• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should sex change operations be paid for by Gov. funds?

Should sex change operations be paid for by Gov. funds?


  • Total voters
    44

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This subject came up at my coffee clutch today so I was curious how the members of the forum felt about it?
 
I voted no. IMO, I see no reason for tax payers to pay for it.
 
No.

What did your coffee clutch think of it?
 
No. No opt-in procedures should be covered unless medically prescribed by a doctor as a requirement of physical health.
 
Sex changes and most cosmetic procedures should not be paid for by the government.
 
Why is this an issue? Is there anywhere that this is being done? Most health plans don't cover these things - -even private ones.
 
Why is this an issue? Is there anywhere that this is being done? Most health plans don't cover these things - -even private ones.
We want to make sure you don't get reimbursed for you operation. :lamo
 
Why is this an issue? Is there anywhere that this is being done? Most health plans don't cover these things - -even private ones.

Oh come on Groucho, this is a hypothetical paranoia thread. Just join in and see where it goes...
 
Absolutely not. It's a ridiculously expensive and entirely elective course of therapy.
 
This subject came up at my coffee clutch today so I was curious how the members of the forum felt about it?

Tax payers should never pay for cosmetic surgery so I voted no.
 
This subject came up at my coffee clutch today so I was curious how the members of the forum felt about it?

No. Government plans don't cover any other cosmetic surgery, so I don't see why this should be an exception.
 
Oh come on Groucho, this is a hypothetical paranoia thread. Just join in and see where it goes...

Well, it just seems as silly to me as saying "Should government buy you all the
candy you want?"

No one is suggesting that they should. So I don't know why it's even under discussion.
 
This subject came up at my coffee clutch today so I was curious how the members of the forum felt about it?

The coffee clutch is the little sleeve you put around your cup so to keep from burning your delicate fingertips. A coffee clatch, on the other hand, usually involves members of a different gender than yours gathering around a table to talk about anybody who isn't there.

So, as you can see, I'm totally confused from the get go.

As for the answer to your question, though, if it is Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Pat Robertson, David Duke, Pat Bucchanan, or Fred Phelps then yes, I think the government should pay for a sex change operation.
 
Well, it just seems as silly to me as saying "Should government buy you all the
candy you want?"

No one is suggesting that they should. So I don't know why it's even under discussion.

Oh and there you go mentioning Obama's Candy Subsidies. God Groucho we were trying to keep that under wraps!
 
Why is this an issue? Is there anywhere that this is being done? Most health plans don't cover these things - -even private ones.

Amazing how news like this hardly gets any attention. I guess leftist want their despicable deeds hidden.

State's taxpayers paid for a sex change
OLYMPIA -- At a time when lawmakers struggled to find money for health care for the state's most vulnerable people, Washington taxpayers footed the bill for a sex-change operation, penile implants, breast augmentation and ear piercings.

In his most recent review of state Medicaid expenses, Auditor Brian Sonntag found thousands of questionable expenditures in the 2004 fiscal year. One in particular jumped off the page.

Medicaid paid $9,549.92 to surgically transform a woman into a man.

National News Briefs - San Francisco Workers Get Sex-Change Coverage - NYTimes.com
BOSTON -- The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.



http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/22419092/detail.html

BOSTON -- The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.
 
Last edited:
State's taxpayers paid for a sex change
OLYMPIA -- At a time when lawmakers struggled to find money for health care for the state's most vulnerable people, Washington taxpayers footed the bill for a sex-change operation, penile implants, breast augmentation and ear piercings.

In his most recent review of state Medicaid expenses, Auditor Brian Sonntag found thousands of questionable expenditures in the 2004 fiscal year. One in particular jumped off the page.

Medicaid paid $9,549.92 to surgically transform a woman into a man.

National News Briefs - San Francisco Workers Get Sex-Change Coverage - NYTimes.com
BOSTON -- The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.



Court: Sex Change Tax Deduction OK - Project Economy News Story - WCVB Boston

BOSTON -- The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

Sweet. You really can get a tax deduction for a sex change. That's not the same as forcing the tax payers to pay for it, but hey I'm always in favor of a tax cut. :rofl
 
No.

Not ever.

Someone feels they've been "born in the wrong body"? Then they need psychological help to learn that the body they were born in is the one they have until they die. Cutting them and stuffing them full of hormones to help them fulfill their delusion does not help them.
 
State's taxpayers paid for a sex change
OLYMPIA -- At a time when lawmakers struggled to find money for health care for the state's most vulnerable people, Washington taxpayers footed the bill for a sex-change operation, penile implants, breast augmentation and ear piercings.

And the reason it's a news article is because these were done without government approval. I'm sure they're not the only things doctors have billed to taxpayers that shouldn't be billed.



Hadn't heard about this one. But I guess if it was going to be anywhere, it would be San Francisco. Still, the issue is slightly different from what was asked: This is SF buying a health care plan for employees that would cover that (as well as other things).

Not sure if that's the same thing as "government paying for it" -- unless the health care plan was tremendously more expensive than any other plan. In other words, if SF can work out a plan that doesn't cost the taxpayers any extra over what normally would be provided by a health care plan, then big deal.

And even so, if the people in SF agree to provide this benefit to their workers, then let 'em. Isn't that what federalism and local control is all about?

Once more, this is not the same as, for instance, someone on welfare getting a sex change operation for free, which is the intent of the original question as I understood it.

BOSTON -- The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.



Court: Sex Change Tax Deduction OK - Project Economy News Story - WCVB Boston

BOSTON -- The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

Deducting the cost of health care on your taxes is not the same as "government paying for it." Just because you deduct something doesn't mean you get reimbursed that amount. I deduct medical costs from my taxes and the government doesn't give it back to me; it just lowers my total income slightly for tax purposes.
 
Last edited:
The coffee clutch is the little sleeve you put around your cup so to keep from burning your delicate fingertips. A coffee clatch, on the other hand, usually involves members of a different gender than yours gathering around a table to talk about anybody who isn't there.

So, as you can see, I'm totally confused from the get go.

As for the answer to your question, though, if it is Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Pat Robertson, David Duke, Pat Bucchanan, or Fred Phelps then yes, I think the government should pay for a sex change operation.

Thanks a lot for correcting me my left wing friend.I am not very good with that type stuff.....When I was important many years a go I had someenone who worked for me like you to proof read my corrospondence..thanks again........
 
And the reason it's a news article is because these were done without government approval. I'm sure they're not the only things doctors have billed to taxpayers that shouldn't be billed.




Hadn't heard about this one. But I guess if it was going to be anywhere, it would be San Francisco. Still, the issue is slightly different from what was asked: This is SF buying a health care plan for employees that would cover that (as well as other things).

Not sure if that's the same thing as "government paying for it" -- unless the health care plan was tremendously more expensive than any other plan. In other words, if SF can work out a plan that doesn't cost the taxpayers any extra over what normally would be provided by a health care plan, then big deal.

And even so, if the people in SF agree to provide this benefit to their workers, then let 'em. Isn't that what federalism and local control is all about?




Deducting the cost of health care on your taxes is not the same as "government paying for it." Just because you deduct something doesn't mean you get reimbursed that amount. I deduct medical costs from my taxes and the government doesn't give it back to me; it just lowers my total income slightly for tax purposes.

Isn't a tax deduction basically a coupon or rebate? So yes we are paying for it.
 
Isn't a tax deduction basically a coupon or rebate? So yes we are paying for it.

Technically, yes, but you're not paying for the whole thing or even most of it.

I deduct my office expenses from my income and then pay taxes on my income. Does that mean that the taxpayer paid for my office expenses?

And I deduct my medical bills that are over a certain amount as allowed by law. There is a minimum, and all I get to do is deduct them on a different schedule, and then deduct that from my income up to a certain maximum along with other deductions such as mortgage payments -- so all I really get to deduct is a small percentage of my medical bills.

Even so, I am starting to understand the argument, after reading the article. Apparently the court held that, like other mental conditions which are treatable and deductable, "gender identity crisis" should be covered, as it is not a "cosmetic" surgery. No one chooses to have this condition, nor does anyone choose the operation lightly. I guess the point is that if you cover other operations and treatments done for mental reasons then you have to cover them all....

Now comes the range of anger from certain posters here who are convinced that every person who has gender identity questions or who is gay chose to be that way. I'll roll my eyes in advance and ignore those comments when they come.
 
Last edited:
I voted no, but can see an exception. The punishment for a second offense by a rapist should be that they get the first half of the operation at govt expense, the removal of all offending body parts....
 
Technically, yes, but you're not paying for the whole thing or even most of it.

I deduct my office expenses from my income and then pay taxes on my income. Does that mean that the taxpayer paid for my office expenses?

And I deduct my medical bills that are over a certain amount as allowed by law. There is a minimum, and all I get to do is deduct them on a different schedule, and then deduct that from my income up to a certain maximum along with other deductions such as mortgage payments -- so all I really get to deduct is a small percentage of my medical bills.

Even so, I am starting to understand the argument, after reading the article. Apparently the court held that, like other mental conditions which are treatable and deductable, "gender identity crisis" should be covered, as it is not a "cosmetic" surgery. No one chooses to have this condition, nor does anyone choose the operation lightly. I guess the point is that if you cover other operations and treatments done for mental reasons then you have to cover them all....

Now comes the range of anger from certain posters here who are convinced that every person who has gender identity questions or who is gay chose to be that way. I'll roll my eyes in advance and ignore those comments when they come.

A very good point and one I hadn't even thought of, much less considered until you mentioned it.
 
Only if government funds start paying for plastic surgery.
 
Back
Top Bottom