City Employees entitled to sex change operation?

[Rydia]

How do you feel about this?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/18/berkeley-taxpayers-may-pay-for-sex-change-surgery/

BERKELEY, Calif. — A proposal that would cover the cost of sex-change operations for city employees in Berkeley is set for a City Council vote Tuesday night.
Berkeley health insurance providers Kaiser Permanente and Health Net don't pay for gender-reassignment surgery under the city's current health plans. The City Council proposal would set aside an annual $20,000 fund for the procedure for city employees.
The benefit would allow employees to collect the money before the sex-change operation, which can cost up to $50,000. The money would be distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis each year.
To receive a payout from the fund, employees would have to have lived as the opposite sex for at least one year and undergone hormone therapy. They also would have to have worked for the city at least a year.
City Councilman Darryl Moore first proposed the idea in 2007.
"We offer all kinds of benefits to our employees," Moore told the San Francisco Chronicle. "This brings our benefits in line with what's just and fair for the transgender community."
At least a few of the city's 1,500 employees have asked about the surgery, Moore said.
Berkeley would not be the country's first city to cover sex changes for employees.
San Francisco began offering a $50,000-per-employee lifetime benefit to pay for gender-reassignment surgery in 2001. By 2006, the surgery was covered as a regular part of employees' health insurance with a lifetime cap of $75,000.
Not everyone in Berkeley is happy with the plan. Former zoning commissioner Ann Slaby told the Chronicle the city should be paying more attention to basic services.
"How come I'm paying for this?" Slaby said. "There might be some people who really need this, but right now my street badly needs paving."

My opinion, with the economy the way it is, I don't think this is exactly a priority. I think the money for that could go to something better. I mean, what's next? Are breast implants going to be entitlements?

 

[Rapture]

Your story reminded me of this one that I heard not too long ago on the news : http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/09/teachers-union-fights-for-viagra/

I could say a lot but you know what...I won't. I pay for my health insurance monthly..and I only go in to the Dr's when I find it medically necessary to do so.... i.e. I'm practially on my death bed. Between the sex-change operations being covered by health insurace to Viagra being covered by insurace...the line is being blurred between medical necessity and cosmetologic frivolity.

The need to have Viagra covered in certain instances is more understandable to me because there are men who are stroke victims and fairly young who might still want to have sexual experiences...and can only attain that through Viagra. Older men start losing function and might need it as well...its not really right to discriminate against their need for sexuality because they are older. However, the need for Viagra should be proven medically or by the patient's history or both...it should not automatically be given out without putting any thought into a medical diagnosis ... I don't personally see the need for the drug itself outside of medical standards.

The sex change thing is well...outrageous. Tell me how its medically necessary for someone to have a sex change. Its a want and not a need. I personally see it as abuse of insurance.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

So... City employees trying to get a sex change operation for free? Fuck that. It's expensive and the US is broke enough as it is. Tax dollars should be spent on more important things than making Chris into Christina. No free ride for them. If they really want one they should save up their cash and get it themselves.

It's a personal problem, not a state or country problem.

 

[Valvalis]

The thing that strikes me about the "medically necessary" versus "not necessary" argument, is this: for years, employees in many companies have been able to get maternity leave, when having a child is a completely optional lifestyle choice. :dave: So, if I were wanting a sex change, I would immediately point that out as a double standard if my employer didn't want to cover me.

The debate here, though, is ultimately whether it is ethical for the government, rather than private companies, to cover either of those things, or any medical procedure that is completely optional. Personally, I think if maternity leave is covered (which atm I don't think it is, but they're trying to start it), you can't really justify not covering a sex change; however, this country is hemmorhaging money atm, and until the government prohibits big corporations from pouring money into other countries, the U.S.'s economy is only going to get worse if extra government expenditures like this keep popping up everywhere.

 

[Rydia]

But maternity leave is a medical necessity for a woman and her unborn child and having children is vital for the survival of the human race. Also, some children are "accidents" even with birth control. Women would almost have to become stay at home mothers if they choose to have kids. Also with C-sections, which if not done can be life threatening to the mother and baby, need longer maternity leaves for the mother to heal.

There is nothing medically necessary for a sex change. It is a cosmetic decision. As for lifestyle choice, they can simply just dress up as the opposite sex and not have to go through a very expensive surgery.

 

[Valvalis]

There is nothing medically necessary for a sex change. It is a cosmetic decision. As for lifestyle choice, they can simply just dress up as the opposite sex and not have to go through a very expensive surgery.

Some people might not feel like that's enough though, they might want to have the actual anatomical change to feel more comfortable with their identity. I mean that's kind of like saying if a woman wants a child, then she should just adopt, because it's possible to adopt a child without her having to have the expensive hospital procedures required for giving birth. A lot of women will reject the idea of adopting just because the child didn't come from their own body, and not because they're concerned about continuing the human population by having their own.

And even though it's true that reproduction is vital to the human race, and that is a good reason for it to be covered if the population is having trouble sustaining itself, I'm not really sure whether the government or companies really care about that aspect completely I mean the population has still skyrocketed out of control even with most U.S. government employees not getting paid for the leave, and there are plenty of third world countries that are poor and still have high birth rates. I think if anything causes the population to decline or get wiped out, it would more likely be the negative things many companies and the government have been doing to the world ecosystem. TBH I don't think most of them really care about the human race in general based on those things XD

As far as children who are accidental or unexpected, if it's a rape case then I agree there should be some sort of exception made, but the problem with non-criminal accidents is that birth control manufacturers always put a note on the labels saying their product is not "100% guaranteed" to work, so if they tried to argue something like that in court, it would still technically be the person's fault for having the sex that caused it. And there are a lot of other fun things people do that result in expensive medical bills that are not covered by employers, like when I broke my ankle on vacation and couldn't work for a while. It would have been cool if they could have paid me for it, but it was still technically my fault, so I didn't expect them to. And I would hate to get pregnant by accident and then not get paid for leaving work, but at the end of the day it would still be my fault :/ I agree that the time off itself is necessary, it's just that getting paid for it is more of a grey area.

 

[Rydia]

The paid time off mostly relates back to feminism. Seriously, if you took away maternity leave, you would have a huge feminist riot. The government is not so much paying for their maternity bill, but their time off. It'd be like if the government paid the sex change worker to have time off to recover from their sex change, but not for the actual surgery. (when a cousin of mine, government worker, had a hysterectomy, she was compensated for her time in the hospital.)

They are also offering maternity leave to men now, which I do not agree with. Men did not have the child and does not supply the vital nutrients for that child to survive. But that is another debate.

As with being comfortable in your body, some women are not comfortable with big boobs, some people are not comfortable with their noses, their weight, the way their face looks. Should the government be required to pay for all the cosmetic surgery for these people just so they can feel comfortable with themselves? What about haircuts and styles for vanity reasons?

I remember there being a proposal a few years ago for the government to pay for liposuction for over weight people. Thankfully that didn't pass. I could just see people being even more irresponsible, overeating, then getting the surgery again and again because their would be no consequence to their nutritional chioces.

And I don't exactly think people would like being told not to have sex because there is a slight chance it may cause pregnancy And controversal, but sexual activity may be vital for health and wellness.

 

[Ilyena]

I would think that maternity leave would fall more in line with sick leave, tbh.

I mean, having a baby is an optional lifestyle choice, yes but getting time off for it would be more similar to people taking time off when they are ill rather than the company paying for a cosmetic surgery. Now if the mother, after having the baby, wanted to get some sort of cosmetic surgery to get rid of excess weight or something like that, then I would compare the two.

I can understand people wanting to get the surgery but I still feel like it's something that's a choice of the individual and not necessary to their survival so I don't see why it should be covered.

 

[CassinoChips]

Oh where to start.

Let's go here:

There is nothing medically necessary for a sex change. It is a cosmetic decision. As for lifestyle choice, they can simply just dress up as the opposite sex and not have to go through a very expensive surgery.

Transvestitism (cross-dressing) and transgenderism (living as the wrong gender) are two vastly different psychologies. Transvestites often conjure up images of drag queens, and to be sure that is a significant portion of the population. But there are just as many, if not more, transvestites who are straight men and women, who simply are more comfortable wearing clothes of the opposite gender. Eddie Izzard, for example. It's not a sexual or sexuality thing. It's a comfort thing.

Transgenderism, on the other hand, is a person who does not associate their gender with their biological sex. It creates a cognitive dissonance, and often necessitates many hours of therapy. You often hear people say "I was never comfortable living with/being around Person X." Imagine if you were Person X, and you were uncomfortable being yourself every single moment of every day. Will these city workers die if they don't receive this operation? Certainly not. It's not medically "necessary," by that definition. Would these same employees die without corrective eyewear? No, but I bet they have some sort of vision plan. Would they die without fillings? No, but I bet they have dental. Glasses and dental work are quality of life issues. So is living as the correct sex.

maternity leave

Maternity leave is not about the mother. It's about the mother AND child. Ask any of the mothers on the forum, and I'll bet they'll tell you that the last thing they wanted to do was hand their newborn off to a family member/daycare provider and go back to work. Not because they wanted to get out of work, but because they were in the midst of a very important part of the bonding process between parent and child. Paternity leave is the same deal. No, the man didn't do any of the heavy lifting, but it's his child too. And maybe the woman is comfortable enough with the situation to go back to work, or maybe she has the better paying job, because somebody's gotta pay the bills. But trusting a newborn in the hands of a stranger, if no family member can take care of it, is tough to do. Hence, paternity leave gives you the stay-at-home Dad option.

A proposal that would cover the cost of sex-change operations for city employees in Berkeley is set for a City Council vote Tuesday night.

Now, on to the meat and potatoes. (no pun intended)

Let's understand what is actually happening here. Are the taxpayers in Berkeley actually paying for sex change operations? Yes. Sort of. In a roundabout way.

The salaries of all employees of the city are paid, out of necessity, by the taxpayer. Taxes are how the city generates the vast majority of its income (plus fees, fines, tickets, etc.). Health (and other) insurance premiums are taken directly out of a city employee's paycheck. So the issue isn't really that taxpayers are now paying for sex change operations, it's that the city's health insurance provider is now choosing to allow coverage of sex change operations, and is doing so through a separate fund. And that fund will be .... funded .... from monies siphoned off the insurance premiums the employees already pay monthly anyway. (No insurance company is going to say "$20K for what now? Sure, have at it! /writes check.")

So what we don't have is: Taxes --> Sex change

What we DO have is: Taxes --> City --> Employee --> Health Insurance provider --> Special Fund --> Employee --> Sex change

Shouldn't the employee, who pays into his/her health insurance policy regularly, be able to determine for themselves what medical operations are necessary for them?

Also, let's look at the money objectively. $20,000 per year. Anybody want to guess how many people live in Berkeley? I bet it's more than 20K. I don't know off the top of my head, so I'll go look it up.

...

102,000 according to the 2000 census. Let's say.... oh .... 35,000 of those are under 18, so they don't pay taxes. That leaves 67,000. So we're looking at about 30 cents per year per citizen.

Really? We're concerned about three dimes a year?

Really?

 

[FFaze]

If you want a sex change, get a sex change. The process you undergo could leave you unable to work for a few weeks, and there are possibilities that could lead to you not being able to work. That is the only reason why this is debatable. Why should taxes cover such when what could happen could go against the initial tax in the first place. You don't want 100,s of people getting sex changes and then not feeling comfortable to do there duty as a citzen. It's not right to mess with things like that

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

So does that mean I can petition to get boob jobs for free as well? Maybe even a nose job?

It's ridiculous.

It's a personal problem. It shouldn't even be considered!

It's not our fault that you were born into this world as a boy when you think you should be a girl, anymore then it's the worlds fault that my boobs are too small or my nose isn't the way I like it.

It's a personal issue and should be something we save up for ourselves on the side. Yes it may be more expensive than most other surgeries but the idea of this whole thing is just ridiculous all the same.