NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the great ironies about my red-neck, homophobic, trans-hating province was that it was one of the few provinces that listed transgenderism as a mental illness. Being such meant that sexual reassignment procedures were funded through public healthcare. Transgendered people from across Canada would come here to get their surgery. (we're talking like 20 a year, not hundreds, and they'd actually have to live in Alberta to be eligible)

Well our new Premier didn't appreciate the deliciousness of that. Earlier this month, the Alberta government confirmed (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/04/14/edm-alberta-transgender-legislature.html) that it would be delisting these procedures, along with other medical procedures that have yet to be comprehensively listed (but apparently include chiropractic care (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Health/Delisting+Alberta+health+services+back+agenda/1498397/story.html)). Of course, economic reasons have been given for this. Wouldn't want to seem discriminatory or anything.

"Keep in mind that in a lot of the services that we offer, many of them are outside the Canada Health Act,"Stelmach told reporters at the legislature.

"I'm not saying that we have to look at all the services, but we're going to have to ensure that we preserve our public health-care system for the future."

There is a fair amount of hue and cry about this, since the Tories certainly didn't discuss the delisting of ANY medical procedures during the last election. Not to mention that during the decades long Tory reign in this province, we have seen healthcare steadily eroded, deliberately underfunded and crippled and a pro-privatisation agenda pushed down our throats.

So, on the issue of delisting 'non-essential medical procedures' and on delisting sexual reassignment procedures specifically, what do you think?

So, on the issue of delisting 'non-essential medical procedures' and on delisting sexual reassignment procedures specifically, what do you think?
Yep, fair enough. Don't see why anyone else's money should be going on what is essentially a lifestyle choice rather than important surgery.

One of the great ironies about my red-neck, homophobic, trans-hating province was that it was one of the few provinces that listed transgenderism as a mental illness. Being such meant that sexual reassignment procedures were funded through public healthcare. Transgendered people from across Canada would come here to get their surgery. (we're talking like 20 a year, not hundreds, and they'd actually have to live in Alberta to be eligible)

Well our new Premier didn't appreciate the deliciousness of that. Earlier this month, the Alberta government confirmed (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/04/14/edm-alberta-transgender-legislature.html) that it would be delisting these procedures, along with other medical procedures that have yet to be comprehensively listed (but apparently include chiropractic care (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Health/Delisting+Alberta+health+services+back+agenda/1498397/story.html)). Of course, economic reasons have been given for this. Wouldn't want to seem discriminatory or anything.



There is a fair amount of hue and cry about this, since the Tories certainly didn't discuss the delisting of ANY medical procedures during the last election. Not to mention that during the decades long Tory reign in this province, we have seen healthcare steadily eroded, deliberately underfunded and crippled and a pro-privatisation agenda pushed down our throats.

So, on the issue of delisting 'non-essential medical procedures' and on delisting sexual reassignment procedures specifically, what do you think?

Privatized healthcare is awesome. Just look at out system! ;)

I think 'non essential' my fucking ass. those worthless sacks of shit. It's absolutely pathetic. You know how many trans people there are compared to the rest of the population? There's nobody. How much money is this even going to save per year? Hells, give me a minute and I could probably tell you. I'd need to know the population of alberta though. It only costs a few thousand pounds on the NHS for the surgery specifically - though lifetime hormone treatments would be a significant running cost if there were more than say... a thousand of us. And I seriously doubt there ARE a thousand transpeople in Canada. Typical scapegoating on behalf of the government, pick on a tiny minority group and make it sound like they're actually DOING something. We have a low enough fucking survival rate as it is without the governments of so called progressive countries doing everything they can to marginalise us out of existance. I'm sorry that this is incoherent. perhaps that's telling from my own experience in being a transperson and a partner to transpeople in a part of britain that won't fund any treatment. I've seen the fucking corpses.

So, on the issue of delisting 'non-essential medical procedures' and on delisting sexual reassignment procedures specifically, what do you think?

I think:

1) It is amusing to watch bigots play Twister with themselves in an effort to discriminate against people. First they contented themselves with calling transgendered people "crazy," but when it turned out that didn't make them suffer enough, they declared them sane for the sole purpose of denying them coverage for their medical procedures. Only now they don't get to dismiss them as insane anymore. Poor things, no matter what they do, they lose.

2) My bitter laughter turns to even more bitter bile when I realize that they declared transgenderedness no longer an illness of any kind BECAUSE illnesses must be treated, and they did not want to cover treatment of this illness. So it's not that new science has made any declarations about the medical status of transgenderedness. It's not that the needs of the transgendered have suddenly disappeared. They have only declared it not an illness so they would not have to provide care for it. What next? Will they declare AIDS or STDs no longer diseases so they don't have to treat people whose lifestyles they disapprove of?

Yep, fair enough. Don't see why anyone else's money should be going on what is essentially a lifestyle choice rather than important surgery.

Gender Identity Disorder (http://www.mhsanctuary.com/gender/dsm.htm) is an actual DSM diagnostic category.

While there are excellent arguments (http://www.transgender.org/gidr/) as to why this psychiatric classification should be reformed, none of them are centered around 'oh well, people choose to be that way so like, whatever'.

Privatized healthcare is awesome. Just look at out system! ;)
This is what I don't get. Even those who really support privatised healthcare have to admit they don't want a system like what exists in the US...but they've failed to show how they are going to avoid it. What sort of magical 'Canadian model' is there going to be that won't end up failing us the way the USian model fails so many of its citizens?

Neesika, a question: Does the Canadian health care system cover "non-essential" surgical procedures such as facial surgeries, either cosmetic or reconstructive?

Yep, fair enough. Don't see why anyone else's money should be going on what is essentially a lifestyle choice rather than important surgery.

goes to show how little you know. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and count to ten before I consider the rest of my response.


Ok, I'm done. You tell me why anyone would choose to be trans. You tell me why anybody would want to pick to be the most looked down upon and despised group in the western world (bar perhaps the Roma and other travelling people), where you can and will, I've been there, be harassed in the street just for being who you are. Who would willingly CHOOSE that. Who would choose to be in a situation where you can be killed, where we ARE killed, for 'deceiving' people. Dehumanised, objectified, ridiculed. Maybe, if you think about this for a second, we are who we are. And who we are is a lot more than the set of genitals you got born with. Maybe who we are is what our brains and our deepest knowledge TELLS us we are and denying it hurts so much that life just isn't worth living without remedying it.

Tell me who would -choose- this life.

I recall reading somewhere that failure to treat (typically in the form of a medical procedure) transsexuals could cause them to become suicidal, so I would like clarification on what is meant by "non essential".

I think 'non essential' my fucking ass. those worthless sacks of shit. It's absolutely pathetic. You know how many trans people there are compared to the rest of the population? There's nobody. How much money is this even going to save per year? Hells, give me a minute and I could probably tell you.

They estimate it costs $700,000 for 20+ people annually. Oh noes. In a province that despite the economic crisis is still rolling in billions of dollars.


I'd need to know the population of alberta though. It only costs a few thousand pounds on the NHS for the surgery specifically - though lifetime hormone treatments would be a significant running cost if there were more than say... a thousand of us. And I seriously doubt there ARE a thousand transpeople in Canada. Yes, I wonder if people think that there are really hordes of people needing these procedures. It's ridiculous.

One of the downsides about the AB system, pre cuts, was that yes, these procedures were paid for...but the professionals providing them were not particularly trans-friendly OR necessarily very qualified. So even before the cuts, the gov't didn't really work that hard to ensure that these procedures were cutting edge or even passably well done.

Typical scapegoating on behalf of the government, pick on a tiny minority group and make it sound like they're actually DOING something. Look at all the money we'll save, omg! The health care budget is $12.6 billion. $700,000 max saved a year...is a fucking drop in the bucket. It's petty, it's meanspirited, and it's fucking pathetic.

We have a low enough fucking survival rate as it is without the governments of so called progressive countries doing everything they can to marginalise us out of existance. I'm sorry that this is incoherent. perhaps that's telling from my own experience in being a transperson and a partner to transpeople in a part of britain that won't fund any treatment. I've seen the fucking corpses.
It's not incoherent at all. This move by the AB gov't sends a very clear message. These procedures are now officially 'non-essential'. Loud and clear, 'we do not support transgendered people'. I'm disgusted.

I recall reading somewhere that failure to treat (typically in the form of a medical procedure) transsexuals could cause them to become suicidal, so I would like clarification on what is meant by "non essential".
Obviously, it's "non-essential" for transgendered people to exist at all, so who cares if they kill themselves?

I'm just guessing at their "reasoning."

I recall reading somewhere that failure to treat (typically in the form of a medical procedure) transsexuals could cause them to become suicidal, so I would like clarification on what is meant by "non essential".


Governments are typically incredibly weasily when ascribing 'suicide' to an action so it's very easy to deny that trans people are killing themselves over what they feel. But typically a transperson will go through a time of complete despair and possibly suicidalness before even attempting to get treatment, something that is thankfully becoming less common thanks to increased knowledge of our existence. What they mean by 'non essential' apparently is that, since our emotions don't count and mean nothing, by not treating us, of course nothing bad will happen and they can safely ignore us. Bullsquid.

A common misconception is that all transpeople need SRS (or whatever the hell you want to call the procedure) in order to be happy. some don't need anything at all, others will just take hormones to feminise or masculinise their body to a degree (degree depending on both dose and bodies reception to it) and some do need to have surgery in order to feel happy.

You could make an economy MtF SRS using just a katana and a padded bra.

Neesika, a question: Does the Canadian health care system cover "non-essential" surgical procedures such as facial surgeries, either cosmetic or reconstructive?

Canada has a strange dual system...health care is a federal head of power, but the provinces are in charge of delivering services. Each province will have services 'listed' as covered...chiropractic, for example (the other service to be cut, which is going to save the gov't $53 million apparently). Reconstructive surgeries can be defined as 'essential' if a doctor has referred a patient for the procedure. It all depends on what it's for...for example, I get botox for hyperhidrosis, and the physician fee is covered by AB healthcare (the botox is covered by extra health insurance, but only because under provincial law, botox used for therapeutic purposes is considered non-cosmetic).

So no, the Canadian health care system does not cover 'non-essential' surgical procedures, but that's an issue of definition, not objective truth.

You could make a budget MtF SRS using just a katana and a padded bra.

Highly budget indeed. probably fatal too given the blood veins in the area. Besides they need the penile tissue in order to successfully finish the operation as it's used to line the interior of the new vagina. plus some parts are used in order to recreate the clitoris, labia etc.

But don't think some of us haven't already thought it an adequate solution. :P

This is what I don't get. Even those who really support privatised healthcare have to admit they don't want a system like what exists in the US...but they've failed to show how they are going to avoid it. What sort of magical 'Canadian model' is there going to be that won't end up failing us the way the USian model fails so many of its citizens?

Thinking happy thoughts will keep it airborn. ;)

I recall reading somewhere that failure to treat (typically in the form of a medical procedure) transsexuals could cause them to become suicidal, so I would like clarification on what is meant by "non essential".

None has been given. I've yet to see a revised publication on the justification for how this is now a non-essential procedure.

Suicide rates among trans people is horrifyingly high. But hey, that's a choice too, right?

Governments are typically incredibly weasily when ascribing 'suicide' to an action so it's very easy to deny that trans people are killing themselves over what they feel. But typically a transperson will go through a time of complete despair and possibly suicidalness before even attempting to get treatment, something that is thankfully becoming less common thanks to increased knowledge of our existence. What they mean by 'non essential' apparently is that, since our emotions don't count and mean nothing, by not treating us, of course nothing bad will happen and they can safely ignore us. Bullsquid.

A common misconception is that all transpeople need SRS (or whatever the hell you want to call the procedure) in order to be happy. some don't need anything at all, others will just take hormones to feminise or masculinise their body to a degree (degree depending on both dose and bodies reception to it) and some do need to have surgery in order to feel happy.

Right, that is why I said the treatment was "typically" a medical procedure.

Highly budget indeed. probably fatal too given the blood veins in the area.
Well thats a risk. So use a tourniquet. Or whatever.


Besides they need the penile tissue in order to successfully finish the operation as it's used to line the interior of the new vagina. plus some parts are used in order to recreate the clitoris, labia etc.
Who needs a vagina when you have an anus?

A common misconception is that all transpeople need SRS (or whatever the hell you want to call the procedure) in order to be happy. some don't need anything at all, others will just take hormones to feminise or masculinise their body to a degree (degree depending on both dose and bodies reception to it) and some do need to have surgery in order to feel happy.

Exactly. The small percentage of the population that is actual trans, has an even smaller percentage within that needs gender reassignment surgery. My brother has considered it, but decided it wasn't something he had go through. So clearly the fact that it WAS covered didn't suddenly make people decide to get the surgery out of the blue, on a whim, or because it was free.

You could make an economy MtF SRS using just a katana and a padded bra.

And I could carry out an economy aid to natural selection by eliminating stupid and ignorant people through use of a chainsaw. I'm sure you'd be as willing to volunteer for that 'economy' solution as I would regarding the one you suggest.

None has been given. I've yet to see a revised publication on the justification for how this is now a non-essential procedure.

Suicide rates among trans people is horrifyingly high. But hey, that's a choice too, right?

Governments tend to shrug at the unusual suffering of one group over others, as in: "It ain't our fault, so why should we give a shit?" We have the same problem with African Americans in the U.S. "I never hurt any black people, so their problems are obviously caused by themselves."

Well thats a risk. So use a tourniquet. Or whatever.


Who needs a vagina when you have an anus?

Don't troll this thread.

They could make up the savings by firing the jackasses who came up with this idea.

Governments tend to shrug at the unusual suffering of one group over others, as in: "It ain't our fault, so why should we give a shit?" We have the same problem with African Americans in the U.S. "I never hurt any black persons, so their problems are obviously not mine."
Don't give in to the cop out that this is the government, something apart from us, just doing its own thing. Other than friends and family of trans people here in Alberta, very few people are agitating, complaining, or giving a flying shit about this. In fact, most people who DO hear about it, think it's a great idea. Jeez, who wants those queers getting their icky operations here anyway, right?

This governmental action is propped up by societal discrimination, ignorance, and fear.

Don't give in to the cop out that this is the government, something apart from us, just doing its own thing. Other than friends and family of trans people here in Alberta, very few people are agitating, complaining, or giving a flying shit about this. In fact, most people who DO hear about it, think it's a great idea. Jeez, who wants those queers getting their icky operations here anyway, right?

This governmental action is propped up by societal discrimination, ignorance, and fear.

Fuck, Neesika, society is often worse than the government. I know if I lived in an absolute democracy here in the States, I would be scared shitless.

Fuck, Neesika, society is often worse than the government. I know if I lived in an absolute democracy here in the States, I would be scared shitless.

I'm aware. It isn't the government going out and beating trans people.

Don't troll this thread.
I just have this image before my eyes when I think of SRS, of a line of people and a samurai with a blade chopping off their guns with the right hand and dispensing bras with the left one.

I'm aware. It isn't the government going out and beating trans people.

people and government are one and the same on trans discrimination. When I get children under the age of ten following me around yelling 'tranny' I start to think "maybe the government should actually be trying to teach these children something since their bigot parents don't want to. They do have possession of the child for several hours a day 5 days a week, couldn't they be doing more with that time?

I don't know in this particular case, but there are times that you have to quantify the worth of different procedures if you're really short on funds, like it or not, because procedures will have to be rationed. Consider it as an indifference curve. A few less sex changes may mean a few more brain tumour removals. But again I have no idea exactly what the case is in Alberta, and how much sex change is costing the health service.

Yep, fair enough. Don't see why anyone else's money should be going on what is essentially a lifestyle choice rather than important surgery.

/thread.

I just have this image before my eyes when I think of SRS, of a line of people and a samurai with a blade chopping off their guns with the right hand and dispensing bras with the left one.

Yes, you've shared that already.

Do not troll this thread.

I don't know in this particular case, but there are times that you have to quantify the worth of different procedures if you're really short on funds, like it or not, because procedures will have to be rationed. Consider it as an indifference curve. A few less sex changes may mean a few more brain tumour removals. But again I have no idea exactly what the case is in Alberta, and how much sex change is costing the health service.

Flaw in your thinking - that gender issues are less serious and fatal than brain tumours. Plenty of brain tumours are benign, plenty of trans people die because of inadequate care.

people and government are one and the same on trans discrimination. When I get children under the age of ten following me around yelling 'tranny' I start to think "maybe the government should actually be trying to teach these children something since their bigot parents don't want to. They do have possession of the child for several hours a day 5 days a week, couldn't they be doing more with that time?

That is the big "concern" here about homosexuals. When the two men came knocking at my door to try to convince me to vote for Proposition 8, the first thing they said (after introducing themselves and their cause) was: "Think about it: If the Government does this, the next you know it will be teaching children in schools that homosexuality is alright."

The horror! :eek2:

I don't know in this particular case, but there are times that you have to quantify the worth of different procedures if you're really short on funds, like it or not, because procedures will have to be rationed. Consider it as an indifference curve. A few less sex changes may mean a few more brain tumour removals. But again I have no idea exactly what the case is in Alberta, and how much sex change is costing the health service. It will save them $700,000 out of a $12.6 billion budget. A pittance.

/thread.Yes. The thread should be ended comprehensively by the statment of a person (and his supporters) who have demonstrated no actual knowledge on the subject. Let's let these kinds of people make all the decisions!

Canada has a strange dual system...health care is a federal head of power, but the provinces are in charge of delivering services. Each province will have services 'listed' as covered...chiropractic, for example (the other service to be cut, which is going to save the gov't $53 million apparently). Reconstructive surgeries can be defined as 'essential' if a doctor has referred a patient for the procedure. It all depends on what it's for...for example, I get botox for hyperhidrosis, and the physician fee is covered by AB healthcare (the botox is covered by extra health insurance, but only because under provincial law, botox used for therapeutic purposes is considered non-cosmetic).

So no, the Canadian health care system does not cover 'non-essential' surgical procedures, but that's an issue of definition, not objective truth.
But if it's "delisted" then even if a physician refers a patient for the procedure, it won't be covered? If I'm understanding this right -- and I'm probably not -- then it seems "essential"/"non-essential" are meaningless terms.

Plenty of brain tumours are benign

They still need to be removed, they cause serious problems, benign or not.


, plenty of trans people die because of inadequate care.

What do you mean? As in the psychological issues drive them to suicide if they don't have reassignment surgery? Is this the same proportion of people who can die when they have brain tumours?

That is the big "concern" here about homosexuals. When the two men came knocking at my door to try to convince me to vote for Proposition 8, the first thing they said (after introducing themselves and their cause) was: "Think about it: If the Government does this, the next you know it will be teaching children in schools that homosexuality is alright."

The horror! :eek2:

I know! Gay children might grow up thinking they aren't monstrous! Then they'd get all uppity and take over Hollywood.

/thread.

Don't trivialise us out of your ignorance. We don't 'choose' to get marginalised and beaten to death. It doesn't just fucking occur to us as a bright shitting idea to liven up a boring day. Adequate care of transpeople -saves lives-. Don't take that away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkHdgMOuuBs

Eh, I wouldn't say it's that little, that's around 5%.

Um what? Try 0.0005%

But if it's "delisted" then even if a physician refers a patient for the procedure, it won't be covered? If I'm understanding this right -- and I'm probably not -- then it seems "essential"/"non-essential" are meaningless terms.

'Essential/non essential' are legal terms used to describe which processes are funded and which are not. Delisted procedures are automatically 'non-essential' because under the Canada Health Act you can't deny people essential procedures.

Um what? Try 0.0005%

Oh wait, I read that as 12 million lol. I thought that was a little small.

Don't trivialise us out of your ignorance. We don't 'choose' to get marginalised and beaten to death. It doesn't just fucking occur to us as a bright shitting idea to liven up a boring day. Adequate care of transpeople -saves lives-. Don't take that away.

Who's trivializing? I'm not marginalizing anyone. First off, you need to calm down, your awefully close to flaming, without even asking my viewpoint.

I think things like gender reassignment surgery should be elective, that is to say, elective for the patient, and something that the government should never cover, I feel the same way about elective cosmetic surgery... so next time you choose to judge me for judging you (which you only assumed I did) I'd think again.

What do you mean? As in the psychological issues drive them to suicide if they don't have reassignment surgery? Is this the same proportion of people who can die when they have brain tumours?

This is actually a flawed comparison because there are only a tiny amount of transpeople and I have no idea how many people in alberta go to hospital to have brain tumours removed. There is no way that treatment of transpeople is denying funds to anybody because the amount of money spent on transcare is absolutely miniscule.


And yes. Psychological issues drive many of us to suicide or attempted suicide. Make no mistake. This withdrawal of treatment will cost lives.

[G]ender reassignment surgery...I feel the same way about elective cosmetic surgery.

This is why your reasoning is flawed.

There is no way that treatment of transpeople is denying funds to anybody because the amount of money spent on transcare is absolutely miniscule.


Yeah as I said, I had know idea how much money was spent on it specifically in Alberta's case. I'm just talking about hypothetical situations.

It will save them $700,000 out of a $12.6 billion budget. A pittance.

Yes. The thread should be ended comprehensively by the statment of a person (and his supporters) who have demonstrated no actual knowledge on the subject. Let's let these kinds of people make all the decisions!

My objection to gov't spending on this isn't the percent of money compared to budget, if it were, you'd have a potentially reasonable argument for saying "it's not that expensive, so everyone who opposes it is an ignorant bigot."

I have nothing against trans-people myself, I just don't think that this should be government funded unless the government funds all elective cosmetic surgery.

This is why your reasoning is flawed.

I note that you don't actually explain why, other than to post a fragmented quote. I cannot accept any correction given in such a manner, as you ahve not actually provided any.

I have nothing against trans-people myself, I just don't think that this should be government funded unless the government funds all elective cosmetic surgery.

This your problem, thinking of it as if it is whim. It is not; it is an extremely painful, often fatal, condition if treatment is not provided. It is not about vanity.

I think things like gender reassignment surgery should be elective, that is to say, elective for the patient, and something that the government should never cover, I feel the same way about elective cosmetic surgery

Its a treatment that many transpeople need. You don't meaningfully 'choose' to do something you need to do, anymore than you 'choose' to donate all the money you happen to be carrying to someone standing with a gun to your head.

Who's trivializing? I'm not marginalizing anyone. First off, you need to calm down, your awefully close to flaming, without even asking my viewpoint.

I think things like gender reassignment surgery should be elective, that is to say, elective for the patient, and something that the government should never cover, I feel the same way about elective cosmetic surgery... so next time you choose to judge me for judging you (which you only assumed I did) I'd think again.

The post you agreed with called being transgender a lifestyle choice. It is no more a lifestyle choice than being black or white. it happens. Due to the blanket societal disgust displayed to transgendered people affording such procedures on their own can be exceptionally difficult. We treat people with a wide variety of problems that cause distress and pain and ultimately take lives if left untreated. Being trans and having no access to treatment causes immeasurable distress, huge pain, and kills.

Also, I never flamed you. I called your position ignorant and then I swore a lot but I never once insulted you as a person. And yes, I'm angry. This decision will prove fatal for people and is nothing but a hollow attempt by the government to look 'active'.

Who's trivializing? I'm not marginalizing anyone. First off, you need to calm down, your awefully close to flaming, without even asking my viewpoint. You were asked your viewpoint in the OP. You chose not to express anything more than your support for someone else's statement. Don't deliberately avoid providing some rationalisation to back up your opinion and then cry that we're being mean when we point it out.

I think things like gender reassignment surgery should be elective, that is to say, elective for the patient, and something that the government should never cover, I feel the same way about elective cosmetic surgery... so next time you choose to judge me for judging you (which you only assumed I did) I'd think again. Your tone is threatening. Perhaps it is you who should 'think again'.

My objection to gov't spending on this isn't the percent of money compared to budget, if it were, you'd have a potentially reasonable argument for saying "it's not that expensive, so everyone who opposes it is an ignorant bigot." Pay attention. I was quoting two people. My response to the second person had nothing to do with you.

I have nothing against trans-people myself, I just don't think that this should be government funded unless the government funds all elective cosmetic surgery.

Earlier on in this thread I provided a link to the DSM on Gender Identity Disorder. Go check it out. Then come back and try to explain to me again how this is just like elective cosmetic surgery.

Calling a steaming pile of shit a rose, doesn't make it smell sweeter. Try working with the facts, rather than your unsourced, unsupported opinons.

Yes, you've shared that already.
Do not troll this thread.
If you ask so. Indeed, it might be way more fun on its own.


I have nothing against trans-people myself, I just don't think that this should be government funded unless the government funds all elective cosmetic surgery.
I'd be thinking more along the lines of fixing micropenises.


It is no more a lifestyle choice than being black or white. it happens.
Hmm. What about providing color reassignment treatment, by the way? There's lots of White people who feel Black, for instance. Should be pretty inexpensive too (even without using my cost-cutting talents).

This your problem, thinking of it as if it is whim. It is not; it is an extremely painful, often fatal, condition if treatment is not provided. It is not about vanity.

I called it whim or vanity? I must have missed where.

I've known people that will never be "happy" without augmentation mammoplasty, due chiefly to mental issues, and natural physique, I do not feel like the government should pay for such a procedure, and it would be beyond vanity too.

I'm not saying treatment shouldn't be provided, or that we should let all transpeople commit suicide, or some such rubbish, as I guess everyone on this thread seems to think I support. We should certainly provide therapy, I just don't support cosmetic (not to say 'elective' this time) surgery being subsidized by the government.

I'm gonna step back and say that Canada can do as it pleases, I live in the US, I'm just speaking that were a similar issue to come up here, this is how I would feel. (Note, I do not support public healthcare in the first place)

I know! Gay children might grow up thinking they aren't monstrous! Then they'd get all uppity and take over Hollywood.

im in ur country corrupting ur kids

[This is what I don't get. Even those who really support privatised healthcare have to admit they don't want a system like what exists in the US...but they've failed to show how they are going to avoid it. What sort of magical 'Canadian model' is there going to be that won't end up failing us the way the USian model fails so many of its citizens?
I run into the same problem from the other direction.....everyone wants government healthcare, but when you talk about the problems with various established systems they say "oh, no, it won't be like Canada's (or the UK's or etc.). When I ask them what it will be like......no answer.

I really don't like the idea that bureaucrats rather than doctors are making medical decisions.....standard of care decided by pencil pushers is a really low standard. I go back and forth over whether this is a financial decision or a medical one. (we know it's a political one but bear with me) I think there are probably not very many emergent cases of need for SRS, it's probably something you and your doctor discuss and prepare for.....not like emergent appendectomy. I was on government insurance here and needed my gallbladder out, because it wasn't actively killing me it was considered elective and not covered, even though I was sick and in pain, it wasn't going to be scheduled because nobody was going to pay for it......however, as soon as it became emergent they scheduled the surgery and the government paid for it. I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this, bear with me, I'm kinda loopy from a fentanyl patch......but like, needed SRS surgery is both emergent and non-emergent at the same time.......and I don't think that white shirt government pencil pusher #3 understands that....they only understand "will they die soon if we don't do something?" and sadly people with mental health problems (depression, etc.) are often pushed aside because people with "real" problems take precedent. Suicide is a choice.....according to the government.


Wow. That was really long and I don't think it makes sense and it's probably going to be misunderstood, but I will post reply anyway +1.

Hmm. What about providing color reassignment treatment, by the way? There's lots of White people who feel Black, for instance. Should be pretty inexpensive too (even without using my cost-cutting talents).

We can call the operation "The Michael Jackson".

"Yeah Ernie, I'm going to go in and get Michael Jackson'd on Wednesday."

I called it whim or vanity? I must have missed where.

By comparing it to "cosmetics"; it is a serious psychological issue that leads to death or extraordinary pain--why should it deserve less attention than other medical problems?

I called it whim or vanity? I must have missed where.

I've known people that will never be "happy" without augmentation mammoplasty, due chiefly to mental issues, and natural physique, I do not feel like the government should pay for such a procedure, and it would be beyond vanity too.

I'm not saying treatment shouldn't be provided, or that we should let all transpeople commit suicide, or some such rubbish, as I guess everyone on this thread seems to think I support. We should certainly provide therapy, I just don't support cosmetic (not to say 'elective' this time) surgery being subsidized by the government.

I'm gonna step back and say that Canada can do as it pleases, I live in the US, I'm just speaking that were a similar issue to come up here, this is how I would feel. (Note, I do not support public healthcare in the first place)

Quite a few insurance companies in the US cover gender reassignment surgeries, while they won't cover breast augmentation (other than for those who have had masectomies). Why is that? Is it because insurance companies love supporting non-essential proceedures?

Therapy isn't a 'cure' for gender identity disorder. Sexual reassignment is (http://www.wpath.org/documents/Med%20Nec%20on%202008%20Letterhead.pdf).

By comparing it to "cosmetics"; it is a serious psychological issue that leads to death or extraordinary pain--why should it deserve less attention than other medical problems?

Then women who feel inadequate with today's standard of beauty, which leads to eating disorders, depression, suicide, major surgeries should be provided for them too of course?

Quite a few insurance companies in the US cover gender reassignment surgeries, while they won't cover breast augmentation (other than for those who have had masectomies). Why is that? Is it because insurance companies love supporting non-essential proceedures?

Therapy isn't a 'cure' for gender identity disorder. Sexual reassignment is (http://www.wpath.org/documents/Med%20Nec%20on%202008%20Letterhead.pdf).

More power to the insurance companies. I have no problem if an insurance company covers such a procedure.

They also cover some cosmetic surgeries (usually never 'elective' ones, usually just the reconstructive, as you pointed out, mastetomies).

Then women who feel inadequate with today's standard of beauty, which leads to eating disorders, depression, suicide, major surgeries should be provided for them too of course?

You don't get it.

Gender Identity Disorder is a psychological condition, an actual 'illness' that needs treating.

A woman who feels inadequate does not have an actual psychological condition. If she develops one, such as depression, then you treat the depression. There are protocols for treating depression, as there are protocols for treating GID.

Is it becoming clearer? Maybe read it through a few more times.

Then women who feel inadequate with today's standard of beauty, which leads to eating disorders, depression, suicide, major surgeries should be provided for them too of course?

The relative rates of suicide are not even close to comparable. This is more on the dangerous level of PTSD.

If it were actually a budget issue, I could see reasonable justification for prioritizing things that will directly kill/harm one if not treated over things that might somewhat indirectly kill/harm one if not treated. So, for example, if coverage of sex reassignment surgery was being nixed in order to pay for more cancerous tumor removals, I could reluctantly accept that as sensible.

However, given how very little money is being spent on SRS compared to the total budget, that idea would seem pretty obviously to be nonsense, and the decision seems much more likely to be based in the sort of bullshit reasoning we've already seen in this thread in which being transgendered is a "lifestyle choice" which Decent God-Fearing People shouldn't have to support. That's crap, plain and simple.

Gender Identity Disorder is a psychological condition, an actual 'illness' that needs treating.




On a purely academic note this can be quite a contentious issue. I don't think many people (there are always some) would deny that being transgendered is a 'condition' but there's a strong dispute as to whether it's psychological or physical. After all, isn't the brain the primary here, and it's a physical fault that the body has developed incorrectly rather being a psychological fault that we can only in the main correct through some form of physical intervention?

The relative rates of suicide are not even close to comparable. This is more on the dangerous level of PTSD.

So, because they commit suicide less, we should concern ourselves less. Gotcha.

So, because they commit suicide less, we should concern ourselves less. Gotcha.

So you recommend no treatment of PTSD?

A woman who feels inadequate does not have an actual psychological condition.

They certainly can.

On a purely academic note this can be quite a contentious issue. I don't think many people (there are always some) would deny that being transgendered is a 'condition' but there's a strong dispute as to whether it's psychological or physical. After all, isn't the brain the primary here, and it's a physical fault that the body has developed incorrectly rather being a psychological fault that we can only in the main correct through some form of physical intervention?
Can you start a new thread? I want to talk about this.

So, because they commit suicide less, we should concern ourselves less. Gotcha.

Um...yes, mortality rates are generally used in discussing how serious a condition is. This is why most people are more concerned when diagnosed with cancer than with a cold. Is this somehow surprising to you?

So you recommend no treatment of PTSD?

You'll have to cite where I said that, rather than an intentional misinterpretation of what I said.

They certainly can.

Of course they can. They can also be depressed, or schizophrenic, or whatever. "Feels inadequate," however, is not itself a psychological disorder.

On a purely academic note this can be quite a contentious issue. I don't think many people (there are always some) would deny that being transgendered is a 'condition' but there's a strong dispute as to whether it's psychological or physical. After all, isn't the brain the primary here, and it's a physical fault that the body has developed incorrectly rather being a psychological fault that we can only in the main correct through some form of physical intervention?

Agreed, and it's sort of sad I don't feel like this is a safe enough environment to actually have a decent academic debate on the subject (because too many people will just come along and go 'what, there's dispute? See, it's not a real condition at all!).

On a purely academic note this can be quite a contentious issue. I don't think many people (there are always some) would deny that being transgendered is a 'condition' but there's a strong dispute as to whether it's psychological or physical. After all, isn't the brain the primary here, and it's a physical fault that the body has developed incorrectly rather being a psychological fault that we can only in the main correct through some form of physical intervention?

There's not a solid consensus on the cause of transsexuality, nor for any other sexual or gender identity. Psychological and biological causes for transsexualism have been proposed. Some people consider research into the "causes" of transsexualism to be based on the assumption that it is a pathology, an assumption that is rejected by some transsexuals. Others think of the condition as a form of intersexuality, and support research into possible causes, believing that it will verify the theory of a biological origin and thereby reduce social stigma by demonstrating that it is not a delusion, a political statement, or a paraphilia. Note stigma has a role to play in the development of and adherence to both viewpoints. See the transfeminism article's section on GID for further discussion.

Harry Benjamin wrote, "Summarizing my impression, I would like to repeat here what I said in my first lecture on the subject more than 10 years ago: Our genetic and endocrine equipment constitutes either an unresponsive [or] fertile soil on which the wrong conditional and a psychic trauma can grow and develop into such a basic conflict that subsequently a deviation like transsexualism can result."[29]

A few studies based on small samples suggest that transsexualism might be associated with a difference in the human brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc). In one study, the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals and cisgendered women were similar. Those of heterosexual and homosexual men were similar to each other and different from those of women (cis- and transgendered).[30] Another study suggests that transsexuality may have a genetic component.[31]

-Wikipedia

I think the most important thing to remember here is that transgendered people are essentially just freaks, who cares if a few kill themselves anyway? Not my fault they can't afford to pay for their "treatment". Maybe if they got a job instead of sitting at home whining all day they could afford it, instead of leeching off the good honest-working taxpayer who will end up paying for their perversion.

You'll have to cite where I said that, rather than an intentional misinterpretation of what I said.

I am asking...did you notice the question mark?

They certainly can.
That's not what you're talking about. You listed women who feel inadequate who end up developing depression and so on. Their inadequacy is not the underlying condition that needs treatment, which is completely dissimilar to GID.


I'm not sure why this is so confusing for you.

You'll have to cite where I said that, rather than an intentional misinterpretation of what I said.

Lol. You are bad at debating.

You do not support the treatment of transgendered who need SRS. Another condition, PTSD, with similar mortality statistics, was presented. In order for you to maintain logical consistency in your argument, you cannot support treatment of PTSD. Unless, of course, your objection to SRS is based on something other than government subsidizing elective procedures.

I think the most important thing to remember here is that transgendered people are essentially just freaks, who cares if a few kill themselves anyway? Not my fault they can't afford to pay for their "treatment". Maybe if they got a job instead of sitting at home whining all day they could afford it, instead of leeching off the good honest-working taxpayer who will end up paying for their perversion.

Omg you got a copy of the Hansard!

Quite a few insurance companies in the US cover gender reassignment surgeries, while they won't cover breast augmentation (other than for those who have had masectomies). Why is that? Is it because insurance companies love supporting non-essential proceedures?

Therapy isn't a 'cure' for gender identity disorder. Sexual reassignment is (http://www.wpath.org/documents/Med%20Nec%20on%202008%20Letterhead.pdf).

It's because the LGBT lobby is a much louder whiner than others, and if you're against them in any way, shape, or form, you're a bigot and deserve to be killed. It's not worth the effort to fight them when it's such a small percentage of people because, no matter how right you are, they will tar and feather you forever.

(Note: Generic "you" used in this post, meaning Government, people, insurance companies, etc.)

One of the great ironies about my red-neck, homophobic, trans-hating province was that it was one of the few provinces that listed transgenderism as a mental illness.

Oh God, that's surprising. Transphobia (that can't be a word, can it?) is one of the few things that gets me angrier than homophobia.


So, on the issue of delisting 'non-essential medical procedures' and on delisting sexual reassignment procedures specifically, what do you think?

I think sexual reassignment procedures should be provided for by the government.

It's because the LGBT lobby is a much louder whiner than others, and if you're against them in any way, shape, or form, you're a bigot and deserve to be killed. It's not worth the effort to fight them when it's such a small percentage of people because, no matter how right you are, they will tar and feather you forever.

(Note: Generic "you" used in this post, meaning Government, people, insurance companies, etc.)

...

"Deserve to be killed"

Nice use of a fucking ridiculous, and backwards hyperbole.

Do you actually have an argument, or are you just crying because people call you a bigot for your lack of one?

It's because the LGBT lobby is a much louder whiner than others, and if you're against them in any way, shape, or form, you're a bigot and deserve to be killed.

Maybe where you come from, but not over here. So perhaps stop talking bullshit?

Can you start a new thread? I want to talk about this.

I would love to but I'm getting a bit too busy to get a thread going at the moment and I have a time consuming commitment to another one right now. But when I'm a bit more available this evening I'll start it - though I have to say I'm at a loss on -how- I would start a thread on it or if we're even on the same train of thought. If, however, you wish to start that thread then be my guest. :) My word thinker is broken much.

Omg you got a copy of the Hansard!

It's an argument I've heard such a depressing amount of times, including one idiot who actually used it to my face.

"It's not worth the effort to fight them when it's such a small percentage of people because, no matter how right you are, they will tar and feather you forever."

Yep, the argument is pretty obvious from my post. Not sure how you missed it.

It's an argument I've heard such a depressing amount of times, including one idiot who actually used it to my face.

For a while, I was stubborn and felt like I needed to stay in Alberta, because we need all the lefties we can get, all the progressives, all the people who treat people like people...and it's somewhat hardcore to be one of the few non-bigots in a province famous for bigotry. Perhaps it's age, or perhaps it's just that I don't want my kids to grow up here, but I am more than happy to get the fuck out. I'm not saying that anywhere is particularly transfriendly, happy happy joy gay friendly either...but at least in other places people don't spend so much of their time going out of their way to make other people's lives a living hell.

Fuck you Alberta.

"It's not worth the effort to fight them when it's such a small percentage of people because, no matter how right you are, they will tar and feather you forever."

Yep, the argument is pretty obvious from my post. Not sure how you missed it.

Wow, those small percentage of people must have so much power.

Here is where you back your claim up. I'll wait.

You should also note that I've noticed you still don't actually have a point. You haven't explained why you would be 'fighting' then in the first place, were it not for their massive powers.

"It's not worth the effort to fight them when it's such a small percentage of people because, no matter how right you are, they will tar and feather you forever."

Yep, the argument is pretty obvious from my post. Not sure how you missed it.

No, you never said what your argument is, only that this potential argument would supposedly be stomped down by some shady pressure group elite. Without hearing what this 'repressed' argument might be, we can't tell 'how right you are', though I think everyone reading this thread has their suspicions.

Oh noes! We've repressed him!

Then women who feel inadequate with today's standard of beauty, which leads to eating disorders, depression, suicide, major surgeries should be provided for them too of course?
Anti-depressants would be what the medical profession would consider the standard care if the case becomes as you describe, and of course this would be covered.

I go back and forth on the issue of covering sexual reassignment surgery, largely because I go back and forth on the issue of whether or not it should be considered elective. These days, I lean towards saying that it isn't. Transpeople go through years of counseling and hormone treatments - both of which I believe should be covered - before they take this step. They aren't doing it on a whim. So, as long as their doctor agrees that it is necessary, I have trouble seeing why it shouldn't be covered.

If I recall correctly, they go through years of counseling and stuff to make sure they're not doing it on a whim. The surgery being rather drastic and non-reversible, after all. Given that, I'd think that if someone reaches the point where their doctor and psychologist and whatnot agrees that it's necessary, it is probably necessary.

'Essential/non essential' are legal terms used to describe which processes are funded and which are not. Delisted procedures are automatically 'non-essential' because under the Canada Health Act you can't deny people essential procedures.
That's some catch, that Catch 22.

I don't understand why public money should go to sex change operations.

I don't understand why public money should go to sex change operations.

For the same reason it should pay for your appendectomy.

That's not what you're talking about. You listed women who feel inadequate who end up developing depression and so on. Their inadequacy is not the underlying condition that needs treatment, which is completely dissimilar to GID.


I'm not sure why this is so confusing for you.
I can hazard a guess as to why he's so confused. It's because the facts are not supporting his prejudice. It's like watching someone try not to stand on the floor under them.

No, you never said what your argument is, only that this potential argument would supposedly be stomped down by some shady pressure group elite. Without hearing what this 'repressed' argument might be, we can't tell 'how right you are', though I think everyone reading this thread has their suspicions.
I don't have any suspicions at all. In fact, I'm so certain what his supposedly repressed argument would be, I'd be willing to bet money on it, if I had any money.

Yep, fair enough. Don't see why anyone else's money should be going on what is essentially a lifestyle choice rather than important surgery.
I tend to agree with the above.

I don't have any suspicions at all. In fact, I'm so certain what his supposedly repressed argument would be, I'd be willing to bet money on it, if I had any money.

Oh gawd Mur'v! Now he's going to go on about how he was going to tell us, but he won't now since it's clear we've already prejudged him and anything he says, no matter how reasonable and right, is going to be ignored, dismissed,and repressed and isn't it sad that we can't even see that we've just proven him right.

I tend to agree with the above.

Yay! Another person who probably isn't going to produce any evidence to counter the evidence in this thread that it is not in fact a lifestyle choice.

I want to be intellectually lazy too!

I don't understand why public money should go to sex change operations.

Then read the thread. It is quite informative.

I'm not a hater but I don't see a problem with not providing gender reassignment surgery so long as therapy and hormone injections are covered.
It is an incredibly expensive procedure and there is currently a recession going on. Most Canadian proveinces only partly cover the surgery or do not cover it at all.

For the same reason it should pay for your appendectomy.

Well, it shouldn't, first off. My appendix is also fine, thanks. But that's not an argument for this thread.

Does Alberta pay for other cosmetic surgeries? If so, then I see no reason why sex change operations should be dropped.

If Alberta doesn't pay for cosmetic surgeries, then there is no reason why it should pay for sex change operations.

So the other day, on a whim, I decided to go through the process of having my vagina turned into a penis, my chest expanded and my breasts reduced in order to form a more manly chest. I walked into the clinic and the doctor said, 'buh? That's delisted! Sorry, the walk-in sex change days are over!'

Is this really how people are picturing it?

Well, it shouldn't, first off. My appendix is also fine, thanks. But that's not an argument for this thread.

Does Alberta pay for other cosmetic surgeries? If so, then I see no reason why sex change operations should be dropped.

If Alberta doesn't pay for cosmetic surgeries, then there is no reason why it should pay for sex change operations.

Copy/paste.

That's what I'd do if I wanted to put in as little effort as you are to participate in this thread.

Well, it shouldn't, first off. My appendix is also fine, thanks. But that's not an argument for this thread.

Does Alberta pay for other cosmetic surgeries? If so, then I see no reason why sex change operations should be dropped.

If Alberta doesn't pay for cosmetic surgeries, then there is no reason why it should pay for sex change operations.

It's called an example.

Oh gawd Mur'v! Now he's going to go on about how he was going to tell us, but he won't now since it's clear we've already prejudged him and anything he says, no matter how reasonable and right, is going to be ignored, dismissed,and repressed and isn't it sad that we can't even see that we've just proven him right.
Oops. Sorry. ;) I forgot that you were holding your breath waiting for his well supported, well reasoned, insightful and informed presentation. Now I made you breathe. My bad. :D

Yay! Another person who probably isn't going to produce any evidence to counter the evidence in this thread that it is not in fact a lifestyle choice.

I want to be intellectually lazy too!
Seriously, I used to think I was the laziest slob on the planet, but if only I could be THAT lazy -- my life would be so much easier.

I don't so much mind people just knee-jerk +1ing to any shallow remark that happens to be dismissive of other people's issues (actually I really do mind it, a lot), but when the counter argument has already been posted -- all I can say is:

Read The Fucking Thread!!!

I don't think public money should pay for that.

I don't think public money should pay for that.

I think we found someone even lazier, intellectually speaking.

So the other day, on a whim, I decided to go through the process of having my vagina turned into a penis, my chest expanded and my breasts reduced in order to form a more manly chest. I walked into the clinic and the doctor said, 'buh? That's delisted! Sorry, the walk-in sex change days are over!'

Is this really how people are picturing it?
I think it might be what's playing through their little minds, because they really are that prejudiced against differently gendered and differently oriented people. They really do think that whatever they happen to be is the natural and preordained (by whatever) state of all of humanity and any significant variation is nothing but someone just being uncooperative.

You know, uncooperative with the Grand Plan of Everything Being Either Like Them or About Them.

Apparently.

Being of the ebil rightie reasoning that Private Healthcare could work out. Someday. If we ever can get these companies properly, but not too regulated, I support this decision.

HOWEVER! Being of the Evil Leftie reasoning that GID is something that should not be seen as 'Oh, huh, yes, whims and fancies', but rather, something that can lead to suicide if not rectified (Via Sexual Reassignment procedures) I do not support this decision.

THEREFORE, I must duel myself.

To the death. En Guarde! :D

I think we found someone even lazier, intellectually speaking.

Huzzah for flamebait!

Huzzah for flamebait!

I think it was a valid addition to the conversation Mur'v and I were having about intellectual sloth. Asking people to read a relatively short thread isn't really pushing boundaries.

Since there is an economic recession I support this move. When things turn around I will be unhappy if this procedure is not once again covered.

I think we found someone even lazier, intellectually speaking.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Watch this, even lazier!

"No public money for that."

Since there is an economic recession I support this move. When things turn around I will be unhappy if this procedure is not once again covered.
So...you're okay with however many suicides might happen between now and then?

You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Watch this, even lazier!

"No public money for that."

Get rid of the 'for that' and it wil be elegantly sublime. Less is more.

I think it was a valid addition to the conversation Mur'v and I were having about intellectual sloth.
It wasn't but......back to the point
Asking people to read a relatively short thread isn't really pushing boundaries.
I read through the thread and I still don't think public money should support that.

Huzzah for flamebait!

Is it not fairly lazy to come into a thread and just go "yeh, I support this" and not bother to give reasons why? Its a statement of fact. I suspect it'll be the same fail argument made before about it being a "choice", but at least bother making it.

So...you're okay with however many suicides might happen between now and then?

I believe therapy should be covered in the meantime. As well as hormone injections.

Since there is an economic recession I support this move. When things turn around I will be unhappy if this procedure is not once again covered.

Except it's going to be hard to go back to claiming its essential after you've stated flatly that it's non-essential...which is the essential argument after all. The economic argument is just thrown in to sweeten the deal.

It wasn't but......back to the point

I read through the thread and I still don't think public money should support that.
Too lazy to say why, though?

I think it was a valid addition to the conversation Mur'v and I were having about intellectual sloth. Asking people to read a relatively short thread isn't really pushing boundaries.

I heartily disagree. Was TAI's answer short? Of course. However, GoG assumed he meant it for the reasons listed before. For all you know, TAI could be arguing for this on the basis of privatized health care. In which case a rational, yet quick, debate could be made of it, and the thread could move on. Well, maybe not the last part. But GoG instead chose to attack his intellectual vigor. While TAI might not always have the right position (according to yours truly at least ;)), he rarely doesn't think things out thoroughly, if occasionally one-sidedly.

The point is, while GoG could have easily claimed that TAI was being lazy post-wise, he immediately attacked TAI's intellect. Also, they've shown to be quite liable to, uh, not getting along with each other.

I read through the thread and I still don't think public money should support that.

Jesus fuck don't make us beg just to hear your words of wisdom. Expand! Why not? Is it because you don't support any public healthcare at all? Or something else?

Christ, it's like NSG got all fucking shy or something.

Hmm.

So people gender identity disorder kill themselves if they don't get this procedure.

Well, I'm not in favor of public health care in the first place, so that paying for anything seems wrong.

But, as Canada does have public health care, then I see no reason why this should be cut, as it doesn't seem to cost too much money at all.

Suicide is an ugly thing, so if a country has public health care, it should probably be covered.

Get rid of the 'for that' and it wil be elegantly sublime. Less is more.
The first time I said it I used to 9 words to express my statement. This time, I only used 5! :)

I heartily disagree. Was TAI's answer short? Of course. However, GoG assumed he meant it for the reasons listed before. For all you know, TAI could be arguing for this on the basis of privatized health care. In which case a rational, yet quick, debate could be made of it, and the thread could move on. Well, maybe not the last part. But GoG instead chose to attack his intellectual vigor. While TAI might not always have the right position (according to yours truly at least ;)), he rarely doesn't think things out thoroughly, if occasionally one-sidedly.

The point is, while GoG could have easily claimed that TAI was being lazy post-wise, he immediately attacked TAI's intellect. Also, they've shown to be quite liable to, uh, not getting along with each other.

...

You obviously didn't see my own comments about being intellectually lazy.

Also, I think you read waaaaay too much into things, Will Robinson.

Except it's going to be hard to go back to claiming its essential after you've stated flatly that it's non-essential...which is the essential argument after all. The economic argument is just thrown in to sweeten the deal.

Ontario is re-instating it.

Ontario is re-instating it.

Can you give me some background? I'd like to know the reasons for delisting and reinstating...

Jesus fuck don't make us beg just to hear your words of wisdom. Expand! Why not? Is it because you don't support any public healthcare at all? Or something else?

Christ, it's like NSG got all fucking shy or something.

I don't agree, politically, with the idea that it is the forced duty of an individual to pay for the healthcare of his neighbors.

Also, I think you read waaaaay too much into things, Will Robinson.

Eh, it's a curse.:D

Although, to be fair, they really do not get along.

Transgendered people from across Canada would come here to get their surgery. (we're talking like 20 a year, not hundreds, and they'd actually have to live in Alberta to be eligible).
Does any other Province fund gender reassignment surgeries?

I think we found someone even lazier, intellectually speaking.

Pfft I can do better than that.

I don't think

Ta Da!

1. Everyone's a hypocrite. Only some are slightly less subtle.

2. If I told TAI to stop, he'd most likely give me a long and verbose description of why it actually isn't a threadjack, or move on. While the risk is low, I REALLY do not feel like reading anything long tonight.

3. By debating with him, you are extending the threadjack, instead of merely letting his posts die out, as they would have as the original discussion moved on.

I think the point TAI was arguing around is a valid one - Canada has a 'better' healthcare system than us, and the reason why this 'delisting' is important ISN'T because it prevents the care taking place (as far as I can see, it doesn't), but because it is excluding treatment from being covered.

I happen to believe that if treatment is needed it shouldn't matter if you're rich enough to afford it - and the problem here is that Canada is deciding some treatments aren't 'needed', because they don't want to pay.

I have yet to see my local pothead get arrested for smoking pot. Ergo, smoking pot is legal, if you smoke in the same manner he does, and act in that way.

Also, if the cops don't see it, that also makes it legal.

While I'm sure your services are appreciated, I believe that neither Neesika nor TAI needs an apologist.

I think the point TAI was arguing around is a valid one - Canada has a 'better' healthcare system than us, and the reason why this 'delisting' is important ISN'T because it prevents the care taking place (as far as I can see, it doesn't), but because it is excluding treatment from being covered.

I happen to believe that if treatment is needed it shouldn't matter if you're rich enough to afford it - and the problem here is that Canada is deciding some treatments aren't 'needed', because they don't want to pay.
Please, stop the threadjack. Go create your own thread, but stop jacking this one.
While I'm sure your services are appreciated, I believe that neither Neesika nor TAI needs an apologist.
:confused:

Please, stop the threadjack. Go create your own thread, but stop jacking this one.


Did you even read what I wrote?

Did you even read what I wrote?

Indeed I have. And guess what? IT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS THREAD SHOCKER!

Indeed I have. And guess what? IT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS THREAD SHOCKER!

um...actually it's exactly the point of this thread. To discuss the consequences of this decision.

Are you sure you're reading the right thread? Perhaps you accidentally wandered on to here from a less intellectually challenging forum.

Indeed I have. And guess what? IT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS THREAD SHOCKER!

Of course it's on topic. You're not a moderator; stop pretending to be one.

It is entirely relevant that Canada has nationalized healthcare. In a private healthcare system like in the United States, ultimately, an insurer has every right to deny certain treatments, and it can be reasonably expected that another insurer will step into the market vacuum to pick up all those potential customers. But in a nationalized healthcare system, where people only have the one, mandatory option, do they have the right to deny certain types of treatment to certain types of people just because it "costs too much"? I'd say no. It's inherently discriminatory to deny treatment for a certain affliction that impacts a particular population more than another; no different than if they decided randomly to delist treatment for sickle-cell anemia or ovarian cancer.

It is entirely relevant that Canada has nationalized healthcare. Does the government have the right to enact discriminatory treatment policies? That's an important question.

Of course it's on topic. You're not a moderator; stop pretending to be one.

Not trying to be. Just pointing out the obvious. The topic is whether or not this decision to delist 'Sexual Reassignment' Procedures is correct, and generally if delisting 'non-essential' medical procudures is acceptable and whatnot.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your preconceived opinions.

It is entirely relevant that Canada has nationalized healthcare. In a private healthcare system like in the United States, ultimately, an insurer has every right to deny certain treatments, and it can be reasonably expected that another insurer will step into the market vacuum to pick up all those potential customers. But in a nationalized healthcare system, where people only have the one, mandatory option, do they have the right to deny certain types of treatment to certain types of people just because it "costs too much"? I'd say no. It's inherently discriminatory to deny treatment for a certain affliction that impacts a particular population more than another; no different than if they decided randomly to delist treatment for sickle-cell anemia or ovarian cancer.

It is entirely relevant that Canada has nationalized healthcare. Does the government have the right to enact discriminatory treatment policies? That's an important question.
It is an important question, and that's a great reply. However, the point still stands that No True Scotsman was trying to devolve the thread into yet another 'Private vs. Public healthcare' thread. As if we don't get enough of those.

I disagree with the arguments that TAI's comments were on topic.

The OP specifically asked for opinions about a particular kind of treatment.

These procedural arguments over the differences between public and private systems only talk about the ways in which ANY treatment could be covered or denied.

They say nothing at all about the particular treatment the thread is about.

Nor do they say anything about why that particular treatment should or should not be covered.

Therefore, they are off topic and of no interest. You all may pursue them if you like. It will just make a lot of "ignore" spaces in this thread for me until you are done.

That's some catch, that Catch 22.
It is not really a "Catch 22" situation. The Canada Health Act clearly states what needs to be covered and what is optional:

4. Insured Health Services and Extended Health Care Services (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/944-e.htm#4insuredtxt)

The Act makes a distinction between “insured health services” (i.e., those that have been deemed “medically necessary”) and “extended health care services.” So-called medically necessary services are defined only in the broad sense of the term in the Act. Section 2 states that insured health services – which must be fully insured by provincial health care insurance plans – comprise:

hospital services that are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability, including accommodation and meals, physician and nursing services, drugs and all medical and surgical equipment and supplies;
any medically required services rendered by medical practitioners; and
any medically or dentally required surgical-dental procedures which can only be properly carried out in a hospital.

Section 2 of the Act also stipulates that extended health care services include intermediate care in nursing homes, adult residential care service, home care service and ambulatory health care services. Because these services are not subject to the two provisions relating to user charges and extra-billing, they can be charged for at either partial or full private rates. Similarly, extended health care services are not subject to the five criteria of the Act. As such, they do not have to be publicly administered, universal, comprehensive, accessible or portable. In addition, provincial health care insurance plans may cover other health services, such as optometric services, dental care, assistive devices and prescription drugs, which are not subject to the Act, and for which provinces may demand payment from patients. The range of such additional health benefits that are provided under provincial government plans, the rate of coverage, and the categories of beneficiaries vary greatly from one province to another.
Now it is up to those concerned to prove that gender reassignment operations are “medically necessary”.

Are der bloggin' tories circlejerking about this yet or are they too busy fellating Harper for the billionth time?

Now it is up to those concerned to prove that gender reassignment operations are “medically necessary”.

If our (I feel, rather persuasive) argument that not treating us leads to; Depression, living death (that is such a severe form of nigh permanent dissociation that causes time to blur and the victim to lose all ability to feel... anything) and ultimately actual for reals death, and Treating us leads to us having a hope in hell at actually being happy, is not convincing enough, then what on earth would convince them it was necessary?

If our (I feel, rather persuasive) argument that not treating us leads to; Depression, living death (that is such a severe form of nigh permanent dissociation that causes time to blur and the victim to lose all ability to feel... anything) and ultimately actual for reals death, and Treating us leads to us having a hope in hell at actually being happy, is not convincing enough, then what on earth would convince them it was necessary?
There are thousands of "depressed" people out there untreated because they can't afford treatment, or don't know how to go about getting treatment. You are certainly not alone:

Key Suicide Statistics (http://www.crisiscentre.bc.ca/learn/stats.php)

http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/1

Where do we begin to address these situations?

There are thousands of "depressed" people out there untreated because they can't afford treatment, or don't know how to go about getting treatment. You are certainly not alone:

Key Suicide Statistics (http://www.crisiscentre.bc.ca/learn/stats.php)

http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/1

Where do we begin to address these situations?


Simple. any position where mental health is not being treated with the -exact- same severity as physical health needs redressed. a key distinction with the transcare is that it's actually taking a step back. Where depressed people should have access to more publically available healthcare, now a subset of people with depression are having their access stripped from them for the sake of political expediency, nothing more. Further, the depression that many trans people suffer has a relatively simple identifying issue that -was- being resolved. Now no longer. Again further, from personal experience of depression both transgender and otherwise, the sheer death that being trapped in a life and an existence that is not your own is numbing to the point of destruction. I am -not- denigrating people with depression. I still suffer it severely, but there is a reason that trans people have a shockingly high suicide rate.

Of course it's on topic. You're not a moderator; stop pretending to be one.

It is entirely relevant that Canada has nationalized healthcare. That's not the subject of the alleged hijack, which btw is in Moderation, so we don't need to keep going on about it (stares at CM).


In a private healthcare system like in the United States, ultimately, an insurer has every right to deny certain treatments, and it can be reasonably expected that another insurer will step into the market vacuum to pick up all those potential customers. But in a nationalized healthcare system, where people only have the one, mandatory option, do they have the right to deny certain types of treatment to certain types of people just because it "costs too much"? I'd say no. It's inherently discriminatory to deny treatment for a certain affliction that impacts a particular population more than another; no different than if they decided randomly to delist treatment for sickle-cell anemia or ovarian cancer.

It is entirely relevant that Canada has nationalized healthcare. Does the government have the right to enact discriminatory treatment policies? That's an important question.Now THIS is an excellent way to bring nationalised healthcare ON topic. Also a great summary of why this is particularly problematic.

Does any other Province fund gender reassignment surgeries?

Here (http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&item=1086) is some (albeit a little dated) info on that.

Update (http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=32057be3-8451-48a6-8703-37b1fa8ac05a) on reinstatement in Ontario.

Most SRS, by the way, is performed in Montreal at the Centre Metropolitain de Chirurgie Plastique.

Private clinics (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/10/1368.pdf) in Montreal also offer this service.

The threadjack (which I don't see as malicious in intent) is soo-o-o over (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14752019&postcount=2).

You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Watch this, even lazier!

"No public money for that."

I can beat that!

no $ 4 that

:p

I can beat that!

no $ 4 that

:p
And I can beat that! Watch.

So, on the issue of delisting 'non-essential medical procedures' and on delisting sexual reassignment procedures specifically, what do you think?
Agree

And I can beat that! Watch.


Agree

Damn you! :tongue:

Damn you! :tongue:
http://mcgonnigle.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/snidely1.jpg

"Drats!

Foiled again!"

ENUFF!

Topic!

Now!

ENUFF!

Topic!

Now!
*snaps to attention*

Jawohl, herr Kommandant!

So, as I was saying. . . relating to Canadian transgenderd people . . . about the Canadian healthcare system . . .er maple syrup . . .


Ok, serious question. Is being transgendered considered a mental illness, as in, thinking that you are in the wrong body?

Ok, serious question. Is being transgendered considered a mental illness, as in, thinking that you are in the wrong body?

No. It is a strong identification with the sex one is not; I doubt many transsexuals are actually under the impression they are physically the other sex when they are not.

If I put your brain in a woman's body, you would feel highly disconcerted, yes?

No. It is a strong identification with the sex one is not; I doubt many transsexuals are actually under the impression they are physically the other sex when they are not.

If I put your brain in a woman's body, you would feel highly disconcerted, yes?

"Highly disconcerted" doesn't even begin to describe.

SRS needs to be funded simply because it prevents traps.

Seriously. As a heterosexual, I insist that the chicks I pick up* have a vagina, not a penis. What was originally there is of no concern. But for the love of god, if they want to be women, make them real** women.

Please.

* None... <.<
** To the extend it's possible at this point