Obama administration clears way for taxpayer-funded sex-change surgery

posted at 5:21 pm on May 30, 2014 by Allahpundit

The taxpayer-funded agency in question is Medicare, so if you have a grandma or grandpa who’s itching to endure complex surgery and hormone therapy to rid themselves of a gender they’ve already lived with for 65 years or more, good news. Help is on the way.

Sort of.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Appeals Board, an internal review structure within the byzantine federal agency, issued a ruling that ended a ban on Medicare even considering covering sex reassignment surgery and related care because a fear of “serious complications” resulting from the “experimental” surgery. That language was issued in 1981, and most medical professional organizations now consider sex reassignment surgery a safe and accepted procedure. The DAB ruling noted the change in how sex reassignment surgery is understood 33 years after the Medicare ban was issued…

Experts say the change to Medicare could have far-reaching implications for American medicine, helping to drive more private insurers to offer coverage for sex reassignment surgery and related care. Though it fits within President Obama’s promise to make the government fairer to LGBT Americans, the DAB announcement was a relatively quiet one. The White House did not trumpet the move, and advocates for the change issued a joint statement hailing it but downplaying it as a revolutionary change for transgender people, instead casting it as bringing Medicare up to speed with the rest of the medical profession.

The demand for sex-reassignment surgery among septuagenarians is small, as you might expect, and the new ruling doesn’t guarantee that a request for coverage will be granted as medically necessary. It simply says that Medicare is no longer required to deny coverage. It’s a gesture, designed to nudge Obama’s new best friends in the insurance industry to follow suit and to impress his base, particularly during a week when transsexuals are already in the news. And it’s not the first time he’s used health-care policy for ideological/gestural reasons, either. (Here’s another gesture in the news, albeit outside the health-care realm.) Releasing this today, with the public distracted by Shinseki and the VA, is a smart bit of media management by the White House and HHS. People who care about this subject will notice. Most people who don’t, won’t.

Is sex-reassignment surgery ever medically necessary? Maybe:

“For someone who cannot get treatment the impact can be devastating,” Levi said. They can be depressed, have serious problems with self-esteem and have difficulty working and forming social relationships, she said.

In some ways the ruling on Friday was more important from a symbolic standpoint than a practical one. Only a small percentage of the population is estimated to be transgender and various surveys have shown that very few opt for surgical interventions. As a result, several studies have shown that the cost — which can be anywhere from $10,000 or more per surgery — to insurers is often negligible.

The Army recently refused to provide Bradley/Chelsea Manning with taxpayer-funded reassignment surgery but has begun to look into transferring him to a civilian prison so that he can get treatment. That’s an interesting accommodation for a person who’s doing time for espionage.

To fully grasp the political significance of this gesture, have a look at WaPo’s digest of Gallup’s new poll on moral issues. On the question of whether homosexuality is morally acceptable (not a perfect proxy for transgender issues but close enough), Republicans have barely shifted since 2005. Thirty-six percent found it acceptable nine years ago versus 39 percent now, a spread that’s within the margin of error. It’s Democrats who have moved considerably, from 51 percent agreement in 2005 to 71 percent now. The White House is getting right with its base before the midterms in ways large and, in this case, small.

Update: While we’re on the subject of gay-themed flashpoints in the culture wars, news today from Colorado:

Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state’s anti-discrimination statutes…

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. “I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down,” he told reporters after the ruling.

He added his bakery has been so overwhelmed by supporters eager to buy cookies and brownies that he does not currently make wedding cakes.

Rather than fine him or force him to pay damages, they’re actually going to … force him to provide a product he doesn’t currently offer? Compulsory labor? Or, as I suspect, is the order here just a procedural formality to fine him when he inevitably refuses to make the cake? The state’s discrimination statute should provide that remedy already, I would think.

By the way, he says he’s perfectly willing to serve gay customers, just not for a wedding. I believe that’s also true of other bakers and photographers who’ve run afoul of state discrimination laws. Unless I’m mistaken, no one’s categorically refused to accept gay customers a la racist business owners refusing to accept blacks 50 years ago. A belated exit question via Ben Domenech: If gay marriage is illegal in Colorado, how can refusing to cater a gay wedding also be illegal?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I am the reincarnation of Mohandas Gandhi.

I demand that you taxpayers fund my facial reconstruction, a lifetime subscription to the local tanning salon, & a liposuction so that I will look like who I really am.

It’s my civil right.

It’s all about me.

itsnotaboutme on May 30, 2014 at 6:15 PM

I’ve decided the “Me I was born to be” is a spider who had the misfortune of being born in a human’s body. Gonna get me some taxpayer funded webshooter implants and go slinging and swinging through NYC. Don’t hate, you bigots just wish you’d thought of it first.

CapnObvious on May 30, 2014 at 7:00 PM

If your transformation is successful, somebody should make a movie about that.
Or five.

itsnotaboutme on May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM

I still can’t get over the fact that Allahpundit said “maybe.”

Is sex-reassignment surgery ever medically necessary? Maybe:

And then he quoted a whiny appeal for “treatment.”

The only effective treatment would be psychiatric counseling!
Not surgery!

Surgery would only create a reconstructed mentally ill person!

P a t h e t i c .

itsnotaboutme on May 30, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Persons that indulge in sex identity confusion have a spiritual, not a psychiatric, disorder. Their only hope for happiness in this life is to get right with God, which is the last thing Socialists want, because persons enslaved to vice are more easily enslaved to the State.

TXJenny on May 30, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Well…I would say it’s a spiritual as well as a psychiatric disorder.

They could be cured of their mental illness outside of following Christ, but as you point out, they still would not be what they were created to be.

Becoming who you’re created to be does not involve taxpayer-funded surgery, BTW.

itsnotaboutme on May 30, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Update: While we’re on the subject of gay-themed flashpoints in the culture wars…

Just to be clear…this transgender stuff isn’t “gay-themed” or gay-anything.

JetBoy on May 30, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Got it.

So technically speaking, “gay” behavior refers to a specific unhealthy & sinful deviancy, not a broad spectrum of unhealthy & sinful deviancies.

itsnotaboutme on May 30, 2014 at 10:11 PM

“For someone who cannot get treatment the impact can be devastating,” Levi said. They can be depressed, have serious problems with self-esteem and have difficulty working and forming social relationships, she said.

In other words, making someone happy even a crazy person by giving them what they desire is now termed a medical necessity.

paulsur on May 30, 2014 at 10:19 PM

“For someone who cannot get treatment the impact can be devastating,” Levi said. They can be depressed, have serious problems with self-esteem and have difficulty working and forming social relationships, she said.

I guess that would justify any kind of cosmetic surgery. If they insist they are depressed and have low self-esteem. I mean, we can’t have that!

Buddahpundit on May 30, 2014 at 11:57 PM

Great, our veterans are dying waiting to get treatment and this f…ing idiot prioritizes this new insanity, making sex change operation available at the expense of the taxpayer. Not to mention how expensive these operations are. next frontier of liberal relentless campaigning: the trannies. Wait until they start terrorizing us with their endless new demands, positive discrimination for them in the workplace and other crapola like that. I can forsee how they will require separate toilets in public spaces, for a third gender. A new category of victims added to the grievance culture and blsmed on the dominant white male. And they started witn the ‘right’ demographics – grannies trannies. Next, military trannies. my goodness, this country is slowly descending into collective dementia.

jimver on May 31, 2014 at 3:57 AM

The insanity of this is overwhelming.

mixplix on May 31, 2014 at 7:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2