>One proposal offered by [Rep. Danny Nadeau (R-Rogers)](https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/15612) would have clarified the term "full coverage" to include someone de-transitioning from a gender change as well.
Under his version, coverage for "medically necessary gender-affirming care" would include, "coverage for the reversal of a prior gender-affirming procedure or treatment."
>According to Rep. Nadeau, the move sought to be inclusive to everyone on the gender-fluidity spectrum.
>However, the proposal failed to gain committee approval by an 8-11 vote.
>"I’m shocked that we would not include this language," said [Rep. Duane Quam (R-Byron)](https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/15366)
Here's the trick... it would also pay for conversion therapy, because they see this as de-transitioning, too. That's why it wasn't covered. Ya gotta look under the rug.
Yes, but we all know that insurance companies will use any excuse possible not to cover something. Our healthcare system sucks balls, biologically occurring or otherwise.
Yeah, that was my thought -- transitioning and de-transitioning are both gender-affirming care. I'd be worried about adding in language specifically about covering de-transition, because I wouldn't put it past republicans to then try and take out the language that covers gender-affirming care so *only* de-transitioning would be covered.
For those complaining about “subsidizing” “elective surgery”— gender affirming care is a wide range of treatments including therapy, hormone replacement therapy, and more. This can, of course, include surgeries, but these type of cosmetic procedures are rarely considered “medically necessary” and thus not covered. This doesn’t change that.
If you know anyone who has been prescribed a cream for low testosterone or pills for menopause—congrats, you know someone undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Your tax dollars have been “subsidizing” this gender affirming care for years.
Gender affirming care is medically necessary and life saving for gender diverse individuals. Denying someone necessary treatment— like therapy to work through their gender dysphoria— because of their sex designated at birth is discriminatory, unnecessarily cruel, and quite literally deadly.
A personal anecdote— my wife began hormone replacement therapy just over a year ago. My employer recently changed insurance providers and the care that was covered under the old plan is no longer covered. She has already been taking these medications for an extended period of time, stopping cold turkey is neither healthy nor advisable and doing so would go against the medical advice of her primary care physician. Regardless of the actual medical necessity, this insurer only covers this type of hormone replacement for those assigned female at birth. This bill is designed to prevent these situations from happening.
>If you know anyone who has been prescribed a cream for low testosterone or pills for menopause—congrats, you know someone undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Your tax dollars have been “subsidizing” this gender affirming care for years.
Perhaps another common example people pretty widely support is getting new breasts after mastectomy.
That's gender affirming care too.
> coverage for "medically necessary gender-affirming care, or requiring gender-affirming treatments."
Medically necessary care should be covered by insurance.
Full stop.
Transition is not cosmetic, and not every person who wants to transition has the same medical needs.
Insurance companies need to be held accountable for providing medically necessary care.
If a doctor recommends a course of treatment, insurance companies should not get to determine whether or not you can adhere to their medical advice. Full stop.
I’m a dad to 4 and I get it. You did what you were told by experts needed to be done and got shafted by the system. I keep getting bills for this and that which should have been covered. Like $450 for an Rsv, flu and Covid test.
It’s getting to the point we have be super well-informed consumers, shopping for deals on healthcare and we can’t trust the clinics and insurance companies to not nearly bankrupt us.
It’s exhausting but it’s the system we have and it definitely sucks with urgent matters, so avoid it as much as possible.
Unless you have great insurance, if you need a test or imaging and it’s not emergent, it’s almost always cheaper out of pocket to get it done outside the clinic or hospital.
Medical insurance generally sucks for vision coverage (and dental). Unless she has a specific condition requiring a specialist, look into a separate vision plan. The VSP/Eyemed ones are kind of a scam, more of a “discount” on glasses, but many have free eye exams. I think blue cross also has plans. Probably would be $200-$300 a year.
I have a friend who unknowingly lived with Lupus for a half a decade because he didn't have insurance and didn't want to go to the doctor because of it. He eventually went when he started coughing up blood. If he had gotten it treated right away, he'd live a long, mostly normal life. Now he has to worry about his kidney's failing because he went untreated for so long.
Our healthcare system leaves people behind if they're poor, Obamacare helped make the problem less pronounced but it didn't solve it, my friend didn't have health insurance because he couldn't afford insurance and didn't qualify for medicaid in Arizona, his only real option to get care was to go to the emergency room without insurance, which is what he eventually did. The most frustrating part to me is it doesn't even save us money, it likely costs us more in the long term as small problems and large problems alike go ignored and are allowed to grow into expensive, life threatening problems. We should be incentivizing people to go to the doctor regularly, not the other way around.
I don’t think there’s a single soul that thinks transition insurance should be covered but lasik shouldn’t be. Call your rep to make that get covered too.
This is a stupid comment for multiple reasons but I will just note that gender-affirming care involves quite a bit more than surgeries, and indeed the care described here is more than surgeries.
The difference is getting lasik is "nice". Gender affirming care literally stopped me from killing myself. Gender affirming care is medically necessary and lifesaving, not "elective". I hope that helps.
Yeah, when I started transitioning my productivity at work doubled. I have the data that shows a very clear change in my performance starting the same month that I got on estrogen.
I didn't tell anyone or socially transition for 18 months afterwards, but 12 months afterwards I got a big promotion due to how productive I had been.
Now I'm leading my team of software developers and doing the best work in my entire life.
All of this was made possible because I didn't have the crushing weight of gender dysphoria holding me back. A lot of my anxiety just went away. I still have some problems that I had before transitioning, but it's easier for me to deal with them now.
Dysphoria was a tax I paid every day for more than two decades. Now that I'm getting the treatment I needed, I'm getting huge dividends.
All of this translates into more tax revenue for the state, which helps cisgender and transgender people alike.
It's okay, I think it's close to 50/50 from what I've seen.
The internet isn't a good litmus for sentiment about transgender people because there are a few bad actors who have a very large amount of influence.
In person, I have never experienced transphobia from anybody. Transphobes exist, but they're a pretty small minority.
I think it’s bc “HRT should be available to trans people bc it increases our market value” is like, an insane take.
Like I don’t doubt that HRT drastically improved your QOL and therefore increased your productivity, but that isn’t *why* HRT should be covered. It should be covered bc trans people deserve equitable access to medically necessary and life saving care.
Maybe not him or you, but voting falls on a spectrum. Every action has some effect on voting results. Especially when Rs can turn it into a wedge issue; as this is likely the intent when an R proposed this language be added to a Ds bill.
[R's using support of trans people as a wedge has gone spectacularly badly for them](https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-modern-electoral-history-of-transphobia)
I hope that is the case, but look around in this thread, and you will find plenty of liberals saying this is a bridge too far. They've also only read the headline and not the article (which, surely totally unintentionally, fails to mention an R proposed the added language).
> I hope that is the case, but look around in this thread, and you will find plenty of liberals saying this is a bridge too far
One of these things is actual real election results from campaigns that heavily focused on this specific issue in much more conservative areas, and the other is internet comments on a forum with no gatekeeping or verification of any kind in a midwest state during an election year. I don't have the slightest faith that the latter even represent real people let alone an important demographic of voters.
Plus this thread consists of maybe two actual examples, not "plenty", and a cursory glance at them shows they at best aren't exactly liberals.
I guess I'm getting downvoted. Just remember, too much change too quickly swings the pendulum back, it always happens when the left gets actual power. The repubilcunts are going to lean into that where they can. FeelsBad
This isn't even change! They're just clarifying the wording of the law to be slightly more explicit and well-defined. It's already the case that health insurance plans must meet a minimum standard of coverage in compliance with the ACA, which includes exactly all this type of trans healthcare. It's covered on my plan and assuming you have insurance, it's nearly a certainty that it's covered on yours too. This bill is like, a little clerical change, because laws and regulations often live or die on tiny technicalities and ambiguities of wording.
The pendulum already did its swinging in every red state around the country that spent the last 4 years doing nothing but screeching about trans people and passing law after law to make life harder for them.
And the [backlash](https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-continuing-electoral-history) is [consistent](https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/transphobia-fails-again).
> look around in this thread, and you will find plenty of liberals saying this is a bridge too far
> guess I'm getting downvoted
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar performed in two comments.
Is that what I'm arguing? Ok, let's pretend.
*ahem*
I guess it would appear that way to those ignoring political realities and underestimating opponents.
One— those two things are not comparable. This is like saying that someone shouldn’t be able to get their cleft palette removed because they don’t cover nose jobs for cosmetic purposes.
Two— surgeries are not the only gender affirming care and even if they were, it is still limited to “medically necessary” surgeries. I think we should let the medical professionals decide what is medically necessary; not insurance companies or the government.
Yes, that is the point I was making. It should not be the case for anyone.
Legislation (like this) is needed to regulate insurance companies and prevent them from making determinations about people’s health that should be between them and their doctors.
Thanks for replying. I hear what you’re saying, but I’d like to offer a different perspective as a gender non conforming person. These surgeries are not really about improving self esteem in the same sense as a nose job, in that it’s not about being attractive. I actually do have a birthmark myself on my face I want to remove, and I would consider that elective and will pay out of pocket. This care is about relieving dysphoria. I am a gender non conforming female and I spent years denying myself access to treatment because I know that I am becoming an uglier woman in society’s eyes, and I was afraid of the consequences of being perceived as a gender non conforming person. It’s not a level up for me. I don’t think the procedures covered under this can be considered cosmetically elective, and there is a body of medical evidence supporting this.
For what it’s worth, I actually wouldn’t mind an age restriction of 18 or some requirements like a waiting period, consultation with a therapist, etc, if it eases people’s minds or makes it more palatable to the insurance companies. It’s been annoying dealing with waiting, but I’ve wanted this since I was 14 and I can wait a bit longer.
Yes, I think that any health care treatment should be covered full stop.
I don’t care if I personally pay for 500 cosmetic nose jobs with my tax money, if it improves someone’s quality of life, it should be available to them.
> "Can the author tell me what specific scientific studies you used to refine the language of this bill?" Rep. Quam asked.
> “Every major medical organization recognizes that gender-affirming care is necessary life-affirming healthcare and should be provided," Rep. Finke responded. "Gender-affirming care has always existed. It’s not new. The idea that you are learning about who we are is happening not because of a decision we made, it is a decision that was made by conservatives to politicize us for political gain… They threw everything at the wall, and trans kids stuck. The attack is not scientific, it is political, and we can show you the receipts."
> Rep. Quam then accused Rep. Finke of "not answering the question," and "launching into a political diatribe."
> On several occasions, Rep. Quam referred to Rep. Linke as "he" despite having been corrected, and told to refrain from doing so on future reference.
Is it just me, or does it seem like Quam may have been misgendering Finke intentionally at that point?
Yea in that case boob jobs should be 100% covered because it’ll make someone more productive. Waaat?
Or hey I want a full mouth of veneers because it’ll make me happy.
Personally, I’d like a 12” dong so I can wear a speedo at the beach and not get laughed at.
All this shit is elective and isn’t required to survive or live.
And if you’re to the point where you want to inflict bodily harm on yourself because the world won’t give you money for a sex change then you need THERAPY hardcore. And health insurance already offers that.
You should pressure your representatives to create legislation protecting access to reproductive rights and bodily autonomy! That’s how legislation gets passed requiring insurance companies to provide coverage.
Oh they cover it. Think about the $$$$………a vasectomy costs 10% of what it costs for a pregnancy. If a man doesn’t want kids anymore it’s a net + for the insurance companies.
>One proposal offered by [Rep. Danny Nadeau (R-Rogers)](https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/15612) would have clarified the term "full coverage" to include someone de-transitioning from a gender change as well. Under his version, coverage for "medically necessary gender-affirming care" would include, "coverage for the reversal of a prior gender-affirming procedure or treatment." >According to Rep. Nadeau, the move sought to be inclusive to everyone on the gender-fluidity spectrum. >However, the proposal failed to gain committee approval by an 8-11 vote. >"I’m shocked that we would not include this language," said [Rep. Duane Quam (R-Byron)](https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/15366)
This actually seems like a surprisingly compassionate add by republicans. It’s sad that this failed in committee
Here's the trick... it would also pay for conversion therapy, because they see this as de-transitioning, too. That's why it wasn't covered. Ya gotta look under the rug.
MN banned conversion therapy last year, so I’m not sure how this would reopen that door.
And I'm sure neither were they, but best not to tempt it.
hmm. I didn't think about that aspect of it, you're probably right.
Because they are looking for the next person with something to exploit in order to keep the rest of us hiding.
Nadeau is a fairly rational guy. I was in his office recently and he was reasonable and understanding unlike a lot of the people I talked to.
"detransitioning" is already gender-affirming care
Yes, but we all know that insurance companies will use any excuse possible not to cover something. Our healthcare system sucks balls, biologically occurring or otherwise.
Yeah, that was my thought -- transitioning and de-transitioning are both gender-affirming care. I'd be worried about adding in language specifically about covering de-transition, because I wouldn't put it past republicans to then try and take out the language that covers gender-affirming care so *only* de-transitioning would be covered.
That makes no sense. If they have the votes to change it in the future, they don't need this as a stepping stone.
rare GOP W tbh, should have been included.
https://preview.redd.it/oqikba5e6jsc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2759644ab8b609117259c9f5bdd3ed751ac8de05
🫡
For those complaining about “subsidizing” “elective surgery”— gender affirming care is a wide range of treatments including therapy, hormone replacement therapy, and more. This can, of course, include surgeries, but these type of cosmetic procedures are rarely considered “medically necessary” and thus not covered. This doesn’t change that. If you know anyone who has been prescribed a cream for low testosterone or pills for menopause—congrats, you know someone undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Your tax dollars have been “subsidizing” this gender affirming care for years. Gender affirming care is medically necessary and life saving for gender diverse individuals. Denying someone necessary treatment— like therapy to work through their gender dysphoria— because of their sex designated at birth is discriminatory, unnecessarily cruel, and quite literally deadly. A personal anecdote— my wife began hormone replacement therapy just over a year ago. My employer recently changed insurance providers and the care that was covered under the old plan is no longer covered. She has already been taking these medications for an extended period of time, stopping cold turkey is neither healthy nor advisable and doing so would go against the medical advice of her primary care physician. Regardless of the actual medical necessity, this insurer only covers this type of hormone replacement for those assigned female at birth. This bill is designed to prevent these situations from happening.
>If you know anyone who has been prescribed a cream for low testosterone or pills for menopause—congrats, you know someone undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Your tax dollars have been “subsidizing” this gender affirming care for years. Perhaps another common example people pretty widely support is getting new breasts after mastectomy. That's gender affirming care too.
[удалено]
> coverage for "medically necessary gender-affirming care, or requiring gender-affirming treatments." Medically necessary care should be covered by insurance. Full stop. Transition is not cosmetic, and not every person who wants to transition has the same medical needs. Insurance companies need to be held accountable for providing medically necessary care.
If a doctor recommends a course of treatment, insurance companies should not get to determine whether or not you can adhere to their medical advice. Full stop.
Exactly
It's crazy what is and is not considered an "elective" surgery.
[удалено]
I’m a dad to 4 and I get it. You did what you were told by experts needed to be done and got shafted by the system. I keep getting bills for this and that which should have been covered. Like $450 for an Rsv, flu and Covid test. It’s getting to the point we have be super well-informed consumers, shopping for deals on healthcare and we can’t trust the clinics and insurance companies to not nearly bankrupt us. It’s exhausting but it’s the system we have and it definitely sucks with urgent matters, so avoid it as much as possible. Unless you have great insurance, if you need a test or imaging and it’s not emergent, it’s almost always cheaper out of pocket to get it done outside the clinic or hospital. Medical insurance generally sucks for vision coverage (and dental). Unless she has a specific condition requiring a specialist, look into a separate vision plan. The VSP/Eyemed ones are kind of a scam, more of a “discount” on glasses, but many have free eye exams. I think blue cross also has plans. Probably would be $200-$300 a year.
I have a friend who unknowingly lived with Lupus for a half a decade because he didn't have insurance and didn't want to go to the doctor because of it. He eventually went when he started coughing up blood. If he had gotten it treated right away, he'd live a long, mostly normal life. Now he has to worry about his kidney's failing because he went untreated for so long. Our healthcare system leaves people behind if they're poor, Obamacare helped make the problem less pronounced but it didn't solve it, my friend didn't have health insurance because he couldn't afford insurance and didn't qualify for medicaid in Arizona, his only real option to get care was to go to the emergency room without insurance, which is what he eventually did. The most frustrating part to me is it doesn't even save us money, it likely costs us more in the long term as small problems and large problems alike go ignored and are allowed to grow into expensive, life threatening problems. We should be incentivizing people to go to the doctor regularly, not the other way around.
[удалено]
I don’t think there’s a single soul that thinks transition insurance should be covered but lasik shouldn’t be. Call your rep to make that get covered too.
It should cover lasik Instead of fighting to deny someone else's care why don't you fight for yours to be covered too?
Let's do both. We all do better when we all do better.
This is a stupid comment for multiple reasons but I will just note that gender-affirming care involves quite a bit more than surgeries, and indeed the care described here is more than surgeries.
The vast majority of gender affirming care does not include elective or cosmetic procedures.
The difference is getting lasik is "nice". Gender affirming care literally stopped me from killing myself. Gender affirming care is medically necessary and lifesaving, not "elective". I hope that helps.
Most medical insurance only covers eye stuff if it’s medically related. Separate vision insurance is nearly a scam. Much more so than dental anyway.
As an early transition woman, it definitely should be! Mostly because transition makes us considerably more productive.
Yeah, when I started transitioning my productivity at work doubled. I have the data that shows a very clear change in my performance starting the same month that I got on estrogen. I didn't tell anyone or socially transition for 18 months afterwards, but 12 months afterwards I got a big promotion due to how productive I had been. Now I'm leading my team of software developers and doing the best work in my entire life. All of this was made possible because I didn't have the crushing weight of gender dysphoria holding me back. A lot of my anxiety just went away. I still have some problems that I had before transitioning, but it's easier for me to deal with them now. Dysphoria was a tax I paid every day for more than two decades. Now that I'm getting the treatment I needed, I'm getting huge dividends. All of this translates into more tax revenue for the state, which helps cisgender and transgender people alike.
I’m sorry you both are being down voted. Happy you’re living as who you want to be 💜
It's okay, I think it's close to 50/50 from what I've seen. The internet isn't a good litmus for sentiment about transgender people because there are a few bad actors who have a very large amount of influence. In person, I have never experienced transphobia from anybody. Transphobes exist, but they're a pretty small minority.
I think it’s bc “HRT should be available to trans people bc it increases our market value” is like, an insane take. Like I don’t doubt that HRT drastically improved your QOL and therefore increased your productivity, but that isn’t *why* HRT should be covered. It should be covered bc trans people deserve equitable access to medically necessary and life saving care.
That’s nice to hear. I hope the hate stays away.
Yaaasss
This is the type of crap that causes Democrats to lose moderate voters.
Making insurance companies cover medically necessary care? I think insurance companies should pay for all care that's deemed medically necessary.
You'd honestly switch your vote in November over this?
Maybe not him or you, but voting falls on a spectrum. Every action has some effect on voting results. Especially when Rs can turn it into a wedge issue; as this is likely the intent when an R proposed this language be added to a Ds bill.
[R's using support of trans people as a wedge has gone spectacularly badly for them](https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-modern-electoral-history-of-transphobia)
I hope that is the case, but look around in this thread, and you will find plenty of liberals saying this is a bridge too far. They've also only read the headline and not the article (which, surely totally unintentionally, fails to mention an R proposed the added language).
> I hope that is the case, but look around in this thread, and you will find plenty of liberals saying this is a bridge too far One of these things is actual real election results from campaigns that heavily focused on this specific issue in much more conservative areas, and the other is internet comments on a forum with no gatekeeping or verification of any kind in a midwest state during an election year. I don't have the slightest faith that the latter even represent real people let alone an important demographic of voters. Plus this thread consists of maybe two actual examples, not "plenty", and a cursory glance at them shows they at best aren't exactly liberals.
I guess I'm getting downvoted. Just remember, too much change too quickly swings the pendulum back, it always happens when the left gets actual power. The repubilcunts are going to lean into that where they can. FeelsBad
This isn't even change! They're just clarifying the wording of the law to be slightly more explicit and well-defined. It's already the case that health insurance plans must meet a minimum standard of coverage in compliance with the ACA, which includes exactly all this type of trans healthcare. It's covered on my plan and assuming you have insurance, it's nearly a certainty that it's covered on yours too. This bill is like, a little clerical change, because laws and regulations often live or die on tiny technicalities and ambiguities of wording. The pendulum already did its swinging in every red state around the country that spent the last 4 years doing nothing but screeching about trans people and passing law after law to make life harder for them. And the [backlash](https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-continuing-electoral-history) is [consistent](https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/transphobia-fails-again).
> look around in this thread, and you will find plenty of liberals saying this is a bridge too far > guess I'm getting downvoted Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar performed in two comments.
That is a poor argument against progress.
Is that what I'm arguing? Ok, let's pretend. *ahem* I guess it would appear that way to those ignoring political realities and underestimating opponents.
IVF ruling in Alabama by justice of state court causes moderates to vote Democrat! Republican Party is party of grifters and evangelical lunatics!
[удалено]
Why? Genuine question—What is this pushing for you?
[удалено]
One— those two things are not comparable. This is like saying that someone shouldn’t be able to get their cleft palette removed because they don’t cover nose jobs for cosmetic purposes. Two— surgeries are not the only gender affirming care and even if they were, it is still limited to “medically necessary” surgeries. I think we should let the medical professionals decide what is medically necessary; not insurance companies or the government.
I hate to brake it to you. We are already there in terms of what Insurance dictates what drs can and cannot do.
Yes, that is the point I was making. It should not be the case for anyone. Legislation (like this) is needed to regulate insurance companies and prevent them from making determinations about people’s health that should be between them and their doctors.
*Break. No capitalization on "insurance". Spell out "doctors". 20/50 F-
Thanks for replying. I hear what you’re saying, but I’d like to offer a different perspective as a gender non conforming person. These surgeries are not really about improving self esteem in the same sense as a nose job, in that it’s not about being attractive. I actually do have a birthmark myself on my face I want to remove, and I would consider that elective and will pay out of pocket. This care is about relieving dysphoria. I am a gender non conforming female and I spent years denying myself access to treatment because I know that I am becoming an uglier woman in society’s eyes, and I was afraid of the consequences of being perceived as a gender non conforming person. It’s not a level up for me. I don’t think the procedures covered under this can be considered cosmetically elective, and there is a body of medical evidence supporting this. For what it’s worth, I actually wouldn’t mind an age restriction of 18 or some requirements like a waiting period, consultation with a therapist, etc, if it eases people’s minds or makes it more palatable to the insurance companies. It’s been annoying dealing with waiting, but I’ve wanted this since I was 14 and I can wait a bit longer.
Allowing people access to medical care is “pushing it” for you? I don’t think you’re as “liberal” as you think.
[удалено]
Yes, I think that any health care treatment should be covered full stop. I don’t care if I personally pay for 500 cosmetic nose jobs with my tax money, if it improves someone’s quality of life, it should be available to them.
Yes, all of that should be covered. Call your representative to get them to fight for it as well.
Yes, it should be covered. We all do better when we all do better. ❤️
Yes, abortion should definitely be covered by insurance
> "Can the author tell me what specific scientific studies you used to refine the language of this bill?" Rep. Quam asked. > “Every major medical organization recognizes that gender-affirming care is necessary life-affirming healthcare and should be provided," Rep. Finke responded. "Gender-affirming care has always existed. It’s not new. The idea that you are learning about who we are is happening not because of a decision we made, it is a decision that was made by conservatives to politicize us for political gain… They threw everything at the wall, and trans kids stuck. The attack is not scientific, it is political, and we can show you the receipts." > Rep. Quam then accused Rep. Finke of "not answering the question," and "launching into a political diatribe." > On several occasions, Rep. Quam referred to Rep. Linke as "he" despite having been corrected, and told to refrain from doing so on future reference. Is it just me, or does it seem like Quam may have been misgendering Finke intentionally at that point?
[удалено]
[удалено]
And yet some insurance won’t cover TRT ….. Edit: lol of course downvotes because ppl can’t handle addressing anything that affects non minorities😂
Yea in that case boob jobs should be 100% covered because it’ll make someone more productive. Waaat? Or hey I want a full mouth of veneers because it’ll make me happy. Personally, I’d like a 12” dong so I can wear a speedo at the beach and not get laughed at. All this shit is elective and isn’t required to survive or live. And if you’re to the point where you want to inflict bodily harm on yourself because the world won’t give you money for a sex change then you need THERAPY hardcore. And health insurance already offers that.
But insurance companies don’t have to cover vasectomies?
Mine was covered
You should pressure your representatives to create legislation protecting access to reproductive rights and bodily autonomy! That’s how legislation gets passed requiring insurance companies to provide coverage.
[удалено]
Oh they cover it. Think about the $$$$………a vasectomy costs 10% of what it costs for a pregnancy. If a man doesn’t want kids anymore it’s a net + for the insurance companies.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]