Transgender operations insurable? Beyond Hilarious

[jbg]

This article (link to source) illustrated just how politicized the health-care system has become. Traditionally insurances' function was to spread the risk of loss through society so that all facing a given risk would pay a small amount so that someone afflicted with a catastrophe wouldn't suffer enormous losses. Everyday examples include automobile insurance. Most people drive without incident through the day. They pay a small amount against the possibility that they will be involved in an accident involving a $20,000+ pieces of property.

This insurance is to support a vocal minority of politically active individuals. I cannot imagine the average person even contemplating a gender change. Issues that are unresolved are whether people get "gender-back guarantees" if they're not happy with their new identity. Does insurance involve wardrobe replacement or is cross-dressing contemplated.

This is a victory of the bizarre over the sublime. Excerpts follow:

New York insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage for gender-reassignment surgery, according to a letter sent by Governor Andrew Cuomo to insurers this week. The rule will make New York the ninth state in the country to require insurance companies to cover the cost of treatment for gender dysphoria.

According to the New York Times:

In a letter being sent to insurance companies this week, the governor said that because state law requires insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders, people who are found to have a mismatch between their birth sex and their internal sense of gender are entitled to insurance coverage for treatments related to that condition, called gender dysphoria.

Advocates for transgender issues are hopeful that the new rule will set a precedent for insurance companies nationwide.

This is an absolute sea change in the way that insurance for transgender people will cover their health care needs, Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, told the Times. "This essentially opens up an entire world of treatment for transgender people that was closed to them previously."

Edited December 14, 2014 by jbg

[Michael Hardner]

I cannot imagine the average person even contemplating a gender change.

Let's look at that statement. What are you saying ? That people who want gender change are apart from the rest of the world in their humanity ? Or that fewer than 50% are likely to want to get gender change ?

If it's expensive surgery, then it could be simply put outside the list of covered procedures. It was done in Canada too:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/n-s-decides-not-to-fund-gender-reassignment-surgery-1.1304463

It's actually quite possible, believe it or not, to discuss the program on its merits without making fun of people.

[jbg]

Let's look at that statement. What are you saying ? That people who want gender change are apart from the rest of the world in their humanity ? Or that fewer than 50% are likely to want to get gender change ?

If it's expensive surgery, then it could be simply put outside the list of covered procedures. It was done in Canada too:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/n-s-decides-not-to-fund-gender-reassignment-surgery-1.1304463

It's actually quite possible, believe it or not, to discuss the program on its merits without making fun of people.

I am making fun of it being a covered procedure.

[Michael Hardner]

I am making fun of it being a covered procedure.

I didn't think YOU were making fun of anything. How are you making fun of it and why ?

[jacee]

I cannot imagine the average person even contemplating a gender change.

Of course not.

You don't have the condition.

The 'average person' doesn't either.

I don't have six toes, a tail and horns and neither does the average person, but if I did, I'd want corrective surgery and expect it to be covered.

Some people have the wrong body parts.

It's not something to make fun of.

.

Edited December 14, 2014 by jacee

[overthere]

If you don't like the insurability of transgender operations, you probably will get furious about Canadian health care funding abortions!

[Big Guy]

I guess it depends if you consider that kind of surgery as cosmetic or life saving. Those who believe that transgender and gay life styles can be "fixed" through "deprogramming" will probably feel this kind of coverage is a waste of time.

Personally, I believe that transgender individuals have legitimate feelings and concerns where often, surgery will resolve those problems. Unfortunately, too many transgendered individuals end up taking their own lives because they can no longer live with their condition. I also believe that for the transgendered individual, surgery for a physical changes becomes a life saving technique and should be supported by insurance the same as any other life saving surgery.

[BubberMiley]

Whenever there is progress in any social issue, there is always a generation stuck on how things were better in the old days when the outsiders knew their place.

[Wilber]

The question of rights aside, I'm wondering if this surgery might be cost effective if an individuals future demands on the system were taken into consideration. Would their future mental and physical health be better if they did have the surgery than if they didn't?

[jbg]

I didn't think YOU were making fun of anything. How are you making fun of it and why ?

I really wasn't. Parts of the post were a bit satyrical. I am in a pretty bitter mood overall.

[jbg]

If you don't like the insurability of transgender operations, you probably will get furious about Canadian health care funding abortions!

I am pro-choice so not really. Also I am not Canadian.

[Bryan]

Covering surgery due to their mental illness is in itself insane. Why single out gender? What if someone really believes that they should have been born with any number of different physical characteristics? Are any and all cosmetic procedures on the table then?

[Black Dog]

Covering surgery due to their mental illness is in itself insane. Why single out gender? What if someone really believes that they should have been born with any number of different physical characteristics? Are any and all cosmetic procedures on the table then?

Ah the old slippery slope. Haven't seen that round these parts much since the old days of the gay marriage debate.

[jacee]

Covering surgery due to their mental illness is in itself insane. Why single out gender? What if someone really believes that they should have been born with any number of different physical characteristics? Are any and all cosmetic procedures on the table then?

No.

Gender reassignment is not cosmetic.

.

[The_Squid]

Ah the old slippery slope. Haven't seen that round these parts much since the old days of the gay marriage debate.

Canada allows dog-person marriage now, don't we??

[cybercoma]

Ah the old slippery slope. Haven't seen that round these parts much since the old days of the gay marriage debate.

But what if MILLIONS of people suddenly want a unicorn horn surgical implanted into their foreheads!

[Guest]

Then Unicorns will go extinct. Please think about that before getting this unnecessary procedure.

[TimG]

Gender reassignment is not cosmetic.

You must be joking. It is all about someone not liking the body they were born with and thinking that self-mutilation will solve what is really a mental health issue.

[Wilber]

I think it is more than "not liking the body you were born with".

[eyeball]

Whenever there is progress in any social issue, there is always a generation stuck on how things were better in the old days when the outsiders knew their place.

Yep, conservatism is like rust, it never sleeps.

[TimG]

I think it is more than "not liking the body you were born with".

Yes, I am aware of the various rationalizations which are constructed but humans are capable of rationalizing just about anything if they have a sufficient motivation. But constructed rationalizations are not facts and no one else should be expected to accept rationalizations if they are fundamentally illogical.

[eyeball]

No one expects fundamentalists to get this issue. But they should expect people to tell them to either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Usually the latter.

Edited December 15, 2014 by eyeball

[guyser]

THis is no surprise. There are nine other States that have this so NY is coming late to the party.

Good for them too.

The details if anyone looked make it a minor thing to the insurance companies, all of whom presumably arent worried about it. After all it is a very small pool.

State law requires if insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders,all must be covered. So in that vein, whats to get upset about?

No one can argue that gender dysphoria is not a mental health issue. A Dr has to deem it medically necessary for any treatment rec'd.

And of course if any policy has mental health coverage, the insurer cant say..."Yea no thanks" to one mental health issue and Yes to others.

Offer it.....prepare to offer for all. Its how it should work.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Guyser2

[Guest]

I can't imagine anyone voluntarily getting their parts rearranged and then committing to a lifetime of medication without there being a valid reason. As Big Guy has already stated, suicide is often the most turned to alternative.

Of course it should be covered.

Edited December 15, 2014 by bcsapper

[TimG]

I can't imagine anyone voluntarily getting their parts rearranged and then committing to a lifetime of medication without there being a valid reason.

Mental illness is an explanation. Does that make it a valid reason to mutilate yourself? Van Gogh apparently cut off his ear. Should his act be considered normal and healthy? I really don't understand the double standard that so many people take when it comes sex changes. Acts that would be considered signs of severe mental illness if they did not involve sex parts are treated as normal. Edited December 15, 2014 by TimG