13 Jul 11
Portland will be adding sex reassignment surgery to it's health coverage for city employees. Do you believe this is something taxpayers should pay for? If we adopted a single payer system, would sex reassignment surgery be covered? Do you consider such a surgery to be medically necessary?
13 Jul 11
Originally posted by dryhumpPortland has a large population of people like this so I guess it makes sense:
Portland will be adding sex reassignment surgery to it's health coverage for city employees. Do you believe this is something taxpayers should pay for? If we adopted a single payer system, would sex reassignment surgery be covered? Do you consider such a surgery to be medically necessary?
13 Jul 11
Originally posted by dryhumpHow often can you have sex reassignment surgery?
Portland will be adding sex reassignment surgery to it's health coverage for city employees. Do you believe this is something taxpayers should pay for? If we adopted a single payer system, would sex reassignment surgery be covered? Do you consider such a surgery to be medically necessary?
13 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76I certainly would not want to pay for sex reassignment surgery but if we look at this in terms of economics (as opposed to a moral issue) perhaps it is not that big a deal.
You don't have Lasik surgery very often either.
I am guessing as far as total costs go, the cost of offering sex reassignment surgery is probably pretty low because not that many people want it. I also wonder if many of these people who would opt for it, currently have psychological issues that are expensive (and covered) and if these cost decrease after surgery the net cost may be lower
Proably there is a relatively huge demand for Lasik and that on young people it could cause other expensive problems down the road.
13 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackThat something costs less is not a very compelling reason that we should pay for it.
I certainly would not want to pay for sex reassignment surgery but if we look at this in terms of economics (as opposed to a moral issue) perhaps it is not that big a deal.
I am guessing as far as total costs go, the cost of offering sex reassignment surgery is probably pretty low because not that many people want it. I also wonder if many of these p ...[text shortened]... demand for Lasik and that on young people it could cause other expensive problems down the road.
13 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarToo bad there's a lot of people on this site that could use a new personality wish health insurance would cover that
I don't think medical insurance should cover any elective surgery. Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected things that happen to you, not things you'd simply like to change.
13 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76I don't think you are objecting to insurance paying for non-essential items (you'd be ok with insurance for a yacht). I think you are objecting to the government paying for your non-essential surgery. To me this is exactly why people should purchase their own insurance and they can decide what they do not want insured. Some people might object to lasik, others abortions, others sex change surgery, plastic surgery etc.
That something costs less is not a very compelling reason that we should pay for it.