some things piss me off

[skyblue]

i work with a transgender person.......a woman who,until recently was a man......it takes all sorts

my problem is that this procedure was payed for by the tax payer.....yet couples who are desperate for kids cant get IVF treatment on the national health.......how can this be right?

 

[robdawg1]

How was the procedure paid for by tax payers? if she is on a medicaire/ medicaide program they dont approve cosmetic procedures which that is...

 

[skyblue]

How was the procedure paid for by tax payers? if she is on a medicaire/ medicaide program they dont approve cosmetic procedures which that is...

its our national health system in britain

 

[robdawg1]

oh, i see. I am not familliar with that set up then....it seems to me that a cosmetic procedure should not be approved by a government for insurance pay out, but thats just me.

Thats regardless unfortunately of the circumstances behind it; be it for having kids or chopping off the old willie

 

[Veronica]

I didnt know that your health care was set up like that. That really sucks.

 

[Saffy]

i work with a transgender person.......a woman who,until recently was a man......it takes all sorts

my problem is that this procedure was payed for by the tax payer.....yet couples who are desperate for kids cant get IVF treatment on the national health.......how can this be right?

I wonder if the person you worked with had the operation due to emotional or physical issues and it was reccommended by their doctor that this should happen. I can't see any other reason why it would be granted.

It does seem unfair when I am sure that many couples are are so desperate to have children and have equally their own very valid reasons for wanting the National Health to pay for IVF.

How do you handle having a colleague who was once a man now being a woman, how are they treated in the work force?

 

[sophie]

You wouldn't think it was so unfair if you were a woman trapped in a man's body, which is what transgender means.

 

[pinkporridge]

u would if you had to pay for IVF.. if 1s free so should the other..

 

[sophie]

Well...there are other options for pursuing pregnancy than IVF. When someone is transgendered, there is only one option to correct the situation. ETA that transgender and infertility have nothing to do with each other. One being covered doesn't have anything to do with the other. Cancer treatments are free. Does that mean viagra should be?

 

[pinkporridge]

im not saying it shouldnt be free.. im sayin IVF should be.. IVF is a last resort.. when u have tried all other options.. if your desperate to give birth to ur own baby and dont wanna adopt (wich is reasonable)

 

[sophie]

Just to play the devil's advocate, why is choosing to bring another person into an already overcrowded and underresourced planet instead of adopting an already existing child who needs a family 'reasonable'?

I guess I'm more on Team-Planet-Earth than I am on Team-Babies-For-Everyone. Adoption is a wonderful thing.

 

[pinkporridge]

there are lots of problems with adoption.. mainly.. if this woman has been desperate for years on end to have her own baby.. she can have issues bonding with the adopted child..

women carry the baby for 9 months protecting it, talking to it, panicing over every little ache or pain. then during the pregnancy a rush of hormones are released into the body that make u instantly for get the pain the second ur in contact with the baby. Then your maternal instics kick in. and u bond with your child

when you adopt a child you miss all of that..and yes you have a child to look after and bring up.. but some times that is not enough for some1.. sometimes they want to have created it them selves.

they want one of their own how is that not a reasonable prospect?

 

[thatguyjeff]

Gender identity disorder is a legitimate mental illness. One of the generally accepted forms of treatment for this illness is sex transformation surgery. It is often not cosmetic.

 

[sophie]

It's not reasonable because there are millions of children who need homes already, the planet is already over crowded and under resourced and if someone wants a baby, the genetic link is not what makes you bond with a baby. Women whose babies were born of surrogates bond just find. Adoptive mothers (by and large) bond just fine. If a woman has been desperate for years to have a child, odds are she will bond easier than someone who adopts a child willy nilly (not that that happens, but that's the antithesis of your assertion). Maternal instincts come from more than just carrying a baby.

 

[AUFred]

i work with a transgender person.......a woman who,until recently was a man......it takes all sorts

my problem is that this procedure was payed for by the tax payer.....yet couples who are desperate for kids cant get IVF treatment on the national health.......how can this be right?

I tend to agree with you. I think nationalized healthcare is a joke. Of course that is a different debate. My opinion gender re-assignment sounds like elective surgery so why not allow IVF as well.

 

[sophie]

I tend to agree with you. I think nationalized healthcare is a joke. Of course that is a different debate. My opinion gender re-assignment sounds like elective surgery so why not allow IVF as well.

I'm betting that the doctors, nurses and psychiatrists involved think otherwise, hence why it's a covered procedure.

 

[BlackCherry]

I think the reason IVF is tricky is because it doesn't always work. There are many couples that go through several attempts and never succeed at great expense. I'm not arguing for or against either way, but can see that as an argument that the National Health may use to deem it unfit for coverage...

However, that said I had to laugh that for years Viagra and other ED drugs were covered under insurance, but women's birth control pills, shots, etc. were not. Of course now neither are so there you go. But totally hysterical that one.

 

[AUFred]

I think the reason IVF is tricky is because it doesn't always work. There are many couples that go through several attempts and never succeed at great expense. I'm not arguing for or against either way, but can see that as an argument that the National Health may use to deem it unfit for coverage...

However, that said I had to laugh that for years Viagra and other ED drugs were covered under insurance, but women's birth control pills, shots, etc. were not. Of course now neither are so there you go. But totally hysterical that one.

I don't believe ED meds should be covered. If a man needs that he should pay for it. I would be more accepting of paying for birth control because that is almost like preventive treatment.:nod:

 

[robdawg1]

I don't believe ED meds should be covered. If a man needs that he should pay for it. I would be more accepting of paying for birth control because that is almost like preventive treatment.:nod:

It certainly saves the Insurance company in the long run not having to pay for the birth and cover the child eventually when they are sick and need treatment...
you would think they would want to cover birth control and vasectomies and tubal ligations etc....

 

[AUFred]

It certainly saves the Insurance company in the long run not having to pay for the birth and cover the child eventually when they are sick and need treatment...
you would think they would want to cover birth control and vasectomies and tubal ligations etc....

Really. I don't know enough about what is covered in different national healthcare plans.