SRS, I have seen a few people on other forums get it paid for at least in part that way. Often it does not cost your employer anything extra to get it covered, because the amount of people who would want to take advantage of it is so rediciously small to begin with- its just that the private health care policies bundled to employers usually start off as a "core" baseline policy and those starter kits (for lack of a better word) come with trans health care excluded, the employer has to actually ask for it to get it just like they have to ask to get anything else that's not "typical" for the plans.



* The problem here is that no trans therapist I've ever heard of actually takes insurance. Its usually a cash only field so its pretty fucking hard to find a trans therapist that takes ANY health care program... to say nothing of finding one in your network.

A big problem I see is that health insurer's don't see mental health as a true health problem. (Leaving aside for the moment the issue of weather we need mental health care. I don't think we do.) Mental health care ought to be covered. That said one can only blame the insurer's so much. Our society sees mental health as being less serious and less real. Mental healthcare even for run of the mill depression carries stigma. In a sense the insurers are just mirroring what most of society thinks about that, unfortunately.

If it were up to me I would just institute a living wage and fix the price on a comprehensive health care plan at a level that anyone making the living wage could afford, and which would not bankrupt the insurance companies. No one would be forced to buy, but no working person would have an excuse not to. (As it is now in most states the truly poor and destitute already have a safetynet medicaid.) We could do that with little fuss and less acrimony. I am starting to think this is more of a power play, the side that won the election's chance to stick it to the other side. Solving the problem is secondary.

(This tread is not shaping up the way I had hoped. It's looking more P&R with every post. )