$30.00
$15.00
$5.00
$20.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
45 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Should government health care cover transitional surgery? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
It's a somewhat tricky one. Simplifying, we usually distinguish between elective vs necessary procedures. A woman who just wants a bigger chest should bear her own costs. A woman who needs a double mastectomy after life threatening breast cancer is in a different category.

If gender re-assignment forms part of a recognized treatment for mental health issues then I'm fine with public funds being used. To be honest though I don't know enough about the issues and am fairly inclined to leave it to the experts.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Not unless it's medically required for the life of the patient. It falls under elective cosmetic surgery to me so it's the same as getting a breast enlargement or plastic surgery as far as I am concerned.

Now if a Doctor says this dude needs fake titties implanted and his balss cut off to live then fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
flamespeak wrote:
myopia wrote:
It's a somewhat tricky one. Simplifying, we usually distinguish between elective vs necessary procedures. A woman who just wants a bigger chest should bear her own costs. A woman who needs a double mastectomy after life threatening breast cancer is in a different category.

If gender re-assignment forms part of a recognized treatment for mental health issues then I'm fine with public funds being used. To be honest though I don't know enough about the issues and am fairly inclined to leave it to the experts.


Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.

I am not really taking a side on this issue, as I don't usually take sides in threads I start, but the stance of it being necessary is factually incorrect from a medical standpoint.


I'm allowing for scenarios where a medical health practitioner determines something like the patient being a much higher suicide risk.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
mbmbmbmbmb
flamespeak wrote:
Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.


There's plenty of surgery, and other medical treatments, that are considered necessary whose lack won't result in death. That's generally not the criteria used.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Should anyone be able to decide they want to switch and have it paid for? No. But that isn't a real scenario anyway, it's just one made up, akin to 'revolving door' abortions being a thing.

Should someone who has spent years going through the therapy, counselling, and prepatory steps for the change; who also has the certifications along the way thst say yes this is the best chance for the individual to lead a healthy life, should they be allowed? I'd say yes.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
flamespeak wrote:

Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.


In that case hip replacements or cataract operations are not necessary.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.

Why is this personal taste? And whats with the socialized healthcare jargon? Are you angling to become an American now?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
No, of course not. Single payer healthcare shouldn't pay for fake breasts or penis enlargement surgery either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.

Why is this personal taste? And whats with the socialized healthcare jargon? Are you angling to become an American now?
If I think my tits are too small (for whatever reason) that is a matter of personal taste, not medical need).

As to my use of socialized healthcare, that is what it is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
myopia wrote:
flamespeak wrote:
myopia wrote:
It's a somewhat tricky one. Simplifying, we usually distinguish between elective vs necessary procedures. A woman who just wants a bigger chest should bear her own costs. A woman who needs a double mastectomy after life threatening breast cancer is in a different category.

If gender re-assignment forms part of a recognized treatment for mental health issues then I'm fine with public funds being used. To be honest though I don't know enough about the issues and am fairly inclined to leave it to the experts.


Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.

I am not really taking a side on this issue, as I don't usually take sides in threads I start, but the stance of it being necessary is factually incorrect from a medical standpoint.


I'm allowing for scenarios where a medical health practitioner determines something like the patient being a much higher suicide risk.


Then they should get mental health treatment. If someone had tiny titties and they were depressed we wouldn't give them a free boob job.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
myopia wrote:
flamespeak wrote:
myopia wrote:
It's a somewhat tricky one. Simplifying, we usually distinguish between elective vs necessary procedures. A woman who just wants a bigger chest should bear her own costs. A woman who needs a double mastectomy after life threatening breast cancer is in a different category.

If gender re-assignment forms part of a recognized treatment for mental health issues then I'm fine with public funds being used. To be honest though I don't know enough about the issues and am fairly inclined to leave it to the experts.


Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.

I am not really taking a side on this issue, as I don't usually take sides in threads I start, but the stance of it being necessary is factually incorrect from a medical standpoint.


I'm allowing for scenarios where a medical health practitioner determines something like the patient being a much higher suicide risk.


Then they should get mental health treatment. If someone had tiny titties and they were depressed we wouldn't give them a free boob job.


Some form of cosmetic surgery for non-life saving and even essentially mental health reasons are available in many situations. After breast cancer, cleft lips, re-constructive surgery after accidents, etc.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
galad2003 wrote:
myopia wrote:
flamespeak wrote:
myopia wrote:
It's a somewhat tricky one. Simplifying, we usually distinguish between elective vs necessary procedures. A woman who just wants a bigger chest should bear her own costs. A woman who needs a double mastectomy after life threatening breast cancer is in a different category.

If gender re-assignment forms part of a recognized treatment for mental health issues then I'm fine with public funds being used. To be honest though I don't know enough about the issues and am fairly inclined to leave it to the experts.


Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.

I am not really taking a side on this issue, as I don't usually take sides in threads I start, but the stance of it being necessary is factually incorrect from a medical standpoint.


I'm allowing for scenarios where a medical health practitioner determines something like the patient being a much higher suicide risk.


Then they should get mental health treatment. If someone had tiny titties and they were depressed we wouldn't give them a free boob job.


And what if that is the mental health treatment?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Should anyone be able to decide they want to switch and have it paid for? No. But that isn't a real scenario anyway, it's just one made up, akin to 'revolving door' abortions being a thing.


No, it's not made up.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2016/06/02/va-ru...

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7105/dod-announces-new-transge...


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
myopia wrote:
flamespeak wrote:
myopia wrote:
It's a somewhat tricky one. Simplifying, we usually distinguish between elective vs necessary procedures. A woman who just wants a bigger chest should bear her own costs. A woman who needs a double mastectomy after life threatening breast cancer is in a different category.

If gender re-assignment forms part of a recognized treatment for mental health issues then I'm fine with public funds being used. To be honest though I don't know enough about the issues and am fairly inclined to leave it to the experts.


Strictly speaking, transitional surgery is not 'necessary'. A person will not die if the procedure is not performed as a result of not having the procedure performed.

I am not really taking a side on this issue, as I don't usually take sides in threads I start, but the stance of it being necessary is factually incorrect from a medical standpoint.


I'm allowing for scenarios where a medical health practitioner determines something like the patient being a much higher suicide risk.


Then they should get mental health treatment. If someone had tiny titties and they were depressed we wouldn't give them a free boob job.

Actually WE would. (If appropriate).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.

Why is this personal taste? And whats with the socialized healthcare jargon? Are you angling to become an American now?
If I think my tits are too small (for whatever reason) that is a matter of personal taste, not medical need).

As to my use of socialized healthcare, that is what it is.

No it's part of the UK consensus. Socialized is not a helpful description in a UK context Even the Tories pretend to be in favour of the NHS.
Since you love quoting dictionaries I suggest you look up socialised. It's not an adjective associated with socialist. Ignorant Americans say socialized medicine as a pejorative because they love spending huge amounts of money on healthcare for indifferent results and they associate anything run by the state as socialism (except the army).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb

As a big supporter of both trans rights and universal healthcare, I have to say no on this one. Simply because the procedure is so expensive, it creates an undue burden on taxpayers and surgeons (who might otherwise be needed for life-saving surgeries).

Now in 30 years when robot surgeons can turn out 20 of these a day for a low cost, sure.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"32 inches of Plexi....for your pleasure"
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say no. It's an elective surgery plain and simple. One could argue that it's a needed surgery because of the gender issue, and we could also say the need for small breasted women thinking they "need" larger breasts.

If it's not medically necessary, then I don't think the insurance system should have to cover it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.

Why is this personal taste? And whats with the socialized healthcare jargon? Are you angling to become an American now?
If I think my tits are too small (for whatever reason) that is a matter of personal taste, not medical need).

As to my use of socialized healthcare, that is what it is.

No it's part of the UK consensus. Socialized is not a helpful description in a UK context Even the Tories pretend to be in favour of the NHS.
Since you love quoting dictionaries I suggest you look up socialised. It's not an adjective associated with socialist. Ignorant Americans say socialized medicine as a pejorative because they love spending huge amounts of money on healthcare for indifferent results and they associate anything run by the state as socialism (except the army).

[soh-shuh-lahyz]



verb (used with object), socialized, socializing.
1.
to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2.
to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.


As the ownership (I.E. the running) of the NHS is in public hands I would argue that yes it is A socialized (publicly owned and controlled) healthcare system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.

Why is this personal taste? And whats with the socialized healthcare jargon? Are you angling to become an American now?
If I think my tits are too small (for whatever reason) that is a matter of personal taste, not medical need).

As to my use of socialized healthcare, that is what it is.

No it's part of the UK consensus. Socialized is not a helpful description in a UK context Even the Tories pretend to be in favour of the NHS.
Since you love quoting dictionaries I suggest you look up socialised. It's not an adjective associated with socialist. Ignorant Americans say socialized medicine as a pejorative because they love spending huge amounts of money on healthcare for indifferent results and they associate anything run by the state as socialism (except the army).

[soh-shuh-lahyz]



verb (used with object), socialized, socializing.
1.
to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2.
to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.


As the ownership (I.E. the running) of the NHS is in public hands I would argue that yes it is A socialized (publicly owned and controlled) healthcare system.

Interesting that the dictionary I used doesn't have 2, The OED has 3 definitions with your 2 being roughly their 3.
But as I said the NHS is part of a broad consensus. It is statist, not socialistic. Lots of things are publicly owned and controlled without being socialistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
flamespeak wrote:


Hmmm, something to consider is how hormone replacement therapy is supposedly beneficial in that regard but transitional surgery supposedly isn't. I suppose more data is needed. A politicized issue will have conflicting findings in the research depending on who is backing the studies after all.

Any chance of linking to that research?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
[soh-shuh-lahyz]



verb (used with object), socialized, socializing.
1.
to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2.
to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.


Interesting that the dictionary I used doesn't have 2, The OED has 3 definitions with your 2 being roughly their 3.
But as I said the NHS is part of a broad consensus. It is statist, not socialistic. Lots of things are publicly owned and controlled without being socialistic.


Chambers doesn't even have anything along the lines of "to make socialistic".

My Concise OED does have "socialized medicine" but notes it as a US usage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Shampoo4you wrote:

As a big supporter of both trans rights and universal healthcare, I have to say no on this one. Simply because the procedure is so expensive, it creates an undue burden on taxpayers and surgeons (who might otherwise be needed for life-saving surgeries).

Now in 30 years when robot surgeons can turn out 20 of these a day for a low cost, sure.


"Please state the medical procedure you are having today."

"Cataract removal"

"You have selected gender re-assignment surgery. Your procedure will commence in 10 ... 9 ..8 "
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No not really. I think socialized healthcare should be prioritized in order of with personal taste coming right at the bottom.

Why is this personal taste? And whats with the socialized healthcare jargon? Are you angling to become an American now?
If I think my tits are too small (for whatever reason) that is a matter of personal taste, not medical need).

As to my use of socialized healthcare, that is what it is.

No it's part of the UK consensus. Socialized is not a helpful description in a UK context Even the Tories pretend to be in favour of the NHS.
Since you love quoting dictionaries I suggest you look up socialised. It's not an adjective associated with socialist. Ignorant Americans say socialized medicine as a pejorative because they love spending huge amounts of money on healthcare for indifferent results and they associate anything run by the state as socialism (except the army).

[soh-shuh-lahyz]



verb (used with object), socialized, socializing.
1.
to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2.
to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.


As the ownership (I.E. the running) of the NHS is in public hands I would argue that yes it is A socialized (publicly owned and controlled) healthcare system.

Interesting that the dictionary I used doesn't have 2, The OED has 3 definitions with your 2 being roughly their 3.
But as I said the NHS is part of a broad consensus. It is statist, not socialistic. Lots of things are publicly owned and controlled without being socialistic.
True, but the NHS is a service provider. It is a state controlled business.

And just becasue it has broad consensus does not mean it is not socialized. In fact this seems like a very off argument indeed, almost as if people support the NHS as long as they do not see it as socialism.

Fair enough, if you do not see it as socialism fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
Should anyone be able to decide they want to switch and have it paid for? No. But that isn't a real scenario anyway, it's just one made up, akin to 'revolving door' abortions being a thing.


No, it's not made up.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2016/06/02/va-ru...

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7105/dod-announces-new-transge...




You don't bother to read do you? They are saying exactly what I did. After the rigorous medical steps have been undertaken, they won't get in the way. Do you legitimately have a learning disability drew?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.