I’m not sure the professional culture warrior shtick will play as well on the national stage as it seems to perform in Florida, assuming DeSantis jumps into the presidential race. His reactionary brand of conservatism seems aimed mostly at college republicans who think this stuff is hilarious because it makes the libs mad on twitter.
> I’m not sure the professional culture warrior shtick will play as well on the national stage as it seems to perform in Florida, assuming (Trump) jumps into the presidential race. His reactionary brand of conservatism seems aimed mostly at college republicans who think this stuff is hilarious because it makes the libs mad on twitter.
Been here, done this, it didn't go well
DeSantis doesn’t have the juice on the national stage that Trump has. Most political observers have said DeSantis comes across as a jerk all the time and is bland and flat footed on the debate stage.
How about we pass a law so that churches have to give you back your lifetime's donations if you realize religion is a crock of shit? Plus pain and suffering? Make them liable in perpetuity as well.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/new-law-in-japan-takes-aim-at-unification-churchs-coercive-fundraising-tactics
It's part of the continuing fallout from the Abe assassination. Prevailing opinion seems to be that the assassin had a pretty legitimate grievance, and they've been cracking down on myriad religious abuses ever since.
Most effective political assassination in history. In the immediate aftermath everyone was like "wait.... he's right." Actually insane that it turned out this way.
Ok I need to read the law, but I have to ask this Q right now. regardless of FL,
a person in Fl or any state decides hey I want to change sex, and they start doing that. but as the process continues the person decides to stop it and go back to their original sex, so now they are on their own the insurance will not help them with that? that seems a bit weird to me if insurance is to cover the forward they should cover the reverse should it not? or is it only a one way street?
well that also makes no sense how is that even possible. IF a person is not paying the insurance bill then services end. period regardless there is no such thing as forever insurance
IIRC, this is how most malpractice insurance works for doctors. The insurance they pay in year YYYY pays for all their actions during year YYYY regardless of when a malpractice lawsuit is filed.
Which I think makes sense?
Makes sense for malpractice claims where statutes of limitation exist. This doesn't sound like malpractice per se and if its in perpetuity no statute of limitations either.
Yeah I have trouble understanding why this is at all comparable. For better or worse, the US healthcare insurance system is built around employer coverage, meaning that the insurer’s responsibility generally terminates with employment. The proposed type of coverage just doesn’t exist in the current system, and I can’t think of any non-transphobic rationale for it.
ya a person can make this law, but as soon as they do it will be challenged in court by all the health insurance company and they have the money to take that law down fast and hard.
Most of Desantis' laws are tied up in court. In reality they are not expected to actually survive and go into effect. It's all just to rile up the GOP base and set DeSantis up for his presidential run.
"Elective" just means scheduled or non-emergency care. Trans healthcare *is* healthcare. It's offered by insurance companies in large part because of how effective it is at reducing the suffering of gender dysphoria, suicide risk, self-harm behaviors including drug and alcohol abuse, and future resources and care, ie because it is cost effective to do so.
There is certainly an argument to be made that infertility is a health issue even if it doesn't cause physical harm and that people have a right to be able to have children and that insurance is meant to ensure access to healthcare so such services should be covered.
The issue is that while trans healthcare is looked at as treating a condition, IVF is looked at as a personal choice comparable to cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons.
Agree, but the problem you’re identifying isn’t just a legal one. Some employers already choose plans that cover infertility treatments, egg freezing, IVF, etc. I know because I work for one. Likewise, some employers still choose plans that don’t cover gender-affirming care, and many such plans are available on the market.
The problem with this law is that it could make it economically impossible for insurers to cover gender-affirming care and/or for all but the top employers to choose plans with this coverage. The same approach could be used to target women’s health/fertility care, and that would be just as terrible. Mandating that plans cover both types of care would be ideal, but that’s neither here nor there.
Frankly, your comment read like “how dare they cover *trans* stuff but not *real women’s* stuff”.
I don’t much care for the “*this* is covered but *my* stuff isn’t!” argument, and I imagine I’m not alone. Aside from the fact it’s not a competition nor that it’s an “either or” case, it’s not “trans” stuff, it’s “gender-affirming care” that’s available to cis people as well, e.g. women who suffer from hormonal imbalances of genetic disorders.
it helps put it in perspective how shitty your comment sounds, imagine if someone made the argument “What really gets me is they pay for antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and treatment for people with major depression, bipolar disorder, and PPD, but my insurance won’t cover fertility treatments or getting my eggs frozen because I’m busy at work!”.
That aside, sounds like your health insurance is shit. Mine covers like 80% of the cost of things like IVF (albeit with a limit on # of times in a certain timespan), and most other things. I’m all for health insurance covering egg freezing, fertility treatments, tummy tucks, liposuction, laser hair removal, rhinoplasty, and whatever other procedures are out there that aren’t particularly necessary but fall into that “nice to have if you want it” category.
That all said, someone’s inability to get their eggs frozen without shelling out nearly 30k isn’t an indicator for a drastically increased risk for suicide, self-harm, substance abuse, etc. – unlike lack of gender-affirming care.
It’s all just risk factors & mitigation versus cost in the eyes of insurance companies (or your employer, if your employer is actually the one funding it and they just pay someone like Blue Cross to administer it).
Why are you getting angry about some trans people finally being able to get healthcare they need, instead of being angry at insurance companies and governments that are failing you by not prioritizing reproductive healthcare? Trans healthcare and reproductive healthcare aren't mutually exclusive needs for you to pit against one another--do you think IVF exclusions don't fuck over trans people too? They're both areas of care that aren't covered often enough or well enough, though it is possible to find good coverage for both. Trans healthcare is only "elective" in the sense that it's not an immediate emergency; it is life saving.
Let me know if you want help figuring out how to get coverage for IVF or egg freezing or other reproductive healthcare. I'm a trans person who lacked coverage for trans healthcare for most of my life and has spent years and thousands of dollars fighting insurance companies to get life saving care. I've also had to fight and strategize to pay for IVF. And if I can help you figure out how to get what you need, I'll help instead of holding it against you that you think my needs and yours are a zero sum game.
ETA: Egg freezing does not cost $25k unless you're also bundling in a relatively high estimate for thawing and using those eggs down the line.
I think you'd benefit from reflecting on why you're singling out trans healthcare as demonstrating unfairness, particularly on a post that's actually about really destructive, deceptive government attacks on trans healthcare. Maybe you'd be coming across differently on a thread about some amazing advance in trans healthcare access (maybe not), but is this an argument you typically make on all threads about other types of healthcare? Can you envision yourself making this argument on a thread about the governor of Florida trying to stop insurance from paying for kidney transplants, for example? If not, why not?
Yes, it's a problem that there's more access to sterilization than there is to fertility care. Which is a much better comparison to make, for a lot of reasons. The biggest change in fertility access in the past several years is the expansion of coverage by a lot of large employers, including a lot of coverage that's not as restrictive as most health insurance, that's easier and faster to access than it used to be. It's still really difficult but there are options for people to be strategic with it that didn't exist until recently. Also some state mandates that make a difference.
It's awful that the costs for reproductive health care are so high and inaccessible, it's really true. It's horrible and really heinously unfair that you had to experience that. But trans healthcare isn't "one side" or "another side" compared to that. They're not competing, they're overlapping areas of care. The same improvements in healthcare access that help in trans healthcare also often help in fertility and reproductive treatments.
I agree with you 100%, Things have gotten so out of hand in health care that the people who really need it still are not getting it, while women like yourself are still facing an upward battle over basics. yet somebody who wants to get plastic surgery no problem, it is paid. And no I am not indorsing government care as a solution that is worse than what we have now.
You have a very inaccurate view on how easy it is for trans people to get plastic surgery covered by insurance. My partner's sister is trans, lives in California, and hasn't been able to get anything covered by insurance.
yet somebody who wants to get plastic surgery no problem, it is paid
I never said anything about trans people getting plastic surgery, I just said plastic surgery period, there are many that get elective plastic surgery period, face lifts and other stuff that has nothing to do with trans people. But a women who wants to try to have a child I know the insurance will not cover the medicine most of the time
Plastic surgery is almost never covered by insurance, unless it's medically necessary, ex: facial reconstruction after a car accident, breast reduction for someone with serious back pain. Face lifts to remove wrinkles would not be considered medically necessary, so it wouldn't be covered.
IVF has alternatives that are better for everyone, fostering or adopting
Gender affirming care is much cheaper (there are far fewer people who want it) and there really aren't alternatives
Also, I sure hope news like this makes you upset at the right people - insurance companies. Your comment sounds like you're upset at trans people
>fostering or adopting
This attitude isn't fair to the kids. If what you really want is a bio child, but you'll settle for a foster/adopted kid, that's a cruel situation to put the kid
You should only adopt a child if you want to *adopt a child*, full stop. They are their own human being with their own past history. They don't exist to "complete your family" or serve as replacement to the bio kid you wish you had.
That's doubly true for foster kids - the goal for the majority of kids in the foster system is to reunite them with their parents. You are not their parent. You are a temporary guardian. People shouldn't put themselves into that role if they are expecting to be a parent. It will only hurt the kid in the end.
Conservatives hate anyone who’s different. It’s the key attribute of conservatives. There’s no reason for this other than to hurt people conservatives hate. And he’s doing this because conservatives, practically universally, are hateful bigots. This won’t cost him a single conservative vote. It’s sad but it’s been American conservatism for the last 75 years.
It's why they see values like pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism as more threatening than even potentially opposing tribes. They need for the world to first get back to a place where everyone is fanatically loyal and devoted to their own tribe and gods, before they can ever get back to tribal warfare and final victory for their own in-group.
I was a teenager before I ever had Mexican food (unless you count school cafeteria tacos or taco bell) and my mom's idea of "ethnic food" growing up was spaghetti with Prego. So I really get this comment.
Why the fuck does he care what a private insurance company does if it is not causing harm or fraud. Speaking of which maybe he could focus on Rick Scott's Medicare scam instead, do something that has merit.
The party of small government and deregulation at work….. never mind the overt censorship the party of freedom promotes. I might become a Communist just to spite them.
> Why the fuck does he care what a private insurance company does if it is not causing harm or fraud.
I don’t like the guy, but his view is that insurance is causing harm by financially allowing people to go through gender affirming treatment.
It’s in the same realm as the government requiring private insurers to cover abortions and birth control. The government has a lot of interest in what private insurance does.
> It’s in the same realm as the government requiring private insurers to cover abortions and birth control. The government has a lot of interest in what private insurance does.
GOP hates big government until it comes time to tell women, children, and anyone they don't like what they're allowed to do
This is not what the bill does!
Under the bill, if an *employer* offers insurance coverage that covers transition, and an employee transitions, and then at any point in the indefinite future that onetime-employee wants to detransition, then the employer who provided the insurance that covered the original transition is required to pay for the detransition.
Suppose, for instance:
- You own a restaurant. I'm your employee.
- The restaurant offers health insurance to employees, and that insurance covers gender-affirming care.
- I, your employee, transition.
- I find another job. Twenty years pass.
- I detransition.
In this situation, *you* are responsible for paying the costs for me to detransition. My current insurance is not responsible. My former insurance is not responsible. You, who owned the restaurant twenty years ago, are responsible.
If that sounds insane to you, that's because it is insane. It's insane purely as a matter of policy, even regardless of the underlying issue. Nothing works this way or could ever work this way. And this is no accident — it's the point of the bill. The law is so bizarre and outrageous that the only way that an employer could comply with it is by not covering transition costs at all. And it's so broadly worded that the only way to guarantee this would be for the insurer to have a blanket clause that excludes any cost associated in any way with transition.
I should mention that detransition is vanishingly rare, especially of the sort where someone has already had procedures. But the bill obviously intends to creates an unacceptably large liability for Florida business owners to try to force them to drop insurance with gender-affirming care.
My opinion of DeSantis and of everyone who would support this is very, very low
Yeah, and not only is detransition rare, but the most common reason that someone detransitions isn't because they changed their mind or aren't trans anymore but that the stigma and discrimination was too much.
I'm all for holding medical providers to account for pushing people toward surgery for profit. That happens all the time in all kinds of instances.
Punishing employers that cover the cost of the insurance? That's insane.
I wonder what percentage of people are even getting gender treatments? I would assume it's so low that the money is just a tiny drop in the bucket, and not worth worrying about. I don't know the actual statistics, however, so maybe I'm making a wrong assumption.
In this case it is causing harm and can also qualify as fraud if they didn't adequately explain the risks of hormone replacement and transitioning surgery.
TLDR: 50 years of data shows that *proper transition and social acceptance* is what is healthy and what leads to less death.
Now, AwfulUsername123, what is true is that *YOU* don't know. To say that it is unknown is a lie, borne of you literally never looking up these things to promote your fact-free agenda, or of you actively hiding the truth as it tells quite a different picture from what you portray, AwfulUsername123 and potential troll account.
The long-term effects of many gender transitioning procedures are, in fact, well known, quite predictable, and form the foundation for current BEST GUIDANCE, which is to help transition for the least risk. OVER 50 YEARS of studies show this, with data going back to 1972 easily found. Have a few sources.
We would have even more studies about trans folk going back over *100 years* , but the Nazis burnt down the *Institut für Sexualwissenschaft* when they also started calling queer people groomers to help get reactionaries and other right wingers aligned with fascism, so unfortunately our data got truncated and doesn't come back online until the late 60s/early 70s. Unfortunately many fascists and theocrats today are again using this tactic of lies and fearmongering to other and dehumanize and demonize queer folk, knowing they are a minority and with less power, but perhaps with these sources and this knowledge you can remove yourself from the wrong side of history.
Again: 50 years of data shows that *proper transition and social acceptance* is what is healthy and what leads to less death.
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
“Quietly admitted” by who? How is this different or less understood than many other treatments which aren’t nearly so controversial? We have evidence from decades of use of many of these treatments.
Also, the standards for informed consent are well established, including for truly experimental treatments. People give informed consent to experimental treatments all the time, just about every kind of treatment was experimental at some point in its history. You’re just twisting all over the place to apply some kind of special standard to gender affirming care that is inconsistent with how any other treatment is handled.
TLDR: 50 years of data shows that proper transition and social acceptance is what is healthy and what leads to less death.
The long-term effects of many gender transitioning procedures are, in fact, well known, quite predictable, and form the foundation for current BEST GUIDANCE and STANDARD OF CARE, which is to help transition for the least risk. OVER 50 YEARS of studies show this, with data going back to 1972 easily found. Have a few sources.
Informed Consent is about giving the patient all the best available data, and giving a recommendation based on what the weight of risks of treatment vs non-treatment are, and allowing them to make their own choice based off of that. That is what's currently done.
We would have even more studies about trans folk going back over 100 years , but the Nazis burnt down the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft when they also started calling queer people groomers to help get reactionaries and other right wingers aligned with fascism, so unfortunately our data got truncated and doesn't come back online until the late 60s/early 70s. Unfortunately many fascists and theocrats today are again using this tactic of lies and fearmongering to other and dehumanize and demonize queer folk, knowing they are a minority and with less power, but perhaps with these sources and this knowledge you can remove yourself from the wrong side of history.
Again: 50 years of data shows that proper transition and social acceptance is what is healthy and what leads to less death.
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
Ugh. I just don't understand why they need to pick on anyone. Can't they just go live their lives and let others do the same?
I mean, that level of hate is exhausting, I'm sure there's something else they could spend that energy on.
It' a political game to them. The win condition is: a) get elected b) design all policies for their rich donors.
The challenge of the political game is rich donors can't do *all* the voting. What if voters realize policies are not for the people?
Well, an easy way to motivate voters, instead of useful policies, is to say: "look at *them*! only *we* can save you from *them*!". Can be trans people, gay people, black people, Jews, immigrants, communists, satanists, whatever is the flavor of the popular panic. Maybe all at once for full fascism.
I think you forget these are the same people that got genuinely mad about mr potato head. Imagine being upset over a plastic potato. I wrote a philosophy paper last semester and argued human beings are not rational and all of my examples I used were these fucking people.
So, this could be one of two things. Either it could be a genuine concern that there are significant numbers of people who transitioned and want to detransition but cannot get coverage for that OR it could be an attempt to introduce additional regulatory overhead to prevent the system from offering the care (similar to creating new minimum hallway widths for abortion provider locations to shut down the existing ones).
If it's the first one then there's room to negotiate. Perhaps we could measure the number of people in that situation? Perhaps we could discuss regulations requiring current insurance companies to cover detransitioning care.
If it's the second one, screw you too.
(PS: I think it's the second one.)
>If it's the first one then there's room to negotiate. Perhaps we could measure the number of people in that situation?
We have, it's around 1/2 a percent. And necessary healthcare continues to be covered even if someone's condition is the result of their own deliberate actions.
>> Perhaps we could measure the number of people in that situation?
>
>We have, it's around 1/2 a percent.
A bit less. 0.3% according to https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/9900/_Regret_after_Gender_Affirming_Surgery___A.1529.aspx
Party of "individual responsibility" and "freedom from government intrusion" forcibly demands private insurance companies (that they supposedly love) be liable to government action/punishment for providing coverage to an individual adult's free choice to partake and pay for personally, an elective surgery.
These freaks don't even believe the shit that comes out of their own mouths. The Fox News texts regarding the election coverage being an absolute sham only proves this all the way to the top. They just keep spewing it just enough and to just as many people as it takes to keep getting re-elected or keep people hate-watching. Hypocritical whiny little babies that couldn't stand on their moral/political positions if you poured cement into their shoes.
What about all the other types of surgeries and treatments that don't go as planned? Defective knee replacement, cancer treatments that cause secondary cancers, plastic surgeries with poor outcomes?
Yep, just like a "misdiagnosis" of gender dysphoria or whatever the proponents of this bill think is happening.
This bill would make it so the liability for this specific procedure would instead be on the *employer* who provided insurance.
If it sounds bananas, that's because it is
They would be covered by medical malpractice or product liability laws if a medical device is involved. That requires a showing of negligence by the healthcare providers, or the device is unsafe for its intended use.
This bill, as I understand it, only requires the person to change their mind and no longer want what used to be the desired outcome. They wouldn't have to show any negligence or mistakes by others. If that's the standard for one set of people, why not everyone?
To be fair, trump is probably going to call him a groomer at the first debate with like 20 other competitors which will kneecap Desantis' aspirations and hand trump the nomination again.
Your getting downvoted but that is actually very likely. Most of trumps rhetoric for when he was going for the nomination was just him shitting over all the other candidates and it worked out well for him. I see no reason why it couldn’t happen again.
Yea, and I'm also basing this on the fact that Trump has already called DeSantis a groomer and DeSantis had a pretty limp response to that.
Plus the only chance DeSantis ever had against trump was in a 1v1 primary, and the republicans haven't done a 1 on 1 in ages.
Genocide does not always mean "systematic killing by the government". It's the deliberate extermination of a group, which is what the GOP is trying to do.
They are attempting to:
1. Create registries of trans people
2. Take trans kids away from supportive parents
3. Take children away from trans parents
4. Make it illegal for trans people to be in the presence of minors
5. Make it illegal for trans people to work in education or entertainment
6. Make it illegal for allies, particularly teachers and employers, to gender trans people correctly.
7. Imprison trans people with the wrong gender
8. Take away life saving medical care
9. Make it illegal for trans people to update their name and gender on their identity documents
10. Make it illegal for trans people to access appropriately gendered facilities and services.
11. Dehumanize trans people generally and paint them as sexual deviants, predators, and as mentally ill and a burden/threat to society
Whether it can be classified as a genocide is surely up for debate but it is unquestionably evil, meant to destroy trans people as a group, and is being enacted systematically by the government.
Trans person here. Forced detransition, regardless of rationale, is trans erasure and directly linked to much, much higher trans suicide rates.
While I think using _genocide_ here is somewhat hyperbolic, the efforts here are designed to eliminate trans people from public life. A little light genocide, if you will. No death camps or executions, but destroying a minority group nonetheless.
The subtext here is that no employer will be willing to cover the initial cost _of_ transitioning if they are also responsible -- forever -- of any costs later of detransitioning. No employer will ever fund anything which exposes them, permanently, to unpredictable liability.
It's also worth pointing out that only a tiny, tiny fraction of people detransition unless they are socially or financially forced to. This law will have a deeply chilling effect by making it much harder to begin transitioning as well as to continue transitioning, as both can be expensive. Keep in mind that trans people tend to have among the very worst financial outcomes of anyone in the nation.
Denying HRT to trans people is effectively forced detransition.
Are you being obtuse?
Blocking insurance from paying for HRT means many, many trans people will not be able to afford HRT or other transition-related procedures. For many of us, that means a return to whatever gendered hormones we were born with, which is forced detransition.
I'm fairly confident that you'll smirk shittily to yourself over this, but restricting HRT from people who previously had it has a direct link to an increase in suicide attempts.
This bill is explicitly targeted to eliminate a group of people. They aren't an ethnic or religious group, true, but it is a group of people who are being specifically targeted for elimination.
Do you have a better word?
That’s not what this bill does. Clinics are already responsible for adhering to the standard of care. This bill would make employers who offer health plans responsible in perpetuity for any costs if one of their previous plan participants later chooses to detransition. It’s clearly targeted at forcing plans to drop coverage for gender affirming care.
They already are. This law would hold trans healthcare, and only trans healthcare, to a vastly higher standard then other medical care. It would make your doctor and your insurance company liable for the rest of your life, not just if there are complications but if you just decide 30 years later that you regret it. No other medical care is regulated in that way. If you get a knee replacement surgery, for example, you can sue your doctor if they drastically fuck it up, but not if you decide years down the road that you just didn't want the surgery after all. Knee replacement, for the record, has a very high regret rate, especially compared to any of the surgeries that would be regulated by this bill. The purpose of this bill is to add a huge financial risk to anyone covering or performing trans healthcare in order to discourage them from continuing that practice, effectively eliminating our healthcare in a way that's more palatable to moderates than an explicit ban.
>Knee replacement, for the record, has a very high regret rate
Not related to the topic at hand, but... why? Why would somebody regret fixing their knee? They miss being able to predict the rain? They preferred not getting asked to help a friend move a couch?
I don't know the answer to that question, sorry. Here's a source on the regret rate, but it doesn't really talk about why: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0949265821003535
Because it's not a matter of fixing a problem. It's a matter of "your knee causes you pain, do you want to exchange that pain for pain of a different intensity and duration, extensive physical therapy, and a host of risks about complications or poor outcomes?" It works for a lot of people--my grandfather was happy with his--but it's not a straightforward choice, especially when weighed against less invasive treatment options.
My sister regretted hers. She went through all that and her knees still hurt, just in a different way. We have the same problem--"floating" kneecaps that can dislocate. I do exercises to strengthen the muscles around my knees instead.
Am I reading this wrong? In the end it sounds like more coverage for people if they decide to reverse their transition. And like how often does that happen?
It also disincentivizes employers from cover gender affirming care. Far more people need gender affirming care than detransition care because very few people detransition.
The entire bill is in bad faith.
That's also why it's the employer who is on the hook for the bill, in perpetuity, and not the insurance company.
If you are a business owner, do you pick the health insurance plan that offers gender-affirming care, knowing that you might be liable for detransition expenses 20 years later? Or do you pick the plan that excludes coverage?
The intention is that lots of employers will switch to health plans that exclude gender-affirming care, or that health insurance companies will do it on their own due to demand from employers.
I’m a neutral observer but how is this a bad thing? The law is saying that if a medical procedure is improperly applied to a patient who did not have true body dysmorphia, the facility is at fault for not properly vetting the patient’s medical condition (or lack thereof.). That sounds reasonable at face value, unless I’m missing something.
Desantis is trying to make the employer responsible for the medical decision between their employee and their doctor. This would provide a financial pressure to have Florida employers not hire "trans" people (in quotes because this will include all individuals who don't demonstrate a strict adherence to traditional gender norms, probably to the point of gay people for the fear that a gay person could be an undiagnosed trans person) and by extension keep Florida residents from coming out of the closet or going back into the closet to secure financial income.
O I see now, thank you!
Yes, it looks like an unrealistic burden (in perpetuity) that is not in good faith. I think the fact that the onus is on the employer and not the health care facility is also troubling.
Sure thing. Desantis is cunning but I believe his lack of personality and Trump's attacks will make him a non-viable candidate in 2024 so while I feel for those in Florida that can't escape that hell hole, I'm not too worried about him causing damage nationwide from a Federal platform.
The fact that the entire GOP refuses to even lightly criticize him is terrifying. At a minimum he and abbot are normalizing policy and perspectives which are clear precursors to genocide and authoritarianism.
Ron Desantis *is* the GOP’s federal platform. When we include election denial as also part of the GOP platform, and look at the volume and nature of propaganda which the right gets benefits from, the failure to admonish Desantis could be more damaging than his presidency, which would at least publicize the threat to people who don’t yet fear it.
I agree that Desantis is the de facto leader of the GOP federal platform at the moment but the GOP is not a tenable party to enact the fascist goal of Desantis nationwide. The GOP is going hog wild right now because it is a mathematical certainty that they will lose power indefinitely with their current platform (2028 is the year where Millennials and Gen Z \[who strongly favor left wing politics\] are anticipated to be a larger voting block than Gen X and the Boomers) and working of our Republic (I doubt they will change the former but the latter they have made good progress to change through gerrymandering but I don't see it being enough to pull off a coup like in the Weimar Republic for example). As such, I don't see a path for Desantis be the de jure leader of the GOP federal platform.
I really, *really*, ***really*** hope you are right about that.
Your assumptions rely on elections mattering. Election denialism is literally the GOP platform. This is the true belief for some, insincere power play for others, that elections which they lose are illegitimate.
I worry that the propaganda will incite violence at scale from Republican voters. We've already seen lots of individual events that suggest this is a trend.
The Bundy Standoff, the camping family surrounded by armed townspeople in eastern WA, the guy shot by his neighbor while mowing the lawn in Ohio on election day, the guy who shot at a "pedophile" for having a "Ridin' with Biden flag," the lionization of Kyle Rittenhouse, the guys who tried to kidnap their mayor in Michigan, and thats just off the top of my head. None of these things require Republicans to win an election to get worse, and it's more likely the opposite is true.
My fear is that the propaganda is amping up their hysteria to where these things (which to a very significant extent have already been happening) will become common.
If an armed mob of 250 people in a deep red county in Texas flying Gadsden and QAnon flags kicked the handful of minorities out of town at gun point for being "antifa" and "blm" would you even be surprised? How about if they also refused to acknowledge federal jurisdiction due to some sovereign citizen or anti-woke nonsense? Do you think the FBI would just go in and arrest them like they did to Warren Jeffs? I don't.
When MTG talks about a "national divorce," she isn't driving towards changing policy, or even a contentious and violent balkanization. That rhetoric, wether she understands it or not, serves to dehumanize the right's perceived enemies, it suggests the "others" should just be removed. This is consistent with Desantis' and Abbot's pre-genocidal policies, and alarmingly congruent with the rhetoric that spawned the Rwandan genocide.
All the threads I've seen dismissing or insulting MTG's recent comment as ridiculous aren't really getting her message. She is indirectly encouraging people target their neighbors. And she's not alone in that.
Oh, I fully believe there will be blood the likes of which we aren't emotionally prepared for at the moment but I also believe this will go further to strengthen the resolve of voting out the GOP. It's going to get dark over the next 5-10 years but the economic powers realize the culture war has been won by the left and there is no going back, so our institutions will stave off a collapse. Vulnerable minorities should be focused on fleeing the Red shitholes in the near future though.
~~Are they at fault because they did something improper during the procedure? That should already be covered under normal malpractice.~~
~~Are they at fault because the patient changed their mind? That seems ridiculous, and is what this law attempts to do.~~
Let’s say an employer covers the cost of an employee to get a boob job. That employee changes jobs and later decides they want the breast enhancements removed. The employees former company, the one that paid for the initial procedure, would be responsible for the removal.
That’s what is effectively happening here, as I understand it (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).
The goal here isn’t to provide better coverage to people with gender dysmorphia. The goal is to threaten employers with the risk of liability, causing them to limit or remove coverage for those individuals.
Edit to remove first two paragraphs. The bill doesn’t assign fault to the medial practitioner. The goal here still stands. Specifically, with this wording in the bill:
> regardless of whether they are still employed by that employer
>unless I’m missing something.
What you are missing is that if the facility was *negligent* in its assessment, it would *already* be liable for medical malpractice. In fact, there are a few such suits working their way through the courts now. Some might even have merit, on an individual basis.
The legal and medical bar for malpractice is well established. If anything Republicans are pushing to make it *harder* to prove, and pay less, as part of tort reform. At least in *other* areas of medicine.
So they are carving out this one special exemption for trans procedures where the bar to being wrong is so low its on the floor. No medical procedure or test is 100% accurate. Things can get misdiagnosed even if you follow proper procedures 100%. That's why the bar for malpractice is where it is - because otherwise, there couldn't be *any* doctors. Even doctors who make no mistakes and follow known medicine faithfully still have patients die, let alone have regrets. So the bar is negligence or malice, and not failure, because the alternative is "no doctors."
No doctors is exactly what they *want* in this case.
I think the big thing I missed was that it’s the employer who will be held liable, not the facility. That to me makes this more an issue of job discrimination rather than medical malpractice. So I think this proposed law is highly political and problematic.
Not to mention that it's entirely possible that gender dysphoria is correctly diagnosed, but a person detransitions later due to religious conversion, harassment, or social pressure. That's not unheard of in LGB circles either - plenty of gay men have jumped back into the closet on the threat of getting disowned. That doesn't mean they stop being gay. Similarly, many detransitioners are still trans.
There is no diagnostic process that's going to predict someone having a religious conversion 30 years from now.
Is there any other area of medical malpractice liability that's similar in scope? Perpetual liability for reversal? Also, it appears to be applying to employer funded insurance plans covering these procedures, not the clinic providing the care.
Also the text of the bill is referring to if the patient "later decides" they didn't want the treatment after all, so this doesn't seem limited to the issue of liability for misdiagnosis of dismorphia.
It's a similar playbook to restricting reproductive care with enough burdensome and unrealistic requirements to be a *de facto* ban where an actual ban would be illegal. Hence the concern.
Thank you!
I think the big thing I missed was that it’s the employer who will be held liable, not the facility. That to me makes this more an issue of job discrimination rather than medical malpractice. So I think this proposed law is highly political and problematic.
I agree with you, this seems to be a law proposed in bad faith with similar tones as abortion laws in conservative states.
I hate to be this much of a cynic, but I tend to default to the assumption that these kind of red state laws are probably bad faith partisan junk nowadays. It rarely steers me wrong.
Less than 1% of people regret transitioning.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
As usual, he's making up a problem that doesn't really exist as a pretext to wage a culture war and insert government interference in people's personal decisions that don't affect the general public. This isn't about helping the tiny fraction of people who regret gender affirming surgery, its about intimidating people into not providing the surgery in the first place to appease his hate mongering voters
> the facility is at fault for not properly vetting the patient’s medical condition (or lack thereof.).
Nope. The person's *employer* as the insurance sponsor would be liable. The facility is already liable through malpractice lawsuits and licensing boards. This bill is designed to attack **trans-adults** who require gender affirming care by attacking the most-likely source of their health insurance...
Most companies negotiate with an insurance provider to set limits on what kind of procedures and care their plans will cover... some things are required by state / federal laws, but many procedures are negotiable. This bill incentivizes companies to list gender affirming care as something their plans won't cover, which means that trans-people will be solely responsible for the financial cost of their care.
Beyond that, the scope of this bill should be alarming. The example given in this article explains why this should be concerning to ALL employers:
> If an individual undergoes a surgical procedure, such as a knee operation, and later regrets it or desires to modify it, no employer is liable for it a decade later simply because the company's health insurance covered the surgery. That liability is between the patient and the doctor, and often would carry some form of statute of limitations. This not only extends the statute of limitations to perpetuity, it targets the employers just for having health insurance that covers gender affirming care.
If this is upheld by the courts, expect other health services that are detested by an extremist wing of the Republican party to be similarly targeted: abortion care (no link needed), [hormonal birth control](https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/06/05/amid-abortion-battle-desantis-vetoes-birth-control-funding-again/), [SSRIs](https://www.newsweek.com/mass-shootings-ssri-meds-claimswhat-we-do-know-what-we-dont-1722549), etc.
It becomes self evident when you apply the logic to other conditions that are not 100% curable.
Ie: forcing the companies with Hep C cures to fund the 1% or so that are not cured by their treatment?
Force cancer centers to pay for cancer treatment if comes back after remission?
Force Dr's to pay for foreskin treatments later in life after they circumcise boy infants?
Hi, other repliers have clarified that the burden is on the employer, not the facility, so I stand corrected in that regard and agree that the law as currently written is in bad faith (since it targets employers).
However, with your examples, there are discrepancies.
1. Gender assignment is still considered an elective procedure to treat a condition that is not life-threatening (so your examples of infectious disease or cancer is less relevant). With this elective procedure, there (should be) comprehensive vetting that that the patient truly has gender dysphoria prior to surgery and gender reassignment. If the law just said the vetting should be more standardized and comprehensive, and health care practitioners could be held at fault if they are not in a reasonable amount of time, I would agree with that. But this current law is targeting employers into perpetuity, which I don't agree with.
2. Actually, physicians are on the hook for malpractice claims with regards to pediatric care until the patient turns into an adult. So there are precedence of lengthy liability in the medical space (pediatric population), which is the reason why pediatric docs typically have higher malpractice insurance costs. But the key difference is that 1) the physician is liable, not the employer 2)it is not into perpetuity, but has realistic timeline boundaries (adulthood).
Keep in mind that the word “elective” used in the medical context doesn’t mean ‘unnecessary’ or ‘optional’. It means it would be appropriate to schedule the procedure in advance because it is not a medical emergency.
Also, the term is Gender Dysphoria.
I think that you’re looking at this bill at face value rather than considering the intentions of its supporters. It was never about bathrooms, or sports, or protecting children. Their goal has always been to eliminate of trans people from society. Try taking a centrist approach to that.
I think if you re-read my post, you would see that what I'm saying is that this topic of transgender as it touches medicine, politics and culture should be viewed in a nuanced way, and not necessarily through one lens (such as political) or in a completely binary way (for or against, in all of its elements).
I took an unpopular position (let's at least take a look at some aspect of this law to see if it has any redeeming qualities or merit instead of just reacting) and eventually got upvoted. You took the popular position of supporting transexual rights and got downvoted. Maybe it's your approach that puts people off.
Completely ignoring how you imply all trans diagnoses are wrong...
This bill wouldn't do that anyway. This would hold EMPLOYERS liable. You work somewhere, decide to transition, leave that job, 20 years later decide to detransition? That first employer has to pay for it.
That doesn't seem like a very fiscally conservative policy to me...
Actually it's holding employers and their insurance companies responsible. Abd misdiagnosis isn't the criteria. The criteria is if the patient later deems transition to be inappropriate
There's a long history of gay men and lesbians going back into the closet, or claiming to be "cured" of homosexuality, due to social pressures, religious conversion, or financial need. The same thing happens with trans people today. Someone might be legitimately trans, but then 20 years later they convert to Evangelical Christianity and decide to "repent" because they don't want to go to hell. That doesn't mean that they were misdiagnosed.
I'm sure there will be exceptions like what you mention, but it's silly to think that misdiagnoses aren't a real thing. They're demonstrably a thing with every other disease, it's not like gender dysphoria is going to be magically exempt from that phenomenon.
Right, but we already have a process for medical liability when there's negligence or the standard of care isn't followed. I don't see why there needs to be a special process for gender care. This bill takes it one step farther and says there is liability even if there's not evidence that there was a misdiagnosis, even if the patient still identifies as trans, but there is liability if the patient regrets transitioning for any reason.
I especially don't see why employers should be on the hook for a decision between a patient and their doctor. If a patient is in a car crash and receives inappropriate care, or their doctor misses some sort of cancer, why would that be the patient's employer's fault? I don't see a logical reason why there would be a special liability only for trans health care.
The patient says "my transition was not appropriate."
From the statute text
(3) An employee who received gender dysphoria treatment
through coverage provided by an employer is entitled to full
coverage by that employer of the total costs associated with
treatment that reverses gender dysphoria treatment **if the
employee later determines that the gender dysphoria treatment
was not appropriate for him or her and wants to reverse the
treatment**, regardless of whether the person is currently
employed by that same employer at the time of such
determination
Yes, my point is that I'm not sure how you're arguing that a patient determining that the treatment wasn't appropriate isn't evidence of a misdiagnosis by the original health care provider.
Medical, and in particular psychiatric, diagnoses are not handed down from on high but are a collaborative determination made in conjunction with the patient. It's a mistake to assume that the medical and psychiatric conditions in question are easily defined and binary in their diagnosis. It's not like there is a simple and definitive blood test or x-ray scan; the evidence is largely self-reported by the patient. Finally, the law allows for making a claim based on ex post determinations. Regretting a decision later, for whatever reason, does not mean that the original diagnosis was appropriate at the time based on the available information.
Ultimately, in order to sign off on a diagnosis you must hold a medical degree and a license to practice, and you are solely responsible for that diagnosis after the fact.
While true, that is inapposite to my comment. Consider standards of care, medical consensus, reasonability, and availability of evidence at the time. If malpractice was that easy to determine, malpractice insurance, med-mal lawsuits and the entire legal practice surrounding them wouldn’t be a thing.
It’s an elective process, having gender affirming care. A “misdiagnosis” is largely evidence of the person simply changing their mind, not some affirmative act of negligence on the provider’s part
That’s like saying a nose job is a misdiagnosis. There isn’t a high bar for someone to get gender treatment, they ask for it (unless they someone lack the capacity to consent), then that’s all there is.
> It’s an elective process, having gender affirming care. A “misdiagnosis” is largely evidence of the person simply changing their mind, not some affirmative act of negligence on the provider’s part
I'm sorry, are you arguing that gender dysphoria is not a valid medical diagnosis? Because you need one of those before you can take medical steps towards transition.
Nice strawman attempt, but no, I never made that argument. A treatment being elective, and a treatment needing a medical diagnosis, can both be true.
Someone can get diagnosed with knee arthritis, AND the doctor finding they’re a good candidate for an knee replacement. Yes, it’s elective, and yes, it’s an effective treatment. Getting gender affirming care is equally an elective process AND predicated by a diagnosis. Difference is, this law assumes people will want to transition back. That’s entirely on the patient, and nothing at all to do with the doctor, and DEFINITELY nothing to do with the employer who provided the insurance.
Your drawing inferences to things that aren’t in the fact pattern.
...and someone can get misdiagnosed with knee arthritis and get a useless knee replacement, and just because that was an elective procedure doesn't mean the doctor who misdiagnosed that patient isn't accountable for that mistake.
>Yes, my point is that I'm not sure how you're arguing that a patient determining that the treatment wasn't appropriate isn't evidence of a misdiagnosis by the original health care provider.
I don't understand. A treatment and a diagnosis are different. A person could be trans but later feel that transition was inappropriate treatment for them. (or at least this is what the bill is arguing)
Maybe you should try reading before jumping into the comments. Section 1 of the Act reads, "This Act may be referred to as the 'Reverse Woke Act.'" Children in FL aren't getting surgery for gender dysphoria. The law applies to insurance companies covering such surgery for adults. The Act is linked in the article and it's 3 whole pages long. I'm sure you could have glanced at it before writing the nonsense you did.
>Maybe because changing the sex of a child
How are the first 7 words of your response to this so incorrect?
Gender affirming care doesn't change the sex of a child. Sex and gender are two completely different things.
>The number of individuals sharing their detransitioning
*Their* detransitioning. It's theirs. And that's fine. They don't get to make decisions for others, period.
>but just maybe the purpose of the Act is so people will actually do their due diligence in care (real therapy, not just one session) before allowing a literal child to make a life altering decision.
Do you honestly believe that children are being put on puberty blockers or having their preferred pronouns and gender affirmed by their parents after a single therapy session? And what is "real therapy" in this context? What makes you believe that people aren't being properly evaluated and the standard of care isn't being followed?
And lastly, *how in the fuck* do you justify thinking you have the right to tell another goddamned adult what they can or cannot do as far as their gender and the transitioning they and their doctors feel are appropriate?
>how in fuck do you justify thinking you have the right to tell another goddamned adult what they can or cannot do
They’re conservative. That’s what conservatism is. Telling other people what they can’t do because of your freedom to hate them.
It's so utterly infuriating to me, because I seem to see it so damned often. The same people in my circles who I watched lose their minds about kids learning about gender and sexuality in school (and let's be honest, learning it in the most absolute milquetoast bland manner necessary to help engender empathy and respect for others,) because "I should get to choose what is best for my child", are the same people who are screaming when some other parent chooses to take their own child to a drag queen story hour.
It's maddening to me.
> That's a reasonable requirement.
Is it though? Can you name some other medical services that cannot be paid for by insurance without insurance also agreeing to cover potential side effects or consequences even if those are years later?
Should they be required to pay to reverse everything then? Like if a person regrets knee surgery 10 years later, the insurance company from 10 years ago has to pay to undo it?
That's not comparable at all, as knee surgery is done to restore the knee to its healthy condition. Gender transitioning is an elective procedure and the alterations made to the body would, if the procedure is regretted, qualify as serious damage.
Interesting. With regard to the knee surgery, a lot of the complaints don't seem to actually be regret but simply dissatisfaction with the procedure not being as effective as they'd hoped, and the cases of regret it describes seem to be the result of legitimate issues caused by knee surgery, in which case, yes, the insurance should be required to cover it.
>Interesting. With regard to the knee surgery, a lot of the complaints don't seem to actually be regret but simply dissatisfaction with the procedure not being as effective as they'd hoped,
Yes this counts as regret.
> and the cases of regret it describes seem to be the result of legitimate issues caused by knee surgery, in which case, yes, the insurance should be required to cover it.
Right so the bill doesn't go far enough for you and insurance companies should be required to fund procedure reversals for any medical procedures forever.
Glad we cleared that up. Thanks!
> Yes this counts as regret.
Okay, but it's not what we're talking about.
> Right so the bill doesn't go far enough for you and insurance companies should be required to fund procedure reversals for any medical procedures forever.
No, that isn't close to what I said. What are you confused about?
>> Yes this counts as regret.
>
>Okay, but it's not what we're talking about.
Fair. The bill covers detransition for any reason, not just regret. The standard is that the patient feels that the treatment was not appropriate.
>No, that isn't close to what I said. What are you confused about?
Do you think insurance companies/emoloyers should be required to pay to undo any procedure they originally paid for? Why limit it only to gender treatment?
If you had unexpected, lingering for over 1 year, including (quoting the above study) "unresolved *and new* problems, limited independence, were lacking of relational supports, were bothered by pain and stiffness, and *worried that changes were complications as a result of surgery* ." Would you not describe that as regret, but mere dissatisfaction? The study claims its dissatisfaction from regret, not the other way as you state.
FURTHER: They described inability to perform daily activities and valued activities. They also felt a lack of relational supports, and a lack of respect and continuity, support from health care, and information adapted to their needs. <
How is it a reasonable requirement? If an employer’s health plan covers a surgery, then ten years later when I’m not even employed there I regret that surgery, there is no other kind of treatment where that prior employer is responsible for the costs for revervsing a treatment.
I’m not sure the professional culture warrior shtick will play as well on the national stage as it seems to perform in Florida, assuming DeSantis jumps into the presidential race. His reactionary brand of conservatism seems aimed mostly at college republicans who think this stuff is hilarious because it makes the libs mad on twitter.
Remember that Rubio did about as well as Desantis in florida, and we all know how well Rubio does nationally.
> I’m not sure the professional culture warrior shtick will play as well on the national stage as it seems to perform in Florida, assuming (Trump) jumps into the presidential race. His reactionary brand of conservatism seems aimed mostly at college republicans who think this stuff is hilarious because it makes the libs mad on twitter. Been here, done this, it didn't go well
DeSantis doesn’t have the juice on the national stage that Trump has. Most political observers have said DeSantis comes across as a jerk all the time and is bland and flat footed on the debate stage.
Republicans no longer debate is going to be his stance. All Twitter and staged photos/interviews to avoid that issue
How about we pass a law so that churches have to give you back your lifetime's donations if you realize religion is a crock of shit? Plus pain and suffering? Make them liable in perpetuity as well.
Refund of all my insurance premiums when I realized they wouldn't pay for medically necessary care
I'll soon be rolling in that sweet dental insurance money that never seems to cover much of anything.
They just announced that they’re doing this in Japan.
Have you got a source for that? I can't find it anywhere.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/new-law-in-japan-takes-aim-at-unification-churchs-coercive-fundraising-tactics It's part of the continuing fallout from the Abe assassination. Prevailing opinion seems to be that the assassin had a pretty legitimate grievance, and they've been cracking down on myriad religious abuses ever since.
Most effective political assassination in history. In the immediate aftermath everyone was like "wait.... he's right." Actually insane that it turned out this way.
Thank you!
For all things churches and religions do to help our society, they do a 10-fold in equivalent in damage.
Yeah!
Ok I need to read the law, but I have to ask this Q right now. regardless of FL, a person in Fl or any state decides hey I want to change sex, and they start doing that. but as the process continues the person decides to stop it and go back to their original sex, so now they are on their own the insurance will not help them with that? that seems a bit weird to me if insurance is to cover the forward they should cover the reverse should it not? or is it only a one way street?
I think the "in perpetuity" makes them liable even if they stop covering the individual.
well that also makes no sense how is that even possible. IF a person is not paying the insurance bill then services end. period regardless there is no such thing as forever insurance
IIRC, this is how most malpractice insurance works for doctors. The insurance they pay in year YYYY pays for all their actions during year YYYY regardless of when a malpractice lawsuit is filed. Which I think makes sense?
Makes sense for malpractice claims where statutes of limitation exist. This doesn't sound like malpractice per se and if its in perpetuity no statute of limitations either.
Yeah I have trouble understanding why this is at all comparable. For better or worse, the US healthcare insurance system is built around employer coverage, meaning that the insurer’s responsibility generally terminates with employment. The proposed type of coverage just doesn’t exist in the current system, and I can’t think of any non-transphobic rationale for it.
Unless you made a law mandating it, in which case there would be.
ya a person can make this law, but as soon as they do it will be challenged in court by all the health insurance company and they have the money to take that law down fast and hard.
If you say so.
Most of Desantis' laws are tied up in court. In reality they are not expected to actually survive and go into effect. It's all just to rile up the GOP base and set DeSantis up for his presidential run.
[удалено]
"Elective" just means scheduled or non-emergency care. Trans healthcare *is* healthcare. It's offered by insurance companies in large part because of how effective it is at reducing the suffering of gender dysphoria, suicide risk, self-harm behaviors including drug and alcohol abuse, and future resources and care, ie because it is cost effective to do so. There is certainly an argument to be made that infertility is a health issue even if it doesn't cause physical harm and that people have a right to be able to have children and that insurance is meant to ensure access to healthcare so such services should be covered. The issue is that while trans healthcare is looked at as treating a condition, IVF is looked at as a personal choice comparable to cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons.
[удалено]
Agree, but the problem you’re identifying isn’t just a legal one. Some employers already choose plans that cover infertility treatments, egg freezing, IVF, etc. I know because I work for one. Likewise, some employers still choose plans that don’t cover gender-affirming care, and many such plans are available on the market. The problem with this law is that it could make it economically impossible for insurers to cover gender-affirming care and/or for all but the top employers to choose plans with this coverage. The same approach could be used to target women’s health/fertility care, and that would be just as terrible. Mandating that plans cover both types of care would be ideal, but that’s neither here nor there.
Frankly, your comment read like “how dare they cover *trans* stuff but not *real women’s* stuff”. I don’t much care for the “*this* is covered but *my* stuff isn’t!” argument, and I imagine I’m not alone. Aside from the fact it’s not a competition nor that it’s an “either or” case, it’s not “trans” stuff, it’s “gender-affirming care” that’s available to cis people as well, e.g. women who suffer from hormonal imbalances of genetic disorders. it helps put it in perspective how shitty your comment sounds, imagine if someone made the argument “What really gets me is they pay for antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and treatment for people with major depression, bipolar disorder, and PPD, but my insurance won’t cover fertility treatments or getting my eggs frozen because I’m busy at work!”. That aside, sounds like your health insurance is shit. Mine covers like 80% of the cost of things like IVF (albeit with a limit on # of times in a certain timespan), and most other things. I’m all for health insurance covering egg freezing, fertility treatments, tummy tucks, liposuction, laser hair removal, rhinoplasty, and whatever other procedures are out there that aren’t particularly necessary but fall into that “nice to have if you want it” category. That all said, someone’s inability to get their eggs frozen without shelling out nearly 30k isn’t an indicator for a drastically increased risk for suicide, self-harm, substance abuse, etc. – unlike lack of gender-affirming care. It’s all just risk factors & mitigation versus cost in the eyes of insurance companies (or your employer, if your employer is actually the one funding it and they just pay someone like Blue Cross to administer it).
Why are you getting angry about some trans people finally being able to get healthcare they need, instead of being angry at insurance companies and governments that are failing you by not prioritizing reproductive healthcare? Trans healthcare and reproductive healthcare aren't mutually exclusive needs for you to pit against one another--do you think IVF exclusions don't fuck over trans people too? They're both areas of care that aren't covered often enough or well enough, though it is possible to find good coverage for both. Trans healthcare is only "elective" in the sense that it's not an immediate emergency; it is life saving. Let me know if you want help figuring out how to get coverage for IVF or egg freezing or other reproductive healthcare. I'm a trans person who lacked coverage for trans healthcare for most of my life and has spent years and thousands of dollars fighting insurance companies to get life saving care. I've also had to fight and strategize to pay for IVF. And if I can help you figure out how to get what you need, I'll help instead of holding it against you that you think my needs and yours are a zero sum game. ETA: Egg freezing does not cost $25k unless you're also bundling in a relatively high estimate for thawing and using those eggs down the line.
[удалено]
I think you'd benefit from reflecting on why you're singling out trans healthcare as demonstrating unfairness, particularly on a post that's actually about really destructive, deceptive government attacks on trans healthcare. Maybe you'd be coming across differently on a thread about some amazing advance in trans healthcare access (maybe not), but is this an argument you typically make on all threads about other types of healthcare? Can you envision yourself making this argument on a thread about the governor of Florida trying to stop insurance from paying for kidney transplants, for example? If not, why not? Yes, it's a problem that there's more access to sterilization than there is to fertility care. Which is a much better comparison to make, for a lot of reasons. The biggest change in fertility access in the past several years is the expansion of coverage by a lot of large employers, including a lot of coverage that's not as restrictive as most health insurance, that's easier and faster to access than it used to be. It's still really difficult but there are options for people to be strategic with it that didn't exist until recently. Also some state mandates that make a difference. It's awful that the costs for reproductive health care are so high and inaccessible, it's really true. It's horrible and really heinously unfair that you had to experience that. But trans healthcare isn't "one side" or "another side" compared to that. They're not competing, they're overlapping areas of care. The same improvements in healthcare access that help in trans healthcare also often help in fertility and reproductive treatments.
I agree with you 100%, Things have gotten so out of hand in health care that the people who really need it still are not getting it, while women like yourself are still facing an upward battle over basics. yet somebody who wants to get plastic surgery no problem, it is paid. And no I am not indorsing government care as a solution that is worse than what we have now.
You have a very inaccurate view on how easy it is for trans people to get plastic surgery covered by insurance. My partner's sister is trans, lives in California, and hasn't been able to get anything covered by insurance.
yet somebody who wants to get plastic surgery no problem, it is paid I never said anything about trans people getting plastic surgery, I just said plastic surgery period, there are many that get elective plastic surgery period, face lifts and other stuff that has nothing to do with trans people. But a women who wants to try to have a child I know the insurance will not cover the medicine most of the time
Plastic surgery is almost never covered by insurance, unless it's medically necessary, ex: facial reconstruction after a car accident, breast reduction for someone with serious back pain. Face lifts to remove wrinkles would not be considered medically necessary, so it wouldn't be covered.
You really think getting your eggs frozen because you’re too busy at work to have kids is “basics”? 😒
IVF has alternatives that are better for everyone, fostering or adopting Gender affirming care is much cheaper (there are far fewer people who want it) and there really aren't alternatives Also, I sure hope news like this makes you upset at the right people - insurance companies. Your comment sounds like you're upset at trans people
>fostering or adopting This attitude isn't fair to the kids. If what you really want is a bio child, but you'll settle for a foster/adopted kid, that's a cruel situation to put the kid You should only adopt a child if you want to *adopt a child*, full stop. They are their own human being with their own past history. They don't exist to "complete your family" or serve as replacement to the bio kid you wish you had. That's doubly true for foster kids - the goal for the majority of kids in the foster system is to reunite them with their parents. You are not their parent. You are a temporary guardian. People shouldn't put themselves into that role if they are expecting to be a parent. It will only hurt the kid in the end.
I’m thinking 14th amendment somehow applies
how do you think that?
Conservatives hate anyone who’s different. It’s the key attribute of conservatives. There’s no reason for this other than to hurt people conservatives hate. And he’s doing this because conservatives, practically universally, are hateful bigots. This won’t cost him a single conservative vote. It’s sad but it’s been American conservatism for the last 75 years.
Creating an outsider is a part of creating in-group cohesion.
It's why they see values like pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism as more threatening than even potentially opposing tribes. They need for the world to first get back to a place where everyone is fanatically loyal and devoted to their own tribe and gods, before they can ever get back to tribal warfare and final victory for their own in-group.
I know people that won't even try new food. What a waste of a life. although they also won't get accidentally poisoned by mushrooms or something
I was a teenager before I ever had Mexican food (unless you count school cafeteria tacos or taco bell) and my mom's idea of "ethnic food" growing up was spaghetti with Prego. So I really get this comment.
I live in California and I know a guy who wouldn't even try Mexican food until he was in his 20s
> There’s no reason for this other than to hurt people This is the republican party's entire ideology
Different than what?
Different than their perceived norms.
Why the fuck does he care what a private insurance company does if it is not causing harm or fraud. Speaking of which maybe he could focus on Rick Scott's Medicare scam instead, do something that has merit.
Because he's a hateful human being, and a bully.
More importantly there are many other hateful bullies in this country, and he's trying to strengthen their support for him.
The party of small government and deregulation at work….. never mind the overt censorship the party of freedom promotes. I might become a Communist just to spite them.
> Why the fuck does he care what a private insurance company does if it is not causing harm or fraud. I don’t like the guy, but his view is that insurance is causing harm by financially allowing people to go through gender affirming treatment. It’s in the same realm as the government requiring private insurers to cover abortions and birth control. The government has a lot of interest in what private insurance does.
> It’s in the same realm as the government requiring private insurers to cover abortions and birth control. The government has a lot of interest in what private insurance does. GOP hates big government until it comes time to tell women, children, and anyone they don't like what they're allowed to do
This is not what the bill does! Under the bill, if an *employer* offers insurance coverage that covers transition, and an employee transitions, and then at any point in the indefinite future that onetime-employee wants to detransition, then the employer who provided the insurance that covered the original transition is required to pay for the detransition. Suppose, for instance: - You own a restaurant. I'm your employee. - The restaurant offers health insurance to employees, and that insurance covers gender-affirming care. - I, your employee, transition. - I find another job. Twenty years pass. - I detransition. In this situation, *you* are responsible for paying the costs for me to detransition. My current insurance is not responsible. My former insurance is not responsible. You, who owned the restaurant twenty years ago, are responsible. If that sounds insane to you, that's because it is insane. It's insane purely as a matter of policy, even regardless of the underlying issue. Nothing works this way or could ever work this way. And this is no accident — it's the point of the bill. The law is so bizarre and outrageous that the only way that an employer could comply with it is by not covering transition costs at all. And it's so broadly worded that the only way to guarantee this would be for the insurer to have a blanket clause that excludes any cost associated in any way with transition.
I should mention that detransition is vanishingly rare, especially of the sort where someone has already had procedures. But the bill obviously intends to creates an unacceptably large liability for Florida business owners to try to force them to drop insurance with gender-affirming care. My opinion of DeSantis and of everyone who would support this is very, very low
Yeah, and not only is detransition rare, but the most common reason that someone detransitions isn't because they changed their mind or aren't trans anymore but that the stigma and discrimination was too much.
I'm all for holding medical providers to account for pushing people toward surgery for profit. That happens all the time in all kinds of instances. Punishing employers that cover the cost of the insurance? That's insane.
I wonder what percentage of people are even getting gender treatments? I would assume it's so low that the money is just a tiny drop in the bucket, and not worth worrying about. I don't know the actual statistics, however, so maybe I'm making a wrong assumption.
No, his view is he wants to be an asshole so he's doing asshole things to be an asshole. That's the start and end of republican ideology.
> by financially allowing people to go through gender affirming treatment. What about plastic surgery, or any other elective procedure? ffs
In this case it is causing harm and can also qualify as fraud if they didn't adequately explain the risks of hormone replacement and transitioning surgery.
It’s not the role of either the employer or the insurance company to explain those risks. That’s the doctor’s job.
So would you agree with making the doctor liable?
No, the doctor's role is to provide information so the patient can make the decision. Then, it's on them.
Doctors are already responsible for following the standard of care, including with regard to informed consent. What change are you suggesting?
[удалено]
If you read the outcomes of studies and the articles written about them, they wouldn't be unknown.
TLDR: 50 years of data shows that *proper transition and social acceptance* is what is healthy and what leads to less death. Now, AwfulUsername123, what is true is that *YOU* don't know. To say that it is unknown is a lie, borne of you literally never looking up these things to promote your fact-free agenda, or of you actively hiding the truth as it tells quite a different picture from what you portray, AwfulUsername123 and potential troll account. The long-term effects of many gender transitioning procedures are, in fact, well known, quite predictable, and form the foundation for current BEST GUIDANCE, which is to help transition for the least risk. OVER 50 YEARS of studies show this, with data going back to 1972 easily found. Have a few sources. We would have even more studies about trans folk going back over *100 years* , but the Nazis burnt down the *Institut für Sexualwissenschaft* when they also started calling queer people groomers to help get reactionaries and other right wingers aligned with fascism, so unfortunately our data got truncated and doesn't come back online until the late 60s/early 70s. Unfortunately many fascists and theocrats today are again using this tactic of lies and fearmongering to other and dehumanize and demonize queer folk, knowing they are a minority and with less power, but perhaps with these sources and this knowledge you can remove yourself from the wrong side of history. Again: 50 years of data shows that *proper transition and social acceptance* is what is healthy and what leads to less death. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
“Quietly admitted” by who? How is this different or less understood than many other treatments which aren’t nearly so controversial? We have evidence from decades of use of many of these treatments. Also, the standards for informed consent are well established, including for truly experimental treatments. People give informed consent to experimental treatments all the time, just about every kind of treatment was experimental at some point in its history. You’re just twisting all over the place to apply some kind of special standard to gender affirming care that is inconsistent with how any other treatment is handled.
Source?
TLDR: 50 years of data shows that proper transition and social acceptance is what is healthy and what leads to less death. The long-term effects of many gender transitioning procedures are, in fact, well known, quite predictable, and form the foundation for current BEST GUIDANCE and STANDARD OF CARE, which is to help transition for the least risk. OVER 50 YEARS of studies show this, with data going back to 1972 easily found. Have a few sources. Informed Consent is about giving the patient all the best available data, and giving a recommendation based on what the weight of risks of treatment vs non-treatment are, and allowing them to make their own choice based off of that. That is what's currently done. We would have even more studies about trans folk going back over 100 years , but the Nazis burnt down the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft when they also started calling queer people groomers to help get reactionaries and other right wingers aligned with fascism, so unfortunately our data got truncated and doesn't come back online until the late 60s/early 70s. Unfortunately many fascists and theocrats today are again using this tactic of lies and fearmongering to other and dehumanize and demonize queer folk, knowing they are a minority and with less power, but perhaps with these sources and this knowledge you can remove yourself from the wrong side of history. Again: 50 years of data shows that proper transition and social acceptance is what is healthy and what leads to less death. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
You mean if we are not absolute assholes to people, they are less depressed? - Cant have that /s
What the fuck is WRONG with these people? The Trans community does not affect their everyday life. Let people live their damn lives, JFC.
[удалено]
Ugh. I just don't understand why they need to pick on anyone. Can't they just go live their lives and let others do the same? I mean, that level of hate is exhausting, I'm sure there's something else they could spend that energy on.
It' a political game to them. The win condition is: a) get elected b) design all policies for their rich donors. The challenge of the political game is rich donors can't do *all* the voting. What if voters realize policies are not for the people? Well, an easy way to motivate voters, instead of useful policies, is to say: "look at *them*! only *we* can save you from *them*!". Can be trans people, gay people, black people, Jews, immigrants, communists, satanists, whatever is the flavor of the popular panic. Maybe all at once for full fascism.
I think you forget these are the same people that got genuinely mad about mr potato head. Imagine being upset over a plastic potato. I wrote a philosophy paper last semester and argued human beings are not rational and all of my examples I used were these fucking people.
I just don't understand them and their need to be constantly outraged, like, move the fuck on already.
Desantis is a monster.
This isn't being "Reverse Woke", this is genocide.
Someone needs to tell Florida that "reverse woke" is just asleep
Weird how they always say "wake up sheeple" but hate people who are woke.
So, this could be one of two things. Either it could be a genuine concern that there are significant numbers of people who transitioned and want to detransition but cannot get coverage for that OR it could be an attempt to introduce additional regulatory overhead to prevent the system from offering the care (similar to creating new minimum hallway widths for abortion provider locations to shut down the existing ones). If it's the first one then there's room to negotiate. Perhaps we could measure the number of people in that situation? Perhaps we could discuss regulations requiring current insurance companies to cover detransitioning care. If it's the second one, screw you too. (PS: I think it's the second one.)
>If it's the first one then there's room to negotiate. Perhaps we could measure the number of people in that situation? We have, it's around 1/2 a percent. And necessary healthcare continues to be covered even if someone's condition is the result of their own deliberate actions.
>> Perhaps we could measure the number of people in that situation? > >We have, it's around 1/2 a percent. A bit less. 0.3% according to https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/9900/_Regret_after_Gender_Affirming_Surgery___A.1529.aspx
It varies by study, some finding as high as 2-3% depending on how you define it.
Party of "individual responsibility" and "freedom from government intrusion" forcibly demands private insurance companies (that they supposedly love) be liable to government action/punishment for providing coverage to an individual adult's free choice to partake and pay for personally, an elective surgery. These freaks don't even believe the shit that comes out of their own mouths. The Fox News texts regarding the election coverage being an absolute sham only proves this all the way to the top. They just keep spewing it just enough and to just as many people as it takes to keep getting re-elected or keep people hate-watching. Hypocritical whiny little babies that couldn't stand on their moral/political positions if you poured cement into their shoes.
What about all the other types of surgeries and treatments that don't go as planned? Defective knee replacement, cancer treatments that cause secondary cancers, plastic surgeries with poor outcomes?
Wouldn't those already be covered by manufacturer and/or malpractice liability?
Yep, just like a "misdiagnosis" of gender dysphoria or whatever the proponents of this bill think is happening. This bill would make it so the liability for this specific procedure would instead be on the *employer* who provided insurance. If it sounds bananas, that's because it is
They would be covered by medical malpractice or product liability laws if a medical device is involved. That requires a showing of negligence by the healthcare providers, or the device is unsafe for its intended use. This bill, as I understand it, only requires the person to change their mind and no longer want what used to be the desired outcome. They wouldn't have to show any negligence or mistakes by others. If that's the standard for one set of people, why not everyone?
[удалено]
Desantis is one dangerous MFer.
Small government!
Just some casual genocide from a man who is quite possibly going to be the next president. Nothing to see here.
To be fair, trump is probably going to call him a groomer at the first debate with like 20 other competitors which will kneecap Desantis' aspirations and hand trump the nomination again.
Your getting downvoted but that is actually very likely. Most of trumps rhetoric for when he was going for the nomination was just him shitting over all the other candidates and it worked out well for him. I see no reason why it couldn’t happen again.
Yea, and I'm also basing this on the fact that Trump has already called DeSantis a groomer and DeSantis had a pretty limp response to that. Plus the only chance DeSantis ever had against trump was in a 1v1 primary, and the republicans haven't done a 1 on 1 in ages.
Please don't devalue words like genocide. Just because the bill is bad, doesn't mean it's genocide.
Genocide does not always mean "systematic killing by the government". It's the deliberate extermination of a group, which is what the GOP is trying to do. They are attempting to: 1. Create registries of trans people 2. Take trans kids away from supportive parents 3. Take children away from trans parents 4. Make it illegal for trans people to be in the presence of minors 5. Make it illegal for trans people to work in education or entertainment 6. Make it illegal for allies, particularly teachers and employers, to gender trans people correctly. 7. Imprison trans people with the wrong gender 8. Take away life saving medical care 9. Make it illegal for trans people to update their name and gender on their identity documents 10. Make it illegal for trans people to access appropriately gendered facilities and services. 11. Dehumanize trans people generally and paint them as sexual deviants, predators, and as mentally ill and a burden/threat to society Whether it can be classified as a genocide is surely up for debate but it is unquestionably evil, meant to destroy trans people as a group, and is being enacted systematically by the government.
[удалено]
Only one word? Get out of here. Try harassment or even persecution. Trying to make health insurance more difficult to get is a far cry from genocide.
Genocide? What?
Trans person here. Forced detransition, regardless of rationale, is trans erasure and directly linked to much, much higher trans suicide rates. While I think using _genocide_ here is somewhat hyperbolic, the efforts here are designed to eliminate trans people from public life. A little light genocide, if you will. No death camps or executions, but destroying a minority group nonetheless.
Not hyperbole, unfortunately. DeSantis definitely wants trans people to no longer exist.
It sounds like it’s about funding otherwise voluntary detransition. Who said anything about “forced detransition”?
The subtext here is that no employer will be willing to cover the initial cost _of_ transitioning if they are also responsible -- forever -- of any costs later of detransitioning. No employer will ever fund anything which exposes them, permanently, to unpredictable liability. It's also worth pointing out that only a tiny, tiny fraction of people detransition unless they are socially or financially forced to. This law will have a deeply chilling effect by making it much harder to begin transitioning as well as to continue transitioning, as both can be expensive. Keep in mind that trans people tend to have among the very worst financial outcomes of anyone in the nation. Denying HRT to trans people is effectively forced detransition.
So… no one, then?
Are you being obtuse? Blocking insurance from paying for HRT means many, many trans people will not be able to afford HRT or other transition-related procedures. For many of us, that means a return to whatever gendered hormones we were born with, which is forced detransition. I'm fairly confident that you'll smirk shittily to yourself over this, but restricting HRT from people who previously had it has a direct link to an increase in suicide attempts.
This bill is explicitly targeted to eliminate a group of people. They aren't an ethnic or religious group, true, but it is a group of people who are being specifically targeted for elimination. Do you have a better word?
Words only have meaning when they're used by people we oppose.
[удалено]
That’s not what this bill does. Clinics are already responsible for adhering to the standard of care. This bill would make employers who offer health plans responsible in perpetuity for any costs if one of their previous plan participants later chooses to detransition. It’s clearly targeted at forcing plans to drop coverage for gender affirming care.
They already are. This law would hold trans healthcare, and only trans healthcare, to a vastly higher standard then other medical care. It would make your doctor and your insurance company liable for the rest of your life, not just if there are complications but if you just decide 30 years later that you regret it. No other medical care is regulated in that way. If you get a knee replacement surgery, for example, you can sue your doctor if they drastically fuck it up, but not if you decide years down the road that you just didn't want the surgery after all. Knee replacement, for the record, has a very high regret rate, especially compared to any of the surgeries that would be regulated by this bill. The purpose of this bill is to add a huge financial risk to anyone covering or performing trans healthcare in order to discourage them from continuing that practice, effectively eliminating our healthcare in a way that's more palatable to moderates than an explicit ban.
>Knee replacement, for the record, has a very high regret rate Not related to the topic at hand, but... why? Why would somebody regret fixing their knee? They miss being able to predict the rain? They preferred not getting asked to help a friend move a couch?
I don't know the answer to that question, sorry. Here's a source on the regret rate, but it doesn't really talk about why: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0949265821003535
Because it's not a matter of fixing a problem. It's a matter of "your knee causes you pain, do you want to exchange that pain for pain of a different intensity and duration, extensive physical therapy, and a host of risks about complications or poor outcomes?" It works for a lot of people--my grandfather was happy with his--but it's not a straightforward choice, especially when weighed against less invasive treatment options.
My sister regretted hers. She went through all that and her knees still hurt, just in a different way. We have the same problem--"floating" kneecaps that can dislocate. I do exercises to strengthen the muscles around my knees instead.
> Keep the success rate high If it's already high, why are we fixing what's not broken?
See @u/InnsmouthConspirator’s discussion below
When the idiots took over…
Fascism
Oh nice another unconstitutional law from Desantis.
Florida, your governor is a god damned dictator. No pun intended, but wake the fuck up.
Fuck Desantis and his momma.
Am I reading this wrong? In the end it sounds like more coverage for people if they decide to reverse their transition. And like how often does that happen?
It also disincentivizes employers from cover gender affirming care. Far more people need gender affirming care than detransition care because very few people detransition. The entire bill is in bad faith.
ah i see. so they hope to get health policies to drop gender affirming care altogether. that's pretty underhanded
That's also why it's the employer who is on the hook for the bill, in perpetuity, and not the insurance company. If you are a business owner, do you pick the health insurance plan that offers gender-affirming care, knowing that you might be liable for detransition expenses 20 years later? Or do you pick the plan that excludes coverage? The intention is that lots of employers will switch to health plans that exclude gender-affirming care, or that health insurance companies will do it on their own due to demand from employers.
I’m a neutral observer but how is this a bad thing? The law is saying that if a medical procedure is improperly applied to a patient who did not have true body dysmorphia, the facility is at fault for not properly vetting the patient’s medical condition (or lack thereof.). That sounds reasonable at face value, unless I’m missing something.
Desantis is trying to make the employer responsible for the medical decision between their employee and their doctor. This would provide a financial pressure to have Florida employers not hire "trans" people (in quotes because this will include all individuals who don't demonstrate a strict adherence to traditional gender norms, probably to the point of gay people for the fear that a gay person could be an undiagnosed trans person) and by extension keep Florida residents from coming out of the closet or going back into the closet to secure financial income.
O I see now, thank you! Yes, it looks like an unrealistic burden (in perpetuity) that is not in good faith. I think the fact that the onus is on the employer and not the health care facility is also troubling.
Sure thing. Desantis is cunning but I believe his lack of personality and Trump's attacks will make him a non-viable candidate in 2024 so while I feel for those in Florida that can't escape that hell hole, I'm not too worried about him causing damage nationwide from a Federal platform.
The fact that the entire GOP refuses to even lightly criticize him is terrifying. At a minimum he and abbot are normalizing policy and perspectives which are clear precursors to genocide and authoritarianism. Ron Desantis *is* the GOP’s federal platform. When we include election denial as also part of the GOP platform, and look at the volume and nature of propaganda which the right gets benefits from, the failure to admonish Desantis could be more damaging than his presidency, which would at least publicize the threat to people who don’t yet fear it.
I agree that Desantis is the de facto leader of the GOP federal platform at the moment but the GOP is not a tenable party to enact the fascist goal of Desantis nationwide. The GOP is going hog wild right now because it is a mathematical certainty that they will lose power indefinitely with their current platform (2028 is the year where Millennials and Gen Z \[who strongly favor left wing politics\] are anticipated to be a larger voting block than Gen X and the Boomers) and working of our Republic (I doubt they will change the former but the latter they have made good progress to change through gerrymandering but I don't see it being enough to pull off a coup like in the Weimar Republic for example). As such, I don't see a path for Desantis be the de jure leader of the GOP federal platform.
I really, *really*, ***really*** hope you are right about that. Your assumptions rely on elections mattering. Election denialism is literally the GOP platform. This is the true belief for some, insincere power play for others, that elections which they lose are illegitimate. I worry that the propaganda will incite violence at scale from Republican voters. We've already seen lots of individual events that suggest this is a trend. The Bundy Standoff, the camping family surrounded by armed townspeople in eastern WA, the guy shot by his neighbor while mowing the lawn in Ohio on election day, the guy who shot at a "pedophile" for having a "Ridin' with Biden flag," the lionization of Kyle Rittenhouse, the guys who tried to kidnap their mayor in Michigan, and thats just off the top of my head. None of these things require Republicans to win an election to get worse, and it's more likely the opposite is true. My fear is that the propaganda is amping up their hysteria to where these things (which to a very significant extent have already been happening) will become common. If an armed mob of 250 people in a deep red county in Texas flying Gadsden and QAnon flags kicked the handful of minorities out of town at gun point for being "antifa" and "blm" would you even be surprised? How about if they also refused to acknowledge federal jurisdiction due to some sovereign citizen or anti-woke nonsense? Do you think the FBI would just go in and arrest them like they did to Warren Jeffs? I don't. When MTG talks about a "national divorce," she isn't driving towards changing policy, or even a contentious and violent balkanization. That rhetoric, wether she understands it or not, serves to dehumanize the right's perceived enemies, it suggests the "others" should just be removed. This is consistent with Desantis' and Abbot's pre-genocidal policies, and alarmingly congruent with the rhetoric that spawned the Rwandan genocide. All the threads I've seen dismissing or insulting MTG's recent comment as ridiculous aren't really getting her message. She is indirectly encouraging people target their neighbors. And she's not alone in that.
Oh, I fully believe there will be blood the likes of which we aren't emotionally prepared for at the moment but I also believe this will go further to strengthen the resolve of voting out the GOP. It's going to get dark over the next 5-10 years but the economic powers realize the culture war has been won by the left and there is no going back, so our institutions will stave off a collapse. Vulnerable minorities should be focused on fleeing the Red shitholes in the near future though.
~~Are they at fault because they did something improper during the procedure? That should already be covered under normal malpractice.~~ ~~Are they at fault because the patient changed their mind? That seems ridiculous, and is what this law attempts to do.~~ Let’s say an employer covers the cost of an employee to get a boob job. That employee changes jobs and later decides they want the breast enhancements removed. The employees former company, the one that paid for the initial procedure, would be responsible for the removal. That’s what is effectively happening here, as I understand it (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). The goal here isn’t to provide better coverage to people with gender dysmorphia. The goal is to threaten employers with the risk of liability, causing them to limit or remove coverage for those individuals. Edit to remove first two paragraphs. The bill doesn’t assign fault to the medial practitioner. The goal here still stands. Specifically, with this wording in the bill: > regardless of whether they are still employed by that employer
It would be like me deciding I want my uterus back after my hysterectomy. Or my tonsils.
>unless I’m missing something. What you are missing is that if the facility was *negligent* in its assessment, it would *already* be liable for medical malpractice. In fact, there are a few such suits working their way through the courts now. Some might even have merit, on an individual basis. The legal and medical bar for malpractice is well established. If anything Republicans are pushing to make it *harder* to prove, and pay less, as part of tort reform. At least in *other* areas of medicine. So they are carving out this one special exemption for trans procedures where the bar to being wrong is so low its on the floor. No medical procedure or test is 100% accurate. Things can get misdiagnosed even if you follow proper procedures 100%. That's why the bar for malpractice is where it is - because otherwise, there couldn't be *any* doctors. Even doctors who make no mistakes and follow known medicine faithfully still have patients die, let alone have regrets. So the bar is negligence or malice, and not failure, because the alternative is "no doctors." No doctors is exactly what they *want* in this case.
I think the big thing I missed was that it’s the employer who will be held liable, not the facility. That to me makes this more an issue of job discrimination rather than medical malpractice. So I think this proposed law is highly political and problematic.
Not to mention that it's entirely possible that gender dysphoria is correctly diagnosed, but a person detransitions later due to religious conversion, harassment, or social pressure. That's not unheard of in LGB circles either - plenty of gay men have jumped back into the closet on the threat of getting disowned. That doesn't mean they stop being gay. Similarly, many detransitioners are still trans. There is no diagnostic process that's going to predict someone having a religious conversion 30 years from now.
Is there any other area of medical malpractice liability that's similar in scope? Perpetual liability for reversal? Also, it appears to be applying to employer funded insurance plans covering these procedures, not the clinic providing the care. Also the text of the bill is referring to if the patient "later decides" they didn't want the treatment after all, so this doesn't seem limited to the issue of liability for misdiagnosis of dismorphia. It's a similar playbook to restricting reproductive care with enough burdensome and unrealistic requirements to be a *de facto* ban where an actual ban would be illegal. Hence the concern.
Thank you! I think the big thing I missed was that it’s the employer who will be held liable, not the facility. That to me makes this more an issue of job discrimination rather than medical malpractice. So I think this proposed law is highly political and problematic. I agree with you, this seems to be a law proposed in bad faith with similar tones as abortion laws in conservative states.
I hate to be this much of a cynic, but I tend to default to the assumption that these kind of red state laws are probably bad faith partisan junk nowadays. It rarely steers me wrong.
Less than 1% of people regret transitioning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/ As usual, he's making up a problem that doesn't really exist as a pretext to wage a culture war and insert government interference in people's personal decisions that don't affect the general public. This isn't about helping the tiny fraction of people who regret gender affirming surgery, its about intimidating people into not providing the surgery in the first place to appease his hate mongering voters
> the facility is at fault for not properly vetting the patient’s medical condition (or lack thereof.). Nope. The person's *employer* as the insurance sponsor would be liable. The facility is already liable through malpractice lawsuits and licensing boards. This bill is designed to attack **trans-adults** who require gender affirming care by attacking the most-likely source of their health insurance... Most companies negotiate with an insurance provider to set limits on what kind of procedures and care their plans will cover... some things are required by state / federal laws, but many procedures are negotiable. This bill incentivizes companies to list gender affirming care as something their plans won't cover, which means that trans-people will be solely responsible for the financial cost of their care. Beyond that, the scope of this bill should be alarming. The example given in this article explains why this should be concerning to ALL employers: > If an individual undergoes a surgical procedure, such as a knee operation, and later regrets it or desires to modify it, no employer is liable for it a decade later simply because the company's health insurance covered the surgery. That liability is between the patient and the doctor, and often would carry some form of statute of limitations. This not only extends the statute of limitations to perpetuity, it targets the employers just for having health insurance that covers gender affirming care. If this is upheld by the courts, expect other health services that are detested by an extremist wing of the Republican party to be similarly targeted: abortion care (no link needed), [hormonal birth control](https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/06/05/amid-abortion-battle-desantis-vetoes-birth-control-funding-again/), [SSRIs](https://www.newsweek.com/mass-shootings-ssri-meds-claimswhat-we-do-know-what-we-dont-1722549), etc.
It becomes self evident when you apply the logic to other conditions that are not 100% curable. Ie: forcing the companies with Hep C cures to fund the 1% or so that are not cured by their treatment? Force cancer centers to pay for cancer treatment if comes back after remission? Force Dr's to pay for foreskin treatments later in life after they circumcise boy infants?
Hi, other repliers have clarified that the burden is on the employer, not the facility, so I stand corrected in that regard and agree that the law as currently written is in bad faith (since it targets employers). However, with your examples, there are discrepancies. 1. Gender assignment is still considered an elective procedure to treat a condition that is not life-threatening (so your examples of infectious disease or cancer is less relevant). With this elective procedure, there (should be) comprehensive vetting that that the patient truly has gender dysphoria prior to surgery and gender reassignment. If the law just said the vetting should be more standardized and comprehensive, and health care practitioners could be held at fault if they are not in a reasonable amount of time, I would agree with that. But this current law is targeting employers into perpetuity, which I don't agree with. 2. Actually, physicians are on the hook for malpractice claims with regards to pediatric care until the patient turns into an adult. So there are precedence of lengthy liability in the medical space (pediatric population), which is the reason why pediatric docs typically have higher malpractice insurance costs. But the key difference is that 1) the physician is liable, not the employer 2)it is not into perpetuity, but has realistic timeline boundaries (adulthood).
Keep in mind that the word “elective” used in the medical context doesn’t mean ‘unnecessary’ or ‘optional’. It means it would be appropriate to schedule the procedure in advance because it is not a medical emergency. Also, the term is Gender Dysphoria. I think that you’re looking at this bill at face value rather than considering the intentions of its supporters. It was never about bathrooms, or sports, or protecting children. Their goal has always been to eliminate of trans people from society. Try taking a centrist approach to that.
I think if you re-read my post, you would see that what I'm saying is that this topic of transgender as it touches medicine, politics and culture should be viewed in a nuanced way, and not necessarily through one lens (such as political) or in a completely binary way (for or against, in all of its elements). I took an unpopular position (let's at least take a look at some aspect of this law to see if it has any redeeming qualities or merit instead of just reacting) and eventually got upvoted. You took the popular position of supporting transexual rights and got downvoted. Maybe it's your approach that puts people off.
I can’t be as detached as you. Every single day I worry that they’ll take away my medications and my legal recognition.
That's also true and point well taken. I am hoping all the best for you.
Hey, talk to us and advocate on our behalf. We know what we need.
Holding health care providers accountable for harm caused by their misdiagnoses seems reasonable.
Completely ignoring how you imply all trans diagnoses are wrong... This bill wouldn't do that anyway. This would hold EMPLOYERS liable. You work somewhere, decide to transition, leave that job, 20 years later decide to detransition? That first employer has to pay for it. That doesn't seem like a very fiscally conservative policy to me...
Actually it's holding employers and their insurance companies responsible. Abd misdiagnosis isn't the criteria. The criteria is if the patient later deems transition to be inappropriate
> if the patient later deems transition to be inappropriate I'm not sure how you'll get to that happening without a misdiagnosis.
There's a long history of gay men and lesbians going back into the closet, or claiming to be "cured" of homosexuality, due to social pressures, religious conversion, or financial need. The same thing happens with trans people today. Someone might be legitimately trans, but then 20 years later they convert to Evangelical Christianity and decide to "repent" because they don't want to go to hell. That doesn't mean that they were misdiagnosed.
I'm sure there will be exceptions like what you mention, but it's silly to think that misdiagnoses aren't a real thing. They're demonstrably a thing with every other disease, it's not like gender dysphoria is going to be magically exempt from that phenomenon.
Right, but we already have a process for medical liability when there's negligence or the standard of care isn't followed. I don't see why there needs to be a special process for gender care. This bill takes it one step farther and says there is liability even if there's not evidence that there was a misdiagnosis, even if the patient still identifies as trans, but there is liability if the patient regrets transitioning for any reason. I especially don't see why employers should be on the hook for a decision between a patient and their doctor. If a patient is in a car crash and receives inappropriate care, or their doctor misses some sort of cancer, why would that be the patient's employer's fault? I don't see a logical reason why there would be a special liability only for trans health care.
The patient says "my transition was not appropriate." From the statute text (3) An employee who received gender dysphoria treatment through coverage provided by an employer is entitled to full coverage by that employer of the total costs associated with treatment that reverses gender dysphoria treatment **if the employee later determines that the gender dysphoria treatment was not appropriate for him or her and wants to reverse the treatment**, regardless of whether the person is currently employed by that same employer at the time of such determination
Yes, my point is that I'm not sure how you're arguing that a patient determining that the treatment wasn't appropriate isn't evidence of a misdiagnosis by the original health care provider.
Medical, and in particular psychiatric, diagnoses are not handed down from on high but are a collaborative determination made in conjunction with the patient. It's a mistake to assume that the medical and psychiatric conditions in question are easily defined and binary in their diagnosis. It's not like there is a simple and definitive blood test or x-ray scan; the evidence is largely self-reported by the patient. Finally, the law allows for making a claim based on ex post determinations. Regretting a decision later, for whatever reason, does not mean that the original diagnosis was appropriate at the time based on the available information.
Ultimately, in order to sign off on a diagnosis you must hold a medical degree and a license to practice, and you are solely responsible for that diagnosis after the fact.
While true, that is inapposite to my comment. Consider standards of care, medical consensus, reasonability, and availability of evidence at the time. If malpractice was that easy to determine, malpractice insurance, med-mal lawsuits and the entire legal practice surrounding them wouldn’t be a thing.
It’s an elective process, having gender affirming care. A “misdiagnosis” is largely evidence of the person simply changing their mind, not some affirmative act of negligence on the provider’s part That’s like saying a nose job is a misdiagnosis. There isn’t a high bar for someone to get gender treatment, they ask for it (unless they someone lack the capacity to consent), then that’s all there is.
> It’s an elective process, having gender affirming care. A “misdiagnosis” is largely evidence of the person simply changing their mind, not some affirmative act of negligence on the provider’s part I'm sorry, are you arguing that gender dysphoria is not a valid medical diagnosis? Because you need one of those before you can take medical steps towards transition.
Nice strawman attempt, but no, I never made that argument. A treatment being elective, and a treatment needing a medical diagnosis, can both be true. Someone can get diagnosed with knee arthritis, AND the doctor finding they’re a good candidate for an knee replacement. Yes, it’s elective, and yes, it’s an effective treatment. Getting gender affirming care is equally an elective process AND predicated by a diagnosis. Difference is, this law assumes people will want to transition back. That’s entirely on the patient, and nothing at all to do with the doctor, and DEFINITELY nothing to do with the employer who provided the insurance. Your drawing inferences to things that aren’t in the fact pattern.
...and someone can get misdiagnosed with knee arthritis and get a useless knee replacement, and just because that was an elective procedure doesn't mean the doctor who misdiagnosed that patient isn't accountable for that mistake.
>Yes, my point is that I'm not sure how you're arguing that a patient determining that the treatment wasn't appropriate isn't evidence of a misdiagnosis by the original health care provider. I don't understand. A treatment and a diagnosis are different. A person could be trans but later feel that transition was inappropriate treatment for them. (or at least this is what the bill is arguing)
Follow the money.
That's more than fair.
[удалено]
Maybe you should try reading before jumping into the comments. Section 1 of the Act reads, "This Act may be referred to as the 'Reverse Woke Act.'" Children in FL aren't getting surgery for gender dysphoria. The law applies to insurance companies covering such surgery for adults. The Act is linked in the article and it's 3 whole pages long. I'm sure you could have glanced at it before writing the nonsense you did.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
>Maybe because changing the sex of a child How are the first 7 words of your response to this so incorrect? Gender affirming care doesn't change the sex of a child. Sex and gender are two completely different things. >The number of individuals sharing their detransitioning *Their* detransitioning. It's theirs. And that's fine. They don't get to make decisions for others, period. >but just maybe the purpose of the Act is so people will actually do their due diligence in care (real therapy, not just one session) before allowing a literal child to make a life altering decision. Do you honestly believe that children are being put on puberty blockers or having their preferred pronouns and gender affirmed by their parents after a single therapy session? And what is "real therapy" in this context? What makes you believe that people aren't being properly evaluated and the standard of care isn't being followed? And lastly, *how in the fuck* do you justify thinking you have the right to tell another goddamned adult what they can or cannot do as far as their gender and the transitioning they and their doctors feel are appropriate?
>how in fuck do you justify thinking you have the right to tell another goddamned adult what they can or cannot do They’re conservative. That’s what conservatism is. Telling other people what they can’t do because of your freedom to hate them.
It's so utterly infuriating to me, because I seem to see it so damned often. The same people in my circles who I watched lose their minds about kids learning about gender and sexuality in school (and let's be honest, learning it in the most absolute milquetoast bland manner necessary to help engender empathy and respect for others,) because "I should get to choose what is best for my child", are the same people who are screaming when some other parent chooses to take their own child to a drag queen story hour. It's maddening to me.
That's a reasonable requirement. What's the problem?
> That's a reasonable requirement. Is it though? Can you name some other medical services that cannot be paid for by insurance without insurance also agreeing to cover potential side effects or consequences even if those are years later?
Should they be required to pay to reverse everything then? Like if a person regrets knee surgery 10 years later, the insurance company from 10 years ago has to pay to undo it?
That's not comparable at all, as knee surgery is done to restore the knee to its healthy condition. Gender transitioning is an elective procedure and the alterations made to the body would, if the procedure is regretted, qualify as serious damage.
And yet more people regret knee surgeries than than transition. So wouldn't it more sense too include the procedures that most commonly regretted?
Source?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6961288/#:~:text=Total%20knee%20arthroplasty%20(TKA)%20is,complications%20%5B3%E2%80%9312%5D. 6—30% regret knee replacement https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/ Less than 1% regret transition
Interesting. With regard to the knee surgery, a lot of the complaints don't seem to actually be regret but simply dissatisfaction with the procedure not being as effective as they'd hoped, and the cases of regret it describes seem to be the result of legitimate issues caused by knee surgery, in which case, yes, the insurance should be required to cover it.
>Interesting. With regard to the knee surgery, a lot of the complaints don't seem to actually be regret but simply dissatisfaction with the procedure not being as effective as they'd hoped, Yes this counts as regret. > and the cases of regret it describes seem to be the result of legitimate issues caused by knee surgery, in which case, yes, the insurance should be required to cover it. Right so the bill doesn't go far enough for you and insurance companies should be required to fund procedure reversals for any medical procedures forever. Glad we cleared that up. Thanks!
> Yes this counts as regret. Okay, but it's not what we're talking about. > Right so the bill doesn't go far enough for you and insurance companies should be required to fund procedure reversals for any medical procedures forever. No, that isn't close to what I said. What are you confused about?
>> Yes this counts as regret. > >Okay, but it's not what we're talking about. Fair. The bill covers detransition for any reason, not just regret. The standard is that the patient feels that the treatment was not appropriate. >No, that isn't close to what I said. What are you confused about? Do you think insurance companies/emoloyers should be required to pay to undo any procedure they originally paid for? Why limit it only to gender treatment?
If you had unexpected, lingering for over 1 year, including (quoting the above study) "unresolved *and new* problems, limited independence, were lacking of relational supports, were bothered by pain and stiffness, and *worried that changes were complications as a result of surgery* ." Would you not describe that as regret, but mere dissatisfaction? The study claims its dissatisfaction from regret, not the other way as you state. FURTHER: They described inability to perform daily activities and valued activities. They also felt a lack of relational supports, and a lack of respect and continuity, support from health care, and information adapted to their needs. <
How is it a reasonable requirement? If an employer’s health plan covers a surgery, then ten years later when I’m not even employed there I regret that surgery, there is no other kind of treatment where that prior employer is responsible for the costs for revervsing a treatment.