HHS Reverses Transgender Health Protections

[thebobmaster]

This seems like a great thing to do during a pandemic, doesn't it?

To explain what, exactly, happened, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act forbids discrimination based on "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities." An additional rule applied by the Obama Administration defined protections in regards to "sex" as encompassing gender identity, further defining this as "male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female." In other words, discrimination based on sex, as defined by the ACA, covered transgender, non-binary, and genderfluid in addition to male and female.

Well, the current administration has reversed that additional rule, and now discrimination based on sex is strictly referring to biological sex, i.e. male or female. The given rationale is that the Obama rules went beyond the scope of what the ACA covered. The new ruling is scheduled to go into effect in mid-August.

I cannot very easily put into words how disgusted, and yet resigned, I feel about this. It shouldn't happen, and it is. But for this administration, that's par for the course. If Obama did it, it's bad, even if it protects an extremely vulnerable population. The administration just doesn't care about you if you don't fit into their box of what you should be.

Source via NPR

 

[Worgen]

I'm actually surprised it took this long. The orange bastard banned trans people from the military like year 1 or 2.

 

[happyninja42]

I cannot very easily put into words how disgusted, and yet resigned, I feel about this. It shouldn't happen, and it is. But for this administration, that's par for the course. If Obama did it, it's bad, even if it protects an extremely vulnerable population. The administration just doesn't care about you if you don't fit into their box of what you should be.

Source via NPR

Because giving You (meaning anyone not like them) rights, violates their religious freedom to oppress those not like them in the name of their invisible man in the sky.
This really doesn't surprise me at all. I remember at work, this one old lady spewing some of the most hateful shit. It was funny, in that depressing kind of funny way. Looking at her, most would think "oh, what a cute little old grandma." And then she opens her mouth while she was in our waiting room to see a counselor, and just spewed shit for like, 20 minutes, about "the gays" and whatever else floated her boat. And then, and this is the part that makes me facepalm and laugh/cry, she ended her little rant on "Well I mean I don't have anything against homosexuals....I just don't want them anywhere near my grandchildren."

So yeah, they don't think you're human if you don't fit their concept of normal. As evidenced by their blocking of basic human rights and decency to other people.

 

[Dreiko]

What sort of things is this safeguarding you from? Reading this I can't imagine something that can come out of this which would harm you since this is about doctors and health. Is it something like not being able to see a gynecologist when you're male? Cause I would imagine if you're male you'd not need one whether you feel you're a woman or not. I don't think medicine evolved with established ways of healing the nonbinary and whatever other types of people so wouldn't it be safer to default to things we know how to work with?

About all I see that can come of this is that for the confines of a medical examination you'd be forced to state you are one or the other sex when you think you're not. You can just put something down that you don't think is true right? Kinda like how you accept those terms and conditions that nobody reads before using an app and what have you?

 

[Trunkage]

What sort of things is this safeguarding you from? Reading this I can't imagine something that can come out of this which would harm you since this is about doctors and health. Is it something like not being able to see a gynecologist when you're male? Cause I would imagine if you're male you'd not need one whether you feel you're a woman or not. I don't think medicine evolved with established ways of healing the nonbinary and whatever other types of people so wouldn't it be safer to default to things we know how to work with?

About all I see that can come of this is that for the confines of a medical examination you'd be forced to state you are one or the other sex when you think you're not. You can just put something down that you don't think is true right? Kinda like how you accept those terms and conditions that nobody reads before using an app and what have you?

Wouldn't things like hormone therapy and reassurance surgery be not covered. Then, if your living in a small town, and a doctor denies your request for one of these treatments, you'd have to find one out of town.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

What sort of things is this safeguarding you from? Reading this I can't imagine something that can come out of this which would harm you since this is about doctors and health. Is it something like not being able to see a gynecologist when you're male? Cause I would imagine if you're male you'd not need one whether you feel you're a woman or not. I don't think medicine evolved with established ways of healing the nonbinary and whatever other types of people so wouldn't it be safer to default to things we know how to work with?

About all I see that can come of this is that for the confines of a medical examination you'd be forced to state you are one or the other sex when you think you're not. You can just put something down that you don't think is true right? Kinda like how you accept those terms and conditions that nobody reads before using an app and what have you?

Imagine reading the article instead of just dismissing it out of hand

Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office, said Lindsey Dawson, associate director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Other possible scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer, or a hysterectomy not being covered by an insurer — or costing more when the procedure is related to someone's gender transition.

 

[Dreiko]

Wouldn't things like hormone therapy and reassurance surgery be not covered. Then, if your living in a small town, and a doctor denies your request for one of these treatments, you'd have to find one out of town.

Isn't not covering those logically consistent with not covering other forms of cosmetic surgery like boobjobs and nosejobs though? Like, say someone really hates their nose so much they're ashamed to leave their house and wants a nosejob , do we need to cover that just to make them feel better about themselves? It's not like a trans person has some illness that will kill them if they don't get injected with hormones right?

Imagine reading the article instead of just dismissing it out of hand

Asking questions is dismissing now? And I genuinely didn't see the article cause I'm used to links being wider and with a quotation in this website actually.

 

[Avnger]

Isn't not covering those logically consistent with not covering other forms of cosmetic surgery like boobjobs and nosejobs though? Like, say someone really hates their nose so much they're ashamed to leave their house and wants a nosejob , do we need to cover that just to make them feel better about themselves? It's not like a trans person has some illness that will kill them if they don't get injected with hormones right?

Gender Dysphoria is a diagnosable medical condition. One of the possible treatments for it is transitioning which can include hormone therapy. Your need (again) to ask leading questions when the answers are easily available is noted.

Asking questions is dismissing now? And I genuinely didn't see the article cause I'm used to links being wider and with a quotation in this website actually.

JAQing off is a well known tactic online for derailing conversations and interjecting hateful/crazy ideas under the guise of "innocent questions" which others are then forced to address.

 

[Dreiko]

Gender Dysphoria is a diagnosable medical condition. One of the possible treatments for it is transitioning which can include hormone therapy. Your need (again) to ask leading questions when the answers are easily available is noted.

That should then fall under general psychiatric insurance/coverage in the same way other psychological disorders like schizophrenia or autism are covered. No need to make a special group category because that condition is related to sex.

And is someone who is non-binary the same as someone who is suffering from gender dysphoria? I thought those were distinct things.

JAQing off is a well known tactic online for derailing conversations and interjecting hateful/crazy ideas under the guise of "innocent questions" which others are then forced to address.

Not sure how you derail a conversation by asking a question about the subject that is the matter. Whether something is crazy or hateful is purely subjective ultimately but I definitely don't see how that has anything to do with what I asked.

If you don't want to address the questions people will come up with when they read what you post then don't make a thread about something, write a blog instead. Acting like you're put-upon when you are the one starting the topic is illogical. If you don't wanna answer questions about something or engage with other's ideas then why post in a forum in the first place.

 

[Agema]

That should...

...mean the healthcare profession is best placed to decide how it's best treated, which is a better basis than the arbitrary and uninformed opinions of people who can't get their heads past the idea that transgenderism is icky.

 

[Silvanus]

That should then fall under general psychiatric insurance/coverage in the same way other psychological disorders like schizophrenia or autism are covered. No need to make a special group category because that condition is related to sex.

There's no "special group category" being created. The reversal of the protection simply makes it lawful to discriminate based on gender identity; so the reversal prevents the very solution you propose above.

Not sure how you derail a conversation by asking a question about the subject that is the matter.

Come off it. If they were good faith questions, you wouldn't have referred to trans women as men.

 

[happyninja42]

I love the fact that this was done during Pride Month, and Trump also tries to hold a racism rally during Juneteenth, in a location that is heavily laden with racial history and tension.

I mean, the level of disconnect on the category of "hmm, I wonder how this will be perceived" is staggering.

 

[09philj]

People will probably die because of this.

 

[Buyetyen]

Not sure how you derail a conversation by asking a question about the subject that is the matter.

Not all questions are equal. Many are actually patently stupid or in bad faith. In fact your questions are mostly geared toward justifying the administration's decisions rather than understanding what this means for the trans community or whether this is sound practice in healthcare.

Anyway, this is wholly unsurprising. Bigotry is part of the fabric of Republican ideology and for every fight they lose to further marginalize one community, they'll find another one.

 

[SilentPony]

Okay I am deeply confused as to what this means. I read the article and...I still don't know. Like i get it means they can discriminate, but again the article doesn't say what that means.
It says "scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer"
Okay so either this means a biologically born man who has transition to a woman can't get ovarian cancer treatment...which they don't have ovaries, so...
Or it means a woman who has transitioned to a man now has ovarian cancer. but the ruling states he isn't a he, he is a she, she is a biological born woman. So...the insurance company would simply file her forms as if she was a she and...and what? If this article is accurate they'll still get the treatment and coverage, just the pronouns on the paperwork is wrong, or they'll be denied treatment for illness they can't physically have.

Im sure there is more to this but the article doesn't really say

 

[Buyetyen]

Okay I am deeply confused as to what this means. I read the article and...I still don't know. Like i get it means they can discriminate, but again the article doesn't say what that means.
It says "scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer"
Okay so either this means a biologically born man who has transition to a woman can't get ovarian cancer treatment...which they don't have ovaries, so...
Or it means a woman who has transitioned to a man now has ovarian cancer. but the ruling states he isn't a he, he is a she, she is a biological born woman. So...the insurance company would simply file her forms as if she was a she and...and what? If this article is accurate they'll still get the treatment and coverage, just the pronouns on the paperwork is wrong, or they'll be denied treatment for illness they can't physically have.

Im sure there is more to this but the article doesn't really say

You are assuming non-bigoted intent. These protections were put in place not simply to avoid paperwork confusion, but specifically to make sure that essential services cannot be denied to someone just for being born different. The administration's decision here is that if a person of faith wants to deny a trans person's insurance claim because they think Jesus hates queers, then they are legally entitled to do so. If a doctor decides, "My pastor says trans people aren't real, so I'm not going to give you any treatment for the symptoms you describe," then they can get away with that.

Bottom line: being trans is now a legal excuse for someone to deny you healthcare. They don't need to justify it beyond claiming a moral opposition to trans rights.

 

[Houseman]

Okay I am deeply confused as to what this means. I read the article and...I still don't know. Like i get it means they can discriminate, but again the article doesn't say what that means.
It says "scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer"
Okay so either this means a biologically born man who has transition to a woman can't get ovarian cancer treatment...which they don't have ovaries, so...
Or it means a woman who has transitioned to a man now has ovarian cancer. but the ruling states he isn't a he, he is a she, she is a biological born woman. So...the insurance company would simply file her forms as if she was a she and...and what? If this article is accurate they'll still get the treatment and coverage, just the pronouns on the paperwork is wrong, or they'll be denied treatment for illness they can't physically have.

Im sure there is more to this but the article doesn't really say

Same.

The article says "Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office..."

So how does that work?

Alice: "I'm here for my yearly physical"
Bob: "No, sorry, you're transgender, get out".

???

Now I might just be naive and innocent, but I don't see that ever happening.

 

[SilentPony]

You are assuming non-bigoted intent. These protections were put in place not simply to avoid paperwork confusion, but specifically to make sure that essential services cannot be denied to someone just for being born different. The administration's decision here is that if a person of faith wants to deny a trans person's insurance claim because they think Jesus hates queers, then they are legally entitled to do so. If a doctor decides, "My pastor says trans people aren't real, so I'm not going to give you any treatment for the symptoms you describe," then they can get away with that.

Bottom line: being trans is now a legal excuse for someone to deny you healthcare. They don't need to justify it beyond claiming a moral opposition to trans rights.

Isn't that the same as those pharmacists denying the pill based on religious objections and wasn't that over-ruled like 12 years ago?
Im still confused, is this saying a doctor can straight up deny any medical attention, like splinting an arm of a trans-person? Or does it mean they will still do the work, but put down the wrong pronoun.
Or or does it mean, like I wondered earlier, about denying a trans-person ovarian cancer treatment when they don't have ovaries.
Like is this an OBGYN saying there is no point in seeing a trans-female in her practice, or like a county doctor saying "trans don't have arms, therefore can't be broken"

and then in the later category how does that not break their Oath and how is that not immediately sue-able?

I get the intent - Trump and his ilk are trying to be dicks. But what's the practical effect? You said insurance claim, fine. Who? The agent? The CEO of the insurance company? The nurse taking the info? The accountant running it through payroll? The doctor doing the actual medical stuff? The ambulance driver? Paramedic? 9-1-1 phone operator?
Im not trying to be a dick, I really am curious. Who does this empower to discriminate and how does this effect the overall chain of payments in a medical procedure?

For example if Mike the nurse refuses to run a trans-persons health care insurance, sure. Just get Beth to do it instead. Likewise doctor, just go to the next one.

 

[Agema]

Now I might just be naive and innocent, but I don't see that ever happening.

Then you're naive and innocent, because medical staff do impede services that patients are entitled to have.

 

[Dreiko]

There's no "special group category" being created. The reversal of the protection simply makes it lawful to discriminate based on gender identity; so the reversal prevents the very solution you propose above.



Come off it. If they were good faith questions, you wouldn't have referred to trans women as men.

Yeah so this is why I'm asking questions. Is the assertion here that doctors are all just bigots and are looking to discriminate against people to the point we need protection? Cause that sounds kinda nuts.

Also, may have read some other topic because I didn't refer to anybody as men, I said male, which is a different thing. You can identify as a woman but that won't make you female. You know, the gender roles vs biological sex thing. Being trans doesn't change you being male or female, just being a man or a woman based on the gender roles of the society around you.

And no I think the questions were very much to the point of figuring out whether this will make it harder to get specific treatment. A guy who is trained to examine your cervix isn't gonna be useful for your medical treatment if you're male, no matter what your feelings on the matter are you still don't actually have a cervix that the guy is trained to check out. Hell, you'll prolly need a specialist depending on what if any surgeries you've undergone anyhow.