Obamacare and SRS

[BluegrassCat]

Unfortunately for the trans community being turned on by tg does not translate into being an advocate for their rights. When someone says "I'm for trans rights but..." it's code for "tg are just a fetish for me and it makes my dick soft when they demand to be considered as people."

[loveboof]

Ok, well first of all - fuck you bluegrasscat...

Also, I apologise to bella for joining a discussion then fucking off and getting drunk on a Friday night + not giving it a second thought!

@ you and amber,

On reflection, I am probably being hypocritical. I don't expect any recognition for this, but I think I was wrong. Fundamentally there is not much difference - I was expressing a gut feeling to the issue without engaging my brain...

I'm happy to concede that you are more intimately involved in this topic than me, and as such I cannot hope to attain the same level of insight into it as you.

That said, Flabby could be right - would therapy offer a more complete 'treatment' than surgery? (I use that term lightly, because I don't think there's anything wrong with transwomen...

[dj4monie]

More likely to be a 'save the penne' than pene from fatboy Steve lol


That's not entirely what I meant. For cosmetic surgery - skin grafts for burn victims, boob jobs for cancer survivors.. but not vaginas for transwomen. Sorry.

I am entirely pro T rights, but that shouldn't definitely be covered by NHS or Obamacare IMO

National Health Service in the UK pays for SRS, so does the Canadian, French, German and other Universal Systems.

What's special about America? Rugged Individualism???

[ValerieNelson]

That said, Flabby could be right - would therapy offer a more complete 'treatment' than surgery? (I use that term lightly, because I don't think there's anything wrong with transwomen...

We have to have two written referrals from separate doctors that have assessed us before a Surgeon will perform SRS.

[BellaBellucci]

That said, Flabby could be right - would therapy offer a more complete 'treatment' than surgery? (I use that term lightly, because I don't think there's anything wrong with transwomen...

Thank you for your post. I appreciate your empathy. I would say though, that therapy as a treatment for transsexuality is our generation's version of the rhetorical 'man pill' (dealing with the mind). It's not a long-term solution and many women still can't handle the pressure and kill themselves, even with the help. It's far from a cure. We know what the cure is. Therefore, we should receive it and not just dismissed and told to 'toughen up.'

~BB~

[NJfan]

I think it should be covered. I don't think there is anything wrong with 'transpeople' off the bat. I've dated a couple and see them as I would see a genetic girl. The only reason why the last relationship with a transgirl ended was because she never wanted to have kids while i would eventually; even through adoption. (But that's off topic, I know!)

What I want to say is that mental conditions are paid for. Like lithium pills for people that are bipolar. People can live being bipolar, right? That's covered though. Why not cover SRS? If someone really feels that he or she is in need of gender surgery because it would better his or her life, by all means, cover it.

Tax dollars are spent to cover the unemployed and underemployed. Tax dollars are wasted to fix roads that don't need fixing. So much money is wasted by the government so why not afford money to be allocated to help 'transpeople?' I actually don't like the term 'transpeople' or any other terms like that. I view people as the genders that they want to be.

If a girl is born with a tumor, it is covered and removed? Ok, that makes sense. So why not remove the penis and replace it as a vagina?

I'll admit that I have dated and been with genetic girls, pre-op girls, and post-op girls. I find pre-op girls to be a little more exciting with their genitals but I'm fine with whatever parts are there as long as she has an amazing personality, looks sexy in heels, and can cuddle. If I was dating a pre-op girl who wanted to go through with becoming post-op, it is her body and her right. And I would want it to be covered.

I also think that by covering the SRS, some girls won't have to life the risky lifestyles they do to have the surgery. One girl I dated told me she had to escort for a while so she can afford her body. I felt for her.

[Stavros]

The issue is not in fact about the availability of SRS on our NHS, it is the definition of gender dysmoprhia as an illness that separates it from cosmetic surgery. And this, again should be examined because many -most?- transexuals resent the idea that they are 'sick' as if they had cancer. On the other hand, the psychological distress and its consequences are viewed as the medical justification for all those except the marginal cases where a baby emerges from the womb with no clearly defined sexual organs (the decision on surgery to emphasise male or female is usually taken quickly th parental advice and does not fall in the same category as gender dysmoprhia). For this reason, the hormone treatment is not considered as important as the psychological counselling during which the 'patient' must prove that 'he' is really a 'she' [or vice versa] and not hi-jacking transexuality for some other unhappiness. I know it used to be two years of counselling before the NHS would consider surgery (and for hormone treatment to be effective), not sure if that is still the case. I believe some men who have been refused treatment on the NHS have gone to Thailand for the operation; but the research that was published in The Guardian in 2004 does raise some profound questions about gender dysmorphia, its diagnosis, and its treatment -and negative as well as positive consequences, the original article and a commentary are here:
http://www.transgenderzone.com/libra...ulltext/62.htm

Once you deal with the justifications, you then have the more difficult question -is the NHS surgical procedure better than, worse than or equivalent to the procedures carried out in, say Thailand?

[onmyknees]

It should be covered and maybe will be - once the battles are all fought and won. Obama and the Democrats have a battle royal ahead still just to keep the limited affordable care in place. The future will, one hopes, see it fine tuned and expanded once the dumb folk see the benefits they're getting . SRS is covered in the UK under the NHS.

You're amazing. You "ass"ume because some folks don't want this particular health care act, they're dumb. Do you realize how pampas and arrogant that sounds ? They're just too dumb, (unlike you of course who no doubt has studied each of the 2200 pages) to see what wonder lies ahead for them with a government managed health care system written so broadly and vaguely that most of it will be administered by HHS bureaucrats, and was front loaded with bennies until the hammer drops in 2014( that's when we get to start paying for all this) I guarantee you, most folks in Congress who voted for it didn't have a clue what was in it...they didn't even know it was a tax and not a fee ( wink, wink) and we're the dumb ones? It's one thing to say you favor a single payer system, or a quasi government run health care system...or that America can do better, it's another to infer that the 55-60% who are not in favor of this are dumb. Frankly that makes you sound dumb. I have a "healthy" dose of skepticism when it comes to the government, For example.....everyone wants to keep student loans affordable...and at rates between 2-4%, but the question was...how to pay for that. So what did Congress do behind closed doors...they told big companies they could no longer write off some of the corporate deductions for pension contributions. Big companies will in turn begin contributing less to employees pensions causing workers to stay working longer preventing those young college grads from filling the vacancies of retired workers. So although they may have a degree....they won't have a job. More unintended consequences. Only in Washington could they call this a victory and hold a press conference. That's the same type of back room deals those dumb folks you refer to, will be entrusting thier health care to now. You fancy calling people you don't agree with politically, dumb and ignorant, and you seem to know what's best for us here in the States. You never pass up an opportunity to school and enlighten us with your wisdom. Those dumb folks are probably a lot like those dumb folks back in 1775, who just didn't know how good they had it.

[Prospero]

Oh I should take lessons from a convicted felon should I? You are so crass and twisted OMK. By dumb, OMK, I was referring to the arrant manipulation of so many perhaps good hearted, but naive tea party supporters and their kind by cynical big business. The key elements of the affordable health care reforms extend good health care to many people presently excluded. As to remarks going back to 1775 - plain absurd.

[maddygirl]

Of course crossdressers are going to think it's a cosmetic surgery... they're men who like to play dress up, they can't possibly begin to understand how women like us feel... I hope it does get covered by obamacare... that would be a huge step.