Should our military (taxpayers) pay for gender reassignment of service members?

This is .03% of the total population. I don't even see where they are getting the 15000 of them in the military number. The numbers make no sense but regardless I don't think I want to pay for any ones nose or boob job so don't make me pay for your gender re-assignment surgery at 10 times the cost.  If you want it go for it, but pay for it yourself, I'd rather have another F-35.
 
No, they have to go to counseling first, then HRT (hormone replacement therapy) for months to years before surgery.

IMO military medical benefits can pay for part of the expense, but like the GI Bill benefits are NOT unlimited.  The gender reassignment surgery itself cost well over $100K, then there's facial surgery (requires bone work), cosmetic surgery, etc.  It can be had for less in Thailand but still expensive.  It's not fair to expect taxpayers to carry the whole burden.  I'd be more comfortable with a subsidized low interest medical loan/matching dollars or something similar.
 
The numbers are somewhere around 5000 out of 1.3m. So about 0.4%. I think there was a RAND study on this.

Yearly expenditures for this are in the $8m/year range. The cost of 1 F-35 is currently hovering at bit over $100m and the thing can't even perform as advertised.

This was not a decision based on cost. On a related note, you can buy more F-35s over the next few years if the pentagon money doesn't get spent on erectile dysfunction medication (to the tune of $85m/year).
 
if someones willing to pledge their lives away to defend my (and my countries) interests they deserve whatever  we can give them to help them live happy prosperous lives
 
Burn That Belly said:
So it sounds like all of you are saying that "transgender-ness" is not a disease and therefore, does not qualify or constitute as a pre-existing medical condition. Therefore, it is considered a luxury.

Gender reassignment surgery improves the quality if life, but is usually not a life saving medical procedure.

Let's say if we have someone with facial disfigurement.  It's a pre-existing condition and the person's quality of life would greatly improve with surgery.  I'm fine with health benefits paying up to a certain amount, plus subsidized medical loans for costs beyond that.  But I don't believe we should be on the hook for unlimited cosmetic surgery expense.  The same applies to TG.
 
momopi said:
Gender reassignment surgery improves the quality if life, but is usually not a life saving medical procedure.

Can't the same point be made about ED medication as well? Acne medication?

What if the improvement in quality of life reduces the incidences of suicide and substance abuse? Would it be a valid treatment then?
 
peppy said:
momopi said:
Gender reassignment surgery improves the quality if life, but is usually not a life saving medical procedure.
Can't the same point be made about ED medication as well? Acne medication?
What if the improvement in quality of life reduces the incidences of suicide and substance abuse? Would it be a valid treatment then?

If a TG person is depressed/suicidal, what that person needs is counseling and mental health care.  Until the doctor determines that the person is mentally and physically ready they won't even start HRT therapy.  The doctor will also not sign off on surgery unless if the patient meets physical health and weight requirements.

As mentioned previously, I'm fine with health benefits paying up to a certain amount, but not unlimited cosmetic surgery expense (even GI Bill benefit have limits).  Whatever above and beyond can be paid via subsidized low interest health loan.

---------

Actually, let me try to explain this a little better.  Picture guys who never had to deal with female hormone issues previously being given female hormones.  They go through large mood swings and flip out.  So if the person in question is depressed and suicidal you don't give them HRT to make it worse.  Patients have to go through months of counseling and screening before the doctor will sign off on HRT.
 
peppy said:
momopi said:
Gender reassignment surgery improves the quality if life, but is usually not a life saving medical procedure.

Can't the same point be made about ED medication as well? Acne medication?

What if the improvement in quality of life reduces the incidences of suicide and substance abuse? Would it be a valid treatment then?

...but it doesn't


The long-term study?up to 30 years?followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

http://barbwire.com/2014/06/22/surgical-sex-transgender-surgery-isnt-solution/
 
morekaos said:
peppy said:
momopi said:
Gender reassignment surgery improves the quality if life, but is usually not a life saving medical procedure.

Can't the same point be made about ED medication as well? Acne medication?

What if the improvement in quality of life reduces the incidences of suicide and substance abuse? Would it be a valid treatment then?

...but it doesn't


The long-term study?up to 30 years?followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

http://barbwire.com/2014/06/22/surgical-sex-transgender-surgery-isnt-solution/

... but it does.

According to RAND:

"Adverse consequences of not providing transitionrelated health care to transgender personnel could include avoidance of other necessary health care, such as important preventive services, as well as increased rates of mental and substance use disorders, suicide, and reduced productivity."

"Multiple observational studies have suggested significant and sometimes dramatic reductions in suicidality, suicide attempts, and suicides among transgender patients after receiving transition-related treatment (State of California, 2012, p. 10). A study by Padula, Heru, and Campbell (2015) found that removing exclusions on transgender care ?could change the trajectory of health for all transgender persons? at a minimal cost per member per month."
 
A short term 2014-2015 study vs a long term study dating back to the 60's?  I'll take my Johns Hopkins doctors vs yours.
 
morekaos said:
A short term 2014-2015 study vs a long term study dating back to the 60's?  I'll take my Johns Hopkins doctors vs yours.

Well, the views by your John Hopkins are rejected by the general medical community such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). The RAND study was commissioned by the DoD and used to set guidelines for our service members.

I'll take a reputable source such as RAND over a discredited John Hopkins Dr. any day.
 
peppy said:
morekaos said:
A short term 2014-2015 study vs a long term study dating back to the 60's?  I'll take my Johns Hopkins doctors vs yours.

Well, the views by your John Hopkins are rejected by the general medical community such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). The RAND study was commissioned by the DoD and used to set guidelines for our service members.

I'll take a reputable source such as RAND over a discredited John Hopkins Dr. any day.

That's the funniest part...your RAND study is based on a study by....Johns Hopkins Doctors..Tah Dahhhh!

A new analysis led by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests that while most U.S. health insurance plans deny benefits to transgender men and women for medical care necessary to transition to the opposite sex, paying for sex reassignment surgery and hormones is actually cost-effective.

?Providing health care benefits to transgender people makes economic sense,? says study leader William V. Padula, PhD, MS, MSc, an assistant professor of health policy and management at the Bloomberg School.

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/study-paying-for-transgender-health-care-cost-effective.html
 
morekaos said:
peppy said:
morekaos said:
A short term 2014-2015 study vs a long term study dating back to the 60's?  I'll take my Johns Hopkins doctors vs yours.

Well, the views by your John Hopkins are rejected by the general medical community such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). The RAND study was commissioned by the DoD and used to set guidelines for our service members.

I'll take a reputable source such as RAND over a discredited John Hopkins Dr. any day.

That's the funniest part...your RAND study is based on a study by....Johns Hopkins Doctors..Tah Dahhhh!

A new analysis led by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests that while most U.S. health insurance plans deny benefits to transgender men and women for medical care necessary to transition to the opposite sex, paying for sex reassignment surgery and hormones is actually cost-effective.

?Providing health care benefits to transgender people makes economic sense,? says study leader William V. Padula, PhD, MS, MSc, an assistant professor of health policy and management at the Bloomberg School.

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/study-paying-for-transgender-health-care-cost-effective.html

I'm not discrediting the institution. It seems that when it comes to trans health, the particular Dr. you decided to cite is not well regarded.
 
We shouldn't be paying for their gender reassignment.  The costs associated aren't just money.  They also take time and resources away from our military.  The soldiers getting the reassignment wont 100% during their transition. 

I'm okay with trannys joining post-op as long as they can meet the expected standards without special accommodations.
I'm okay with tranny's ending their tour, getting the reassignment and then coming back.

If currently in the military, pre-Op tranny behavior should only occur off duty.  When people's lives are on the line, we shouldn't be distracted with  mickey mouse fantasy role playing.
 
spootieho said:
I'm okay with trannys joining post-op as long as they can meet the expected standards without special accommodations.
I'm okay with tranny's ending their tour, getting the reassignment and then coming back.

The thing is, surgical "reassignment" isn't the end of it. They will always have special needs because they have a life-long dependency upon a hormone regimen. Plenty of people with other conditions are disqualified for military service if they are dependent upon medication for their physical or mental well-being. A soldier must be fit for duty.
 
Back
Top