In just a few days, San Francisco’s legislature will vote on a landmark new bill that if approved would allow city employees to undergo sex change operations on the government’s dime.
The comprehensive new program is part of the city’s universal health plan and is designed to help transgendered individuals who struggle physically and emotionally with their mismatched bodies.
If approved, San Francisco would become the first city to offer such benefits. Minnesota once had a similar program, but the government eliminated it in 1998...
Supporters of the new bill are calling this move a historic step for not just LGBT equality but for civil liberty as a whole.
In just a few days, San Francisco’s legislature will vote on a landmark new bill that if approved would allow city employees to undergo sex change operations on the government’s dime.
The comprehensive new program is part of the city’s universal health plan and is designed to help transgendered individuals who struggle physically and emotionally with their mismatched bodies.
If approved, San Francisco would become the first city to offer such benefits. Minnesota once had a similar program, but the government eliminated it in 1998...
Supporters of the new bill are calling this move a historic step for not just LGBT equality but for civil liberty as a whole.
I understand the feeling of puzzlement about why a gender change operation s/b covered but I can also understand it from the other perspective. Yes a gender change operation is elective similar to something like Lasik but there is probably a huge difference from being insulted/hurt because someone calls you "four eyes" to feeling completely out of place in your own body. A gender change operation could do more to make a person feel at peace with themselves than any amount of therapy.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
UNI88 wrote:I understand the feeling of puzzlement about why a gender change operation s/b covered but I can also understand it from the other perspective.
I can understand WHY the other perspective would want it covered, but how in the world can you justify an employer picking this up? I'd have no problem if a private company wanted to pick this up, but NOT a municipality.
I think it's great if someone who thinks they'd rather be a different sex than they were born genetically can go and get a pseudo sex change (because that ultimately is what we are talking about here. Genetically, they are still a man or woman, and cutting off or adding on an appendage doesn't change that). However, I do have to fall on 89's side of the line on this one. It is elective surgery, and should not be covered by insurance anymore than porcelain veneers or a face lift.
Dear lord... please allow this dangerous combination of hair spary, bat slobber, and D.O.T. four automatic transmission fluid to excite my mind, occupy my spirits, and enrage my body, provoking me to kick any man or woman in the back of the head regardless of what he or she has or has not done unto me. All my Best, Earlie Cuyler.
Grizalltheway wrote:
Get over it. If a majority of San Fran taxpayers are okay with it, WGAF?
Then let the ones who are ok with it pay for it.
Sure thing, but we'll also have to make sure the people who didn't vote to legalize marijuana here in WA don't benefit from all of the new tax revenue.
UNI88 wrote:
I understand the feeling of puzzlement about why a gender change operation s/b covered but I can also understand it from the other perspective. Yes a gender change operation is elective similar to something like Lasik but there is probably a huge difference from being insulted/hurt because someone calls you "four eyes" to feeling completely out of place in your own body. A gender change operation could do more to make a person feel at peace with themselves than any amount of therapy.
Wow. I'm having a hard time taking that as a good enough reason to justify the public funding of the procedure. "Feel at peace with themselves"? Really?
What's next? Free tattoo removal?
death dealer wrote:I think it's great if someone who thinks they'd rather be a different sex than they were born genetically can go and get a pseudo sex change (because that ultimately is what we are talking about here. Genetically, they are still a man or woman, and cutting off or adding on an appendage doesn't change that). However, I do have to fall on 89's side of the line on this one. It is elective surgery, and should not be covered by insurance anymore than porcelain veneers or a face lift.
I agree.
We have a spending problem in this country. There are certain things that we can't afford to spend money on, even if we wanted too. Elective surgery falls into this category.
death dealer wrote:I think it's great if someone who thinks they'd rather be a different sex than they were born genetically can go and get a pseudo sex change (because that ultimately is what we are talking about here. Genetically, they are still a man or woman, and cutting off or adding on an appendage doesn't change that). However, I do have to fall on 89's side of the line on this one. It is elective surgery, and should not be covered by insurance anymore than porcelain veneers or a face lift.
I agree.
We have a spending problem in this country. There are certain things that we can't afford to spend money on, even if we wanted too. Elective surgery falls into this category.
If this were happening on a federal level, I would agree with you guys. But it's California; they're going broke anyway, who cares if they snip a few dicks on the way down?
We have a spending problem in this country. There are certain things that we can't afford to spend money on, even if we wanted too. Elective surgery falls into this category.
If this were happening on a federal level, I would agree with you guys. But it's California; they're going broke anyway, who cares if they snip a few dicks on the way down?
The Federal Govt will bail them out. Are you upset at the automakers and the banks for their reckless business decisions that led to failure? Why would you not oppose this then?
Ever since my (COONT!) ex-wife got my insurance to pay for her boob redux I have been opposed to these elective procedures.
Yeah...
This is elective surgery
We can get into all the micro-details and what-if's and conjecture
But in the end it's elective surgery and that shouldn't be covered by tax payers (anywhere)
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Now, if we're talking about allowing these proceedures to be covered by a flexible spending account... as long as other proceedures like breast enhancement, laser eye, etc... are allowed, this should be allowed too.
Last edited by 89Hen on Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In just a few days, San Francisco’s legislature will vote on a landmark new bill that if approved would allow city employees to undergo sex change operations on the government’s dime.
The comprehensive new program is part of the city’s universal health plan and is designed to help transgendered individuals who struggle physically and emotionally with their mismatched bodies.
If approved, San Francisco would become the first city to offer such benefits. Minnesota once had a similar program, but the government eliminated it in 1998...
Supporters of the new bill are calling this move a historic step for not just LGBT equality but for civil liberty as a whole.
"Before" Pics or STFU.
