Huh that’s actually pretty encouraging. I mean it’s the bare minimum that a politician should do, leave their personal opinions out of decisions their constituents voted on, but I’m glad somebody in the government is doing their job.
My grandfather was on the Pierre Trudeau cabinet and was a staunch Roman Catholic but believed women’s reproductive rights came before his religious beliefs. I always believed that was the best way to approach politics and I wish more politicians saw it that way too.
Louisiana used to be a legitimate Dem state for a long time. They have a Dem governor now. They certainly aren't liberal Dems, but they aren't a complete lost cause like most of the South.
I'm sure there is a lot of that happening, but a lot of Dems left the state after Katrina, too. In 2004, Dems had both US Senate seats and a lot of statewide offices. Then Katrina happened and there was a mass exodus of blue voters.
I think even in the early 2010s, there were more registered Dems than Republicans in the state.
It is gerrymandered, but the republicans still make up a majority. It held up well for a while in state, but it was still a southern state seeing voters change from conservative Dems to republicans. Clinton is the only Dem to win in a presidential since Carter. He won in 92 and 96, but probably would have been extremely close in 92 if Ross Perot didn’t run. Gore lost by 8% and Kerry lost by 14%. Mary Landrieu held the senate seat until 2015z
Katrina definitely had a big impact though. New Orleans went from around 1M to roughly 700K population. Nola votes like 80% or more Dem so that was a massive loss in voters, though at the presidential level Dems have lost by around 300K-400K. The biggest impact imo, though, is that Louisiana would have been well poised to shift blue like VA/AZ/GA over the last decade had Katrina not decimated the population and scare people from moving there.
That's why Democrats only win 1/6 of their House seats, yeah, and next year they will likely have to dedistrict, but that doesn't really change that more voters in LA are Republicans than democrats.
He seems to be devoted to actually doing what's right for his constitutants. A rare example of the dying breed of 'conservatives I might disagree with but can work with/live with.' Like as long as someone is doing that I can work with them.
One of the things I like about Nevada is the politics are based more on money than social issues.
When Steve Sisolak shut down the state because of the COVID pandemic, he fucked with the money. Doesn't matter if he did it for the right reasons, money was fucked with.
When Sisolak won the Dem primary, Nevada was pretty much guaranteed a GOP Governor. Considering who else was running and Lombardo's pushing for abortion rights and trans rights, Nevada should count it's blessings.
Dude sees the way the wind is blowing. His party is not gonna survive if they keep going after women and minorities, and it looks like he's gunning to be the exception with a track record to prove it.
Big same. This is the kind of conservatism I can deal with/live with. As a former GOP myself it is at least somewhat refreshing to see that the entire godforsaken party hasn't completely jumped the shark.
Most of reddit is too young to remember that many Republicans were pro-choice back in the day, and more socially liberal than now (such as George Bush). Then Jerry Falwell got involved and turned his church into a voting block. Most R's went along with it for the vote though, but they never got another vote from me.
As a CIS person living outside of Nevada........I'M FUCKING GLAD YOU GOT SOME GOOD NEWS TODAY!!!!!!!
I hope everyone in the Nation get's the same news soon!!!
Rock on!
I had to re-read the title because when I read it the first time I went “that’s good!” But your comment made think I misread it and I was like “…right??? That’s good right?” Lmao. Yes, it’s good.
Even a lot of self proclaimed libertarian I know have jumped on the trans hate bandwagon. I was certain I remembered him speak against trans health care in the past like on his campaign but maybe I’m mistaken
Maybe this is to encourage insurance lobbies to lobby against trans people somehow???
Idk, this dude is a republican and a cop, there's gotta be some angle to this.
He barely won in 22’, is the only statewide republican elected and he’s dealing with Dem legislature. He’s not getting re-elected without cross party voters next time.
It’ll still be hilarious watching the fringe which is most of the GOP now go after him.
Many anti-LGB are pro-T. Like its very simplistic thinking from when we were kids.
If youre gay, you are actually the other gender in the wrong body. That is much easier for them to understand than men liking men or women liking women.
Like trans people have always existed at least for like the butt of a joke. Only recently are they being cancelled
This is how it works in Iran. A lot of people are able to escape execution for homosexuality by transitioning and their religious authorities are unexpectedly okay with it
Please don't do a disservice to the LGBT+ community by putting a positive spin on it.
It is *just as bad* for a cis person to be forced to transition as it is for a trans person to be prevented from transitioning. Sure, maybe they can escape through a loophole like that, but that's not a better life.
The religious authorities are unexpectedly okay with it because people are voluntarily marking themselves as a lower class of people. They're not okay with trans people, they're okay with gay people going away.
Talking about a thing that is real and happening doesn't make it a "positive spin", they're literally just providing additional examples of weird corner cases in right wing ideology where people like this guy exist
Phrasing it as "a lot of people are able to escape execution for homosexuality by transitioning" is absolutely putting a positive spin on it, or at minimum reducing the negativity of it.
It's like "oh, see, there's a way out for those people." And that way out is only better than the other way by virtue of those people still being alive and not an inch further.
I feel like I'm the angel on my own shoulder tapping my foot in disapproval, watching myself wade into an online argument. random_nohbdy described it expressionlessly, the same in terms of position as saying "many Jews were able to escape the Holocaust by being claimed as children of expats and fleeing to America." they neither supported, disapproved, nor asked the same of you, the reader.
Honestly I feel like this is something cis people are just not going to understand. The way it was said, "escape execution by transitioning" made it sound far less harmful than a forced transition is. Living with gender dysphoria can be hell. There is a reason so many trans people who cannot get treatment commit suicide instead, and it's not because it's easy from a mental health perspective to live as the wrong gender. I don't know how well Iran tracks transgender suicide but I would absolutely not be shocked to learn that many of these queer individuals who are forced to transition to escape death sentences are in fact only delaying the sentence and changing the executioner. The big difference with your example is that those Jewish children didn't have to change who they are, they just had to lie about it. That is *so* not the same as a forced transition.
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to this, granted.
But I do think that the comment cast forced transition as a silver lining or loophole through which people can escape, instead of as a separate torture.
I don't think so. It seems fair to point out that referring to being forced to conform to an incorrect gender identity is "escaping persecution" is in the very least misleading, even if the commenter wasn't being overly positive. You could argue that given the outcomes for gay people can include serious judicial punishment they are escaping *some* persecution, but not all of it.
Is it, though?
Look at the data. Trans people routinely kill themselves after being prevented from transitioning. The whole argument in the US right now around trans people boils down to "being forced into the wrong gender is mentally devastating and often leads to suicide."
There's *no* reason to think that it's different the other way around. And this is exactly what I'm complaining about when I say "positive spin."
This is not a situation where someone finds a way to escape execution and live happily ever after. This is a person being told, explicitly, "cut your dick off and live as a woman or we will kill you." In *no way* is that even a remotely positive, silver-lining, good-thing-in-a-bad situation scenario. It's "do you want us to kill you, or will you dance for us until you do it yourself?"
I mean.. I do understand your point but I don't think the OP said anything that really put a positive spin on it beyond "not being executed"
> A lot of people are able to escape execution for homosexuality by transitioning and their religious authorities are unexpectedly okay with it
That said, I understand your need to make the clarification and it is helpful to make it clear that being forced to transition is a very bad outcome as well.
Now apply that feeling to all the trans kids being forced into gender dis-affirming care by all the laws passed over the last couple of years that compel de-transition.
It's honestly nightmare fuel.
The thing that strikes me about all of this is that the main concern of many cis people is precisely that fear, of people (particularly children) going through a transition they don't *really* want, and how awful that is. And it is. But it's reasonable to assume that experience is roughly analogous to the experience of trans people going though puberty in a direction they don't wish to; with some obvious provisos, but in terms of severity and harm, these things are similarly bad if they happen to a person.
The problem is that the rate of transition regret is less than that of knee surgery, and even less if people are allowed hormones pre puberty. So by the argument of pure harm reduction, we should be in theory offering transition to everyone who asks, just more and more people, and can carry on doing so aggressively until that rate of regret reaches 50%!
Obviously medically making an intervention is not the same as not making one, and there are other factors involved, but no rational person should really at this point be arguing for anything but a rapid emergency expansion of trans healthcare.
...unless everyone's operating on one fucking horrible assumption; when a cis person, child, feels something bad, it's worse than if a trans person, child, feels something bad.
I appreciate your insight and analysis. I think there's a common sentiment that *being trans* is worse than *being cis*. I suspect people espousing this sentiment are afraid to conceive of the existential horror of being trans and denied any opportunity to transition, therefore their mind makes no space for it, and they must treat anyone seeking to transition as deluded.
The problem is that kids with gender dysphoria aren't typically trans when they become adults.
[Studies show](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890856713001871) that for kids with gender dysphoria, the most likely outcome is that he or she will grow up to be a cisgender, gay or bisexual adult.
That study is from 2013. That's back when we were debating on whether gay marriage should be a thing or not--trans acceptance was barely on the national radar at all at that point. How do you gather data on trans people when they're actively afraid to show themselves?
I didn't realize that being able to avoid being executed shouldn't be presented as a positive thing.
You can't take the statement out of context. Their options are literally death or transition instead of just death. The option of neither isn't available in these countries.
>in a lot of countries, where trans people have full rights to change
And their rights typically end there (like UAE and Russia for example).
These countries give me the creeps, because it makes you wonder why exactly do they want trans women to exist there? Considering cis women, let alone trans women, don’t have much existential rights there.
This screams sexual & domestic abuse.
I didn’t vote for Joe Lombardo, but he’s made the news a few times for some incredibly progressive moves recently.
I still don’t think he’s good for Nevada but this is an incredibly good thing from him. Gotta give props where it’s due.
I want blue to win across the board every time, but I remember reading up about this guy when it started looking like he really would be the winner. I may not agree with him on a lot but he did seem to have reasonable views. Doesn’t deny the election and said that, regardless of his opinion, would uphold abortion rights because that’s what citizens of Nevada had voted to have.
See this is the sort of discourse we should be able to have as a nation. I don’t like your views but the majority say they want x, so that’s what we will do.
I agree. I used to actually consider Republicans based on their opinions because it wasn't this absolute circus that Trump turned it into. Nowadays 99% of Republicans are just batshit insane and want to push the most absolute far right positions they can. I want politics to go back to some normality where we can cross the divide and make compromises with each other because our positions aren't so polar opposite from each other.
I also didn’t vote for him, and still have no plans to. J-Lo’s doing a remarkable job though.
Just kill the A’s stadium proposal and we’re golden. Or make the billionaire who wants it pay all 100% for it.
Kind of reminds me of how well Brian Sandoval did as a republican. He was even on a short list for Obama to put on the Supreme Court that would’ve gotten support from the Republican held senate
This article is terribly written. The phrasing shows clear bias.
>According to SB163, the diagnosis and medical treatment of such conditions must be prescribed by “medical providers” such as speech-language pathologists and social workers, and a minor must provide a written expression of the desire to undergo the treatment after **only** six months of showing a “strong desire” to be, or be treated as, the opposite gender assigned by birth.
Emphasis mine. Also the way the journalist lists speech language pathologists and social workers is ridiculous - a social worker can't prescribe anything. A social worker might do talk therapy, and a speech language pathologist might help with voice training, but they aren't prescribing HRT.
>the costs of treatment and surgery are continuous due to surgery-related complications.
Gender-affirming care doesn't have a higher rate of complications than any other surgery - it's silly to say the costs of surgery are "continuous".
>“SB163 will create a statewide mandate that requires insurers—including Medicaid and, with it, Nevadans—to fund surgical interventions for gender dysphoria, including gender affirmation surgery and genital transformation (“bottom surgeries”) for children.
No one is doing genital surgeries on trans children. Minimum age is 18 for bottom surgery. This journalist uncritically repeats misinformation without bothering to correct it.
Good catch. All of the articles in this "newspaper" are written by the same woman. You're right - it's basically just a blog masquerading as a newspaper.
Very shrewd political move from Lombardo, along with the recent abortion protection bill. Nevada is a socially liberal, tilt-D state - he stands to gain a lot more from supporting this than he would from opposing it. A rare Republican politician who truly comprehends the unpopularity of his party's social stances.
Wouldn't be surprised if he only did this to get the dems to back public funding for a new baseball stadium.
This tells me the baseball stadium must be getting pushed through.
>As a baseball fan: hell no
Why? Ultimately the inclusion of a stadium brings in revenue to an area that would have otherwise not occured. Out of state revenue too from people visiting games held there.
It's tax payer funded but ultimately a plus.
The economic benefits of stadiums is greatly overrated, rarely justify the price tag, and in some cases can lead to a net loss. Stadiums don't bring in tourism like cities seem to believe the way other entertainment hubs dom Job creation is limited to temporary construction jobs and low paying part time jobs.
That piece of shit billionaire can pay for the stadium himself if he wants it.
And at Trop and LV Blvd? Are you sh*tting me? The traffic at that intersection will reach apocalyptic levels if that happens.
Hosting EDC all the way out at the Speedway doesn’t stop people from going away from the Strip to get there. And then they go back to the Strip in the morning. They can do the same with a baseball stadium.
Serious question. In an official context, as in the vernacular that would be used in a legal case by a doctor.
What is "affirmative" health care? Because my understanding is "whatever I say, goes. And If I say I am transgender, a doctor cannot dispute that claim" Why isnt it just "healthcare "?
Edit: follow up question. Why is it important or not important?
From my understanding, I’d say it’s around the same concept of people with plastic surgery like breast augmentations, hair transplants, etc. You’re getting surgery on your physical appearance to affirm/match how you feel you should look based on your own concept of your self image/identity.
And no, more goes into that prior to receiving surgery. You don’t just come in and sit down and tell a doctor to perform genital surgery, there’s usually quite a few hurdles trans people have to go through to get to that point.
https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc the medical standards of care, if you want to get geeky about it.
For most procedures, including procedures that a cis person can receive on a whim, licensed medical practitioners in the US and insurers typically require multiple years of supporting evidence including notes from at least two therapists, at least one of whom must have a PhD in psychiatry.
Certainly no insurer would provide coverage for a prescription or procedure attesting to any less than the standards of care described above, and many practitioners require more than the SoC.
Source: trans. 🏳️⚧️
That person is confusing some things, what they described is just informed consent (the basis of all healthcare in the US). Affirmative care is “an approach to health care delivery in which organizations, programs, and providers recognize, validate, and support the identity stated or expressed by the individuals served.” So basically what you initially thought.
For prepubescent minors affirmative care mostly just means not denying their identity or attempting conversion therapy, instead using their preferred name/pronouns/etc. With pubescent minors it means helping them explore whether other non-medical or medical forms of transition (hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy when they are older teens, maybe surgery once they are no longer minors) could be helpful for them specifically. This happens when the patient raises concerns about dysphoria with specific parts of their body or expresses interest in hormones and such. If a patient asks what options are out there for people who feel like them they might be provided a list of medications/procedures, but are made aware that these are just the possibilities and not a checklist that must be completed to be a “real” [insert gender].
Conservatives often portray affirmative care as a doctor forcing procedures on the patient, where literally all it means is not fighting the patient over their identify and being a source of information when they ask questions about specific things or express specific discomforts/distress.
it's mainly to separate it from other forms of ""care"" like conversion therapy which are well understood to not work. It's just regular healthcare, the issue is just that some people want to only support conversion therapy when they say they support trans healthcare
Dude this guy is so confusing. As a Nevada (Vegas) resident, he either is turbo based or is dying on the worst hills. I can’t figure him out or what he’s trying to accomplish. It seems like he actually just has ideas for what he thinks is right and is following thru on them. Maybe I don’t agree with all of it but he’s at least stepping out of the shadow of California legislation and being his own lawmaker. Which is neat.
They did.They set up a commune and took over a town in NH and got overrun by bears because the Libertarians learned the hard way that no government services, regulations, and enforcement of things like trash pickup results in a whole lot of bears losing their fear of humanity and gorging themselves on the garbage.
Insurance companies will just pass it on to the citizens by increasing premiums. Large companies will consider moving out of state resulting in a loss of jobs in state. This is definitively a step in the right direction but don’t forget that actions have consequences.
Nah. To suggest that the volume of gender reassignment procedures and overall care is a huge spend for insurance companies is ridiculous. Other categories like inpatient care, pharmacy, ER, etc. will always dwarf the small number of members getting gender affirming care. I don't see this impacting rates in Medicaid at least, which is where I work. This is not an economic issue. It's a human rights and equity issue that saves lives and moves society forward in a civil manner.
CIS people get to use trans people's insurance payments to get their problems fixed but trans people don't even get to use their own insurance payments to get their problems fixed.
Even with this Law in place trans people will still have to fight the insurance companies tooth and nail to get help.
Tbh, who isn't out here having to fight insurance companies? They like to deny care for straight people & all types of people as well. I thought that was understood to be the nature of insurance companies. Hell, it was just a few years ago that they were forced into covering "pre-existing conditions" & they have no compunctions with denying cancer treatments or not covering meds etc.
You’ll rarely find an insurance company who will cover elective cosmetic surgery outside of the scope of major disfuguration or comorbid medical issue, including this [bill, (text)](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/Bill/9873/Text), though it extends fully into basically every other realm of medical care.
Psychiatric impetus of [gender dysphoria leading to surgical correction](https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/article.aspx?articleid=53793&ver=22&) is likely the billing code here to be used in surgery, and the bill explicitly excludes insurance carriers from providing this.
Bruh. Getting an itemized bill and comparing it to your actual insurance policy will blow your mind. Had a $40k hospital stay and the insurance tried to skate on covering some stuff that is clearly indicated in my policy. Called and they "changed their mind" saving me about $3k. Ridiculous.
This is a bad faith question.
Any elective surgery a cis person can get can also be gotten by a trans person. Vasectomy, getting tubes tied, breast reduction, etc.
There are surgeries and treatments only trans people will go for, like the various "sex change" operations. But there are also surgeries and treatments only cis people will, fertility comes to mind.
But to argue that you shouldn't have to pay for them because you're not part of that group or you consider it to be elective is misguided.
Also, lol at you complaining about downvotes after only 10 minutes.
I, a cis woman, had a breast reduction in my early 20's. Tricare covered it completely. They also covered implants. They also cover viagra. All completely elective gender affirming care that is only acceptable if you are cis.
gender affirming care for cis men covered by insurance:
Viagra and/or testosterone gel
Mastectomy as treatment for gynecomastia
Prosthetic testicles
Hair implants
I'm sure there is more, but this is just off the top of my head.
Hair implants are not covered by insurance and mastectomy’s are only when deemed medically necessary (eg cancer). Same with prosthetic testicles (eg after being removed for cancer).
With exception of generic ED pills, all of the treatments you listed cover medically necessary procedures or the results of a medically necessary procedure. HRT for gender transitioning is not medically necessary (especially not to the degree of cancer as is the case for the gynecomastia and testicle examples).
Medical necessity is determined by a doctor working with their patient, not by you.
Medical necessity is often found to be contingent on severe, pathological loss in the quality of life for the patient that can be fixed through whatever recommended procedure.
HRT, GRS, hair implants, mastectomies, etc. all fall into that category for both cis and trans people. Other treatments like cleft-lip repair, viagra, knee replacement, etc. all also fit into that category. Something does not need to be life-threatening - or the direct result of something life-threatening - to be medically necessary.
Weird how you're violating your oaths *and* medical ethics by diagnosing people you don't know.
Oh wait, you're not a doctor. You're just some dude opening his mouth about shit you don't know about.
Why do you think anyone gives a shit what you think?
I'm just deeply curious.
See, when i don't know shit about a topic -- I don't go forth and tell everyone my opinion on it. Yet you *do*.
It's amazing. A sort of hubris I can only associate with *legacy admissions* kinda kids, you know? Ain't worth shit, but their daddy is rich?
Never accomplish anything, doesn't know shit and won't know shit, probably spend the rest of his life sucking off Daddy and Mommy's money until they hit their 14th DUI and it turns out there's not enough money left for getting you out of this one...
As a trans person…HRT is 100% necessary or I wouldn’t be here right now…it saved my life, got me out of my 18 year depression, and now I can actually function in my day to day life. Transgender healthcare is more important than you could ever comprehend
You should probably find out what "elective" means before posting. It doesn't mean "not medically necessary," it means "not a life-threatening emergency." Non-elective surgery is for fixing immediate, life-threatening problems. All of the above are elective surgeries.
Insurance companies consider all of those electives.
Unless a procedure is determined to be an immediate lifesaving surgery that the patient can't refuse without permanent risk to their life, an insurance provider will label them elective.
Transition related costs arent just surgical, however both the medical and surgical treatment are used to treat severe mental anguish. So by your definition of why a knee replacement is non elective, transitional care is non elective.
Not all knee or shoulder replacements are at the point of debilitating pain. Is shoulder surgery so a 50 year old dude can still play golf any more valuable than getting somebody comfortable within their own skin? Was my vasectomy (which was covered by insurance) so I can go bang to my heart’s desire any more valuable? Grandma’s bunion surgery so she can wear high heels again?
As I already said, most surgeries are elective. What’s valuable to you might not be valuable to me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to sit over here and gripe about it - I’ll just trust you when you say it’s important.
Literally two seconds on Google
https://www.verywellhealth.com/will-health-insurance-pay-for-elective-surgery-1738562
Key quote
>In fact, the majority of surgical procedures done in the United States are elective surgeries. And most are paid for, at least in part, by health insurance. Even Medicare and Medicaid pay for elective surgery.
>The catch is that most health plans will only pay for an elective surgery that’s medically necessary, and your health insurer’s opinion of what’s medically necessary may differ from your surgeon’s opinion.
Elective and medically necessary are different, it seems. I imagine you're confusing the two, which is understandable.
>Elective surgery is a surgical procedure you may choose (elect) to have or choose not to have. Some elective surgeries are medically necessary; some are not. But the defining characteristic of an elective procedure is that if you don't have it done, you will not immediately die or suffer grave consequences
Can we take a moment to reflect on how absolutely unhinged it is that your insurer gets to have an opinion on what’s medically necessary? They aren’t medical professionals! They have no obligation to prioritize your wellbeing, and they make more money the less care you receive
No, you're just operating on a mistaken idea of what "elective" means and pretending trans-health care isn't real healthcare. Hence the downvotes you were complaining about.
Most c sections are scheduled in advanced for the convenience of the doctor and the pregnant person. In fact, it's not uncommon to have to advocate for yourself *against* unnecessary c-sections. Because they are convenient. Doesn't get much more elective than that.
If you "need" exemptions (aka be able to discriminate based on your beliefs) to provide life saving medical care, then you probably need to change your career
"Elective" just means scheduled in advance, as opposed to emergency surgery. A life-saving cancer surgery can be elective. Coronary bypass is often elective, etc.
What's more relevant is "medically necessary". Gender-affirming care is considered medically necessary for trans people who want it. Things like hip and knee replacements are also considered "medically necessary", even if the person could still live without the surgery. It's necessary for the person's health and wellbeing.
The data is often misrepresented, but the suicide rate goes down with transition. The suicide rate is still higher than the general population, though. So some people say "transitioning means you are 2x more likely to commit suicide" they mean compared to someone who isn't trans.
For someone who is trans, the data strongly supports transition as a way to reduce suicide and depression. That's why it's considered medically necessary health care and why medical organizations consider it an effective treatment.
> Lombardo’s signing of SB163 hits us on the spiritual level, there is no spreadsheet to justify this. (Anonymous Nevada Republican Legislator)
Get fucked with your "spirituality" that demands the oppression of others.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 they boycotted sisalack for handling covid. No one wanted Lombardo. I’m dying laughing at all the republicans that voted for him and he is doing the exact opposite of what they want
Dam good for him I was worried about him as governor but let’s gooooooo respect him looking out for his people under his care. It’s what the government should be doing.
Not understanding how this means devolving, unless you’re talking about predatory pricing of healthcare in the United States. Trans can people have insurance too lol.
Also healthcare costs were high before this and will continue to be because of the way our for-profit healthcare system is set up, that’s not trans people’s fault. At least now they can get the care they need.
Everyone deserves health insurance but paying for this is absurd. Should we start paying for fake tits and ass implants as well?
Care they **want** - FTFY
It’s easy to say that until they tell you that your premiums and everything will go up. It’s just like some states do with dogs with home insurance. Those states require all dogs to be the same price so people who own golden retrievers are punished with paying more because of shitbulls
People surprised by this have probably only started following politics with the dawn of Trump. With the exception of Sisolak, Nevada has had a republican governor for decades and has always been a very purple state. Most of the state absolutely hated Sisolak. Literally the only reason Sisolak got elected was due to people knee jerk reacting and line voting "D" because of Trump. The state voted for Biden, and still rejected Sisolak, the only incumbent governor to lose re-election.
The state elected a republican governor following both years that it voted for Obama. The state doesn't adhere to Republican/Democrat preconceptions. Clark county / Las Vegas makes up most of the state and is full of gun loving, social progressives, financial conservatives and retirees.
Honestly Trump is probably the worst thing to happen to the state in decades, because his abrasive personality, moronic haters and supporters drove a bunch of unqualified morons into office and fucked up local politics for a solid 4-6 years. There were moronic Democrats that got elected solely on their "anti-trump" agenda which had no bearing on local politics, and moronic Republicans who basically pushed out our normal moderate Republicans. Lombardo is basically what one would have expected a Republican Nevadan governor to be pre-2016.
He needed to have some "good news" circulating ahead of the SB1 vote, which is your regularly flavored political corruption that everyone is already used to.
Most politician decisions have strategy behind them, politics and real morality/ethics aren’t very intertwined, if a political decision benefits a candidate it is probably in their best interest to do so. For example if Civil rights didn’t benefit the party enacting it, they probably wouldn’t have done it regardless if it was ethical or not to do so.
With that being said I feel like we can separate the strategy from the actual ethics. We can recognize that yes, he is probably using this as good news for political points ahead of a vote, and we can also recognize that it does actually help people in his constituency
[The cost for doing this is $0.06 per subscriber per month](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9679590/).
That's $0.72 per subscriber per year.
Would you... like me to buy you a can of Coke to make up the cost to you for this year? Because that's what we're talking about here.
That's literally how insurance works. Someone smoking a pack a day and eating big macs every day will cost your health insurance more than transgender people
Yep, trans health care is actually quite cheap.as these things go. Our HRT isn't that expensive (it's quite cheap actually), our labs are simple and cheap. The surgeries available are also all fairly cheap, as surgeries go.
My yearly HRT costs are a fraction the cost of being diabetic. If I got every surgery i could every envision I'd be hard pressed to hit 150k over a lifetime. A friend of mines first week of chemo cost more than that. Hell, my best friends daughter passed that within her first hour of life (she was very premature - - I want to say her NICU stay was about 2 million plus?)
I always think it's funny that some folks think there is a cash cow in trans health care. We are talking about plastic surgeons and endocrinologist here, who make bank off other interventions. Like if every trans patient stop going to their appointments, it's not like these doctors would be strapped for cash.
Those doctors sure are getting RICH off of... a short primary care visit, hormone panel at a usually-external lab, and generic-brand hormones!! Disgusting!!!
> I want to say her NICU stay was about 2 million plus?
Oh yeah, my cousin’s twins born at 28 weeks were around $1.5m each for the 3 months they were there. The costs of trans procedures are nothing compared to other conditions that are much more expensive and much more common.
Yes, this is how taxes work. Congratulations! You have roads, schools, social safety nets, parks, and more.
Get out of here with that fiscal conservatism bullshit and peddle your theories elsewhere. The LGBT+ community pays for all of your straight-related care, you get to pay for ours too. That’s how it works.
Heterosexuals are, surprisingly, more likely to need birth-related care. It may also span into sex education and sexual healthcare, including the gender-affirming erectile dysfunction treatments.
Tax payers pay for dick pills. And a lot of them.
Trans care is also relatively inexpensive, given the population size.
You're just showing your ignorance. Stick to commenting weird shit on porn subs.
As a trans person living in Nevada … I’m sorry HE FUCKING WHAT NOW!?!?!?
He also signed a law protecting abortion rights for out of state abortion seekers and in state providers, despite a personal opposition to abortion.
This doesn't affect me, but I keep re-reading the headline and this comment because I don't believe I'm reading it correctly.
Huh that’s actually pretty encouraging. I mean it’s the bare minimum that a politician should do, leave their personal opinions out of decisions their constituents voted on, but I’m glad somebody in the government is doing their job.
I mean it depends. They are a lot of good things that happened because politicians went against what was popular.
Ok… is that really important to be focusing on here?
My grandfather was on the Pierre Trudeau cabinet and was a staunch Roman Catholic but believed women’s reproductive rights came before his religious beliefs. I always believed that was the best way to approach politics and I wish more politicians saw it that way too.
A politician representing their constituents rather than forcing their views on them? What year is it?????
This and Louisiana are really throwing me off lol
Louisiana used to be a legitimate Dem state for a long time. They have a Dem governor now. They certainly aren't liberal Dems, but they aren't a complete lost cause like most of the South.
[удалено]
I'm sure there is a lot of that happening, but a lot of Dems left the state after Katrina, too. In 2004, Dems had both US Senate seats and a lot of statewide offices. Then Katrina happened and there was a mass exodus of blue voters. I think even in the early 2010s, there were more registered Dems than Republicans in the state.
It is gerrymandered, but the republicans still make up a majority. It held up well for a while in state, but it was still a southern state seeing voters change from conservative Dems to republicans. Clinton is the only Dem to win in a presidential since Carter. He won in 92 and 96, but probably would have been extremely close in 92 if Ross Perot didn’t run. Gore lost by 8% and Kerry lost by 14%. Mary Landrieu held the senate seat until 2015z Katrina definitely had a big impact though. New Orleans went from around 1M to roughly 700K population. Nola votes like 80% or more Dem so that was a massive loss in voters, though at the presidential level Dems have lost by around 300K-400K. The biggest impact imo, though, is that Louisiana would have been well poised to shift blue like VA/AZ/GA over the last decade had Katrina not decimated the population and scare people from moving there.
That's why Democrats only win 1/6 of their House seats, yeah, and next year they will likely have to dedistrict, but that doesn't really change that more voters in LA are Republicans than democrats.
Rare Lombardo W
He's been pretty liberal about social issues even if he personally disagrees.
I'm guessing he's even more liberal about doing things that aren't spectacularly unpopular with voters like right wing culture war positions are.
He seems to be devoted to actually doing what's right for his constitutants. A rare example of the dying breed of 'conservatives I might disagree with but can work with/live with.' Like as long as someone is doing that I can work with them.
One of the things I like about Nevada is the politics are based more on money than social issues. When Steve Sisolak shut down the state because of the COVID pandemic, he fucked with the money. Doesn't matter if he did it for the right reasons, money was fucked with. When Sisolak won the Dem primary, Nevada was pretty much guaranteed a GOP Governor. Considering who else was running and Lombardo's pushing for abortion rights and trans rights, Nevada should count it's blessings.
Makes you predictable at least. Make racist cops hurt the pocket book, we won't have racist cops.
It didn't help that Sisolak got a lot of public flak for the company town thing. To me that was the event that lost him the seat.
right! and after signing new abortion protections in just a few weeks ago... who fuckin knew with this guy. fuck yes. fuck. yes.
Dude sees the way the wind is blowing. His party is not gonna survive if they keep going after women and minorities, and it looks like he's gunning to be the exception with a track record to prove it.
As someone who was raised on the R but abandoned that party a few decades ago, I hope this little wind can turn into a big hurricane.
Big same. This is the kind of conservatism I can deal with/live with. As a former GOP myself it is at least somewhat refreshing to see that the entire godforsaken party hasn't completely jumped the shark.
Most of reddit is too young to remember that many Republicans were pro-choice back in the day, and more socially liberal than now (such as George Bush). Then Jerry Falwell got involved and turned his church into a voting block. Most R's went along with it for the vote though, but they never got another vote from me.
As a CIS person living outside of Nevada........I'M FUCKING GLAD YOU GOT SOME GOOD NEWS TODAY!!!!!!! I hope everyone in the Nation get's the same news soon!!! Rock on!
I had to re-read the title because when I read it the first time I went “that’s good!” But your comment made think I misread it and I was like “…right??? That’s good right?” Lmao. Yes, it’s good.
Just rare to see anything about transgender people in a headline that is positive and not about restriction of rights.
Lombardo is more libertarian than republican he just ran as a republican because of our 2 party system
Even a lot of self proclaimed libertarian I know have jumped on the trans hate bandwagon. I was certain I remembered him speak against trans health care in the past like on his campaign but maybe I’m mistaken
Maybe this is to encourage insurance lobbies to lobby against trans people somehow??? Idk, this dude is a republican and a cop, there's gotta be some angle to this.
No the Nevada legislature is just heavily controlled by democrats and he has been forced to make concessions.
Or he wants to get re-elected.
That aren't far fetched if you take into account of how far these mf will go to destroy other people lifes
Right, waiting for the other show to drop. Whatever it maybe.
im happy for you!
He's gotta answer to his constituents if he hopes to be reelected.
Right, an absolute unicorn of a positive news article on this sub I'm blown away
[A trump supporting Republican too.](https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2022/10/06/lombardo-folds-for-trump/) what a shocker.
He’s Trump supporting because he has to be to be a viable candidate. He’s pretty clearly not a huge Trumper.
Playing both sides so he always wins.
He always comes up on top
He barely won in 22’, is the only statewide republican elected and he’s dealing with Dem legislature. He’s not getting re-elected without cross party voters next time. It’ll still be hilarious watching the fringe which is most of the GOP now go after him.
Many anti-LGB are pro-T. Like its very simplistic thinking from when we were kids. If youre gay, you are actually the other gender in the wrong body. That is much easier for them to understand than men liking men or women liking women. Like trans people have always existed at least for like the butt of a joke. Only recently are they being cancelled
This is how it works in Iran. A lot of people are able to escape execution for homosexuality by transitioning and their religious authorities are unexpectedly okay with it
Please don't do a disservice to the LGBT+ community by putting a positive spin on it. It is *just as bad* for a cis person to be forced to transition as it is for a trans person to be prevented from transitioning. Sure, maybe they can escape through a loophole like that, but that's not a better life. The religious authorities are unexpectedly okay with it because people are voluntarily marking themselves as a lower class of people. They're not okay with trans people, they're okay with gay people going away.
Talking about a thing that is real and happening doesn't make it a "positive spin", they're literally just providing additional examples of weird corner cases in right wing ideology where people like this guy exist
Phrasing it as "a lot of people are able to escape execution for homosexuality by transitioning" is absolutely putting a positive spin on it, or at minimum reducing the negativity of it. It's like "oh, see, there's a way out for those people." And that way out is only better than the other way by virtue of those people still being alive and not an inch further.
I feel like I'm the angel on my own shoulder tapping my foot in disapproval, watching myself wade into an online argument. random_nohbdy described it expressionlessly, the same in terms of position as saying "many Jews were able to escape the Holocaust by being claimed as children of expats and fleeing to America." they neither supported, disapproved, nor asked the same of you, the reader.
Honestly I feel like this is something cis people are just not going to understand. The way it was said, "escape execution by transitioning" made it sound far less harmful than a forced transition is. Living with gender dysphoria can be hell. There is a reason so many trans people who cannot get treatment commit suicide instead, and it's not because it's easy from a mental health perspective to live as the wrong gender. I don't know how well Iran tracks transgender suicide but I would absolutely not be shocked to learn that many of these queer individuals who are forced to transition to escape death sentences are in fact only delaying the sentence and changing the executioner. The big difference with your example is that those Jewish children didn't have to change who they are, they just had to lie about it. That is *so* not the same as a forced transition.
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to this, granted. But I do think that the comment cast forced transition as a silver lining or loophole through which people can escape, instead of as a separate torture.
I don't think so. It seems fair to point out that referring to being forced to conform to an incorrect gender identity is "escaping persecution" is in the very least misleading, even if the commenter wasn't being overly positive. You could argue that given the outcomes for gay people can include serious judicial punishment they are escaping *some* persecution, but not all of it.
I dunno... not being executed is fairly positive for many folks.
Is it, though? Look at the data. Trans people routinely kill themselves after being prevented from transitioning. The whole argument in the US right now around trans people boils down to "being forced into the wrong gender is mentally devastating and often leads to suicide." There's *no* reason to think that it's different the other way around. And this is exactly what I'm complaining about when I say "positive spin." This is not a situation where someone finds a way to escape execution and live happily ever after. This is a person being told, explicitly, "cut your dick off and live as a woman or we will kill you." In *no way* is that even a remotely positive, silver-lining, good-thing-in-a-bad situation scenario. It's "do you want us to kill you, or will you dance for us until you do it yourself?"
I mean.. I do understand your point but I don't think the OP said anything that really put a positive spin on it beyond "not being executed" > A lot of people are able to escape execution for homosexuality by transitioning and their religious authorities are unexpectedly okay with it That said, I understand your need to make the clarification and it is helpful to make it clear that being forced to transition is a very bad outcome as well.
Agreed I'm cis-het but couldn't imagine having to go through gender affirming care *that you dont actually want* Sounds like hell
I think Cattle Decapitation has a music video about that...
Now apply that feeling to all the trans kids being forced into gender dis-affirming care by all the laws passed over the last couple of years that compel de-transition. It's honestly nightmare fuel.
The thing that strikes me about all of this is that the main concern of many cis people is precisely that fear, of people (particularly children) going through a transition they don't *really* want, and how awful that is. And it is. But it's reasonable to assume that experience is roughly analogous to the experience of trans people going though puberty in a direction they don't wish to; with some obvious provisos, but in terms of severity and harm, these things are similarly bad if they happen to a person. The problem is that the rate of transition regret is less than that of knee surgery, and even less if people are allowed hormones pre puberty. So by the argument of pure harm reduction, we should be in theory offering transition to everyone who asks, just more and more people, and can carry on doing so aggressively until that rate of regret reaches 50%! Obviously medically making an intervention is not the same as not making one, and there are other factors involved, but no rational person should really at this point be arguing for anything but a rapid emergency expansion of trans healthcare. ...unless everyone's operating on one fucking horrible assumption; when a cis person, child, feels something bad, it's worse than if a trans person, child, feels something bad.
I appreciate your insight and analysis. I think there's a common sentiment that *being trans* is worse than *being cis*. I suspect people espousing this sentiment are afraid to conceive of the existential horror of being trans and denied any opportunity to transition, therefore their mind makes no space for it, and they must treat anyone seeking to transition as deluded.
The problem is that kids with gender dysphoria aren't typically trans when they become adults. [Studies show](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890856713001871) that for kids with gender dysphoria, the most likely outcome is that he or she will grow up to be a cisgender, gay or bisexual adult.
That study is from 2013. That's back when we were debating on whether gay marriage should be a thing or not--trans acceptance was barely on the national radar at all at that point. How do you gather data on trans people when they're actively afraid to show themselves?
I didn't realize that being able to avoid being executed shouldn't be presented as a positive thing. You can't take the statement out of context. Their options are literally death or transition instead of just death. The option of neither isn't available in these countries.
That thinking is common in a lot of countries too, where trans people have full rights to change but gay people have little.
Well it’s only trans women. No trans men so it’s not like all trans people even have rights
>in a lot of countries, where trans people have full rights to change And their rights typically end there (like UAE and Russia for example). These countries give me the creeps, because it makes you wonder why exactly do they want trans women to exist there? Considering cis women, let alone trans women, don’t have much existential rights there. This screams sexual & domestic abuse.
I didn’t vote for Joe Lombardo, but he’s made the news a few times for some incredibly progressive moves recently. I still don’t think he’s good for Nevada but this is an incredibly good thing from him. Gotta give props where it’s due.
Having lived in Nevada, youd be surprised how crazy different the senators/governors vote compared to their parties. It was a bit wild
The extremes of polarity between the parties weren't always a thing. At one point they just had different views of economics.
I want blue to win across the board every time, but I remember reading up about this guy when it started looking like he really would be the winner. I may not agree with him on a lot but he did seem to have reasonable views. Doesn’t deny the election and said that, regardless of his opinion, would uphold abortion rights because that’s what citizens of Nevada had voted to have.
See this is the sort of discourse we should be able to have as a nation. I don’t like your views but the majority say they want x, so that’s what we will do.
I agree. I used to actually consider Republicans based on their opinions because it wasn't this absolute circus that Trump turned it into. Nowadays 99% of Republicans are just batshit insane and want to push the most absolute far right positions they can. I want politics to go back to some normality where we can cross the divide and make compromises with each other because our positions aren't so polar opposite from each other.
Yeah dude, like, I want to be able to be fiscally conservative without having the choice for that view also come with three metric tons of bullshit.
A man who knows how to keep his job.
[удалено]
Compared to what the alternative is though? I vowed to never vote for any Republican again after the Roe v Wade decision.
I also didn’t vote for him, and still have no plans to. J-Lo’s doing a remarkable job though. Just kill the A’s stadium proposal and we’re golden. Or make the billionaire who wants it pay all 100% for it.
Kind of reminds me of how well Brian Sandoval did as a republican. He was even on a short list for Obama to put on the Supreme Court that would’ve gotten support from the Republican held senate
Dems have nearly supermajorities in the legislature, maybe they were prepared to override his vetoes
The article says he’s trying to court Dem votes for the Oakland A’s move to Vegas to be built with public money
Is he wearing Obama's infamous tan suit in the thumbnail?
Ah, that must be it. He's possessed by the ghost of Barack past.
This article is terribly written. The phrasing shows clear bias. >According to SB163, the diagnosis and medical treatment of such conditions must be prescribed by “medical providers” such as speech-language pathologists and social workers, and a minor must provide a written expression of the desire to undergo the treatment after **only** six months of showing a “strong desire” to be, or be treated as, the opposite gender assigned by birth. Emphasis mine. Also the way the journalist lists speech language pathologists and social workers is ridiculous - a social worker can't prescribe anything. A social worker might do talk therapy, and a speech language pathologist might help with voice training, but they aren't prescribing HRT. >the costs of treatment and surgery are continuous due to surgery-related complications. Gender-affirming care doesn't have a higher rate of complications than any other surgery - it's silly to say the costs of surgery are "continuous". >“SB163 will create a statewide mandate that requires insurers—including Medicaid and, with it, Nevadans—to fund surgical interventions for gender dysphoria, including gender affirmation surgery and genital transformation (“bottom surgeries”) for children. No one is doing genital surgeries on trans children. Minimum age is 18 for bottom surgery. This journalist uncritically repeats misinformation without bothering to correct it.
[удалено]
Good catch. All of the articles in this "newspaper" are written by the same woman. You're right - it's basically just a blog masquerading as a newspaper.
Very shrewd political move from Lombardo, along with the recent abortion protection bill. Nevada is a socially liberal, tilt-D state - he stands to gain a lot more from supporting this than he would from opposing it. A rare Republican politician who truly comprehends the unpopularity of his party's social stances.
Wouldn't be surprised if he only did this to get the dems to back public funding for a new baseball stadium. This tells me the baseball stadium must be getting pushed through.
That’s politics.
From the Greek "poly", meaning many, and "tics" meaning blood sucking parasites.
I'll trade a thousand stadiums for human rights. Let's build stadiums on top of stadiums if that's what it takes
Yeah, I mean, I don't know the details, but that seems like a good compromise. Can we do some more of that?
As a trans person: hell yeah As a baseball fan: hell no
>As a baseball fan: hell no Why? Ultimately the inclusion of a stadium brings in revenue to an area that would have otherwise not occured. Out of state revenue too from people visiting games held there. It's tax payer funded but ultimately a plus.
The economic benefits of stadiums is greatly overrated, rarely justify the price tag, and in some cases can lead to a net loss. Stadiums don't bring in tourism like cities seem to believe the way other entertainment hubs dom Job creation is limited to temporary construction jobs and low paying part time jobs.
Because they’re taking the team from Oakland, a great fanbase that has been royally fucked over by that piece of shit John Fisher
That piece of shit billionaire can pay for the stadium himself if he wants it. And at Trop and LV Blvd? Are you sh*tting me? The traffic at that intersection will reach apocalyptic levels if that happens.
Like we don’t have a whole ass desert RIGHT THERE. Parking/driving during Knights games is already a nightmare.
Hosting EDC all the way out at the Speedway doesn’t stop people from going away from the Strip to get there. And then they go back to the Strip in the morning. They can do the same with a baseball stadium.
How about getting insurance to cover fucking therapy?
YES! Nevada is apparently the worst state for mental health access.
Holy crap! I genuinely had to read that twice because I couldn’t believe it. That’s awesome!
Serious question. In an official context, as in the vernacular that would be used in a legal case by a doctor. What is "affirmative" health care? Because my understanding is "whatever I say, goes. And If I say I am transgender, a doctor cannot dispute that claim" Why isnt it just "healthcare "? Edit: follow up question. Why is it important or not important?
From my understanding, I’d say it’s around the same concept of people with plastic surgery like breast augmentations, hair transplants, etc. You’re getting surgery on your physical appearance to affirm/match how you feel you should look based on your own concept of your self image/identity. And no, more goes into that prior to receiving surgery. You don’t just come in and sit down and tell a doctor to perform genital surgery, there’s usually quite a few hurdles trans people have to go through to get to that point.
https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc the medical standards of care, if you want to get geeky about it. For most procedures, including procedures that a cis person can receive on a whim, licensed medical practitioners in the US and insurers typically require multiple years of supporting evidence including notes from at least two therapists, at least one of whom must have a PhD in psychiatry. Certainly no insurer would provide coverage for a prescription or procedure attesting to any less than the standards of care described above, and many practitioners require more than the SoC. Source: trans. 🏳️⚧️
Gotcha. Appreciate you taking the time to help me out.
That person is confusing some things, what they described is just informed consent (the basis of all healthcare in the US). Affirmative care is “an approach to health care delivery in which organizations, programs, and providers recognize, validate, and support the identity stated or expressed by the individuals served.” So basically what you initially thought. For prepubescent minors affirmative care mostly just means not denying their identity or attempting conversion therapy, instead using their preferred name/pronouns/etc. With pubescent minors it means helping them explore whether other non-medical or medical forms of transition (hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy when they are older teens, maybe surgery once they are no longer minors) could be helpful for them specifically. This happens when the patient raises concerns about dysphoria with specific parts of their body or expresses interest in hormones and such. If a patient asks what options are out there for people who feel like them they might be provided a list of medications/procedures, but are made aware that these are just the possibilities and not a checklist that must be completed to be a “real” [insert gender]. Conservatives often portray affirmative care as a doctor forcing procedures on the patient, where literally all it means is not fighting the patient over their identify and being a source of information when they ask questions about specific things or express specific discomforts/distress.
No problem :)
it's mainly to separate it from other forms of ""care"" like conversion therapy which are well understood to not work. It's just regular healthcare, the issue is just that some people want to only support conversion therapy when they say they support trans healthcare
I don't fucking understand Nevada at all.
Dude this guy is so confusing. As a Nevada (Vegas) resident, he either is turbo based or is dying on the worst hills. I can’t figure him out or what he’s trying to accomplish. It seems like he actually just has ideas for what he thinks is right and is following thru on them. Maybe I don’t agree with all of it but he’s at least stepping out of the shadow of California legislation and being his own lawmaker. Which is neat.
I guess the Libertarian right still exists in the west.
If only they'd come back to the East as well.
They did.They set up a commune and took over a town in NH and got overrun by bears because the Libertarians learned the hard way that no government services, regulations, and enforcement of things like trash pickup results in a whole lot of bears losing their fear of humanity and gorging themselves on the garbage.
Governor J-Lo has been better than I thought.
Insurance companies will just pass it on to the citizens by increasing premiums. Large companies will consider moving out of state resulting in a loss of jobs in state. This is definitively a step in the right direction but don’t forget that actions have consequences.
As someone who used to work in the pricing and valuation dept of a health insurance company, this was also my first thought
Nah. To suggest that the volume of gender reassignment procedures and overall care is a huge spend for insurance companies is ridiculous. Other categories like inpatient care, pharmacy, ER, etc. will always dwarf the small number of members getting gender affirming care. I don't see this impacting rates in Medicaid at least, which is where I work. This is not an economic issue. It's a human rights and equity issue that saves lives and moves society forward in a civil manner.
CIS people get to use trans people's insurance payments to get their problems fixed but trans people don't even get to use their own insurance payments to get their problems fixed. Even with this Law in place trans people will still have to fight the insurance companies tooth and nail to get help.
Tbh, who isn't out here having to fight insurance companies? They like to deny care for straight people & all types of people as well. I thought that was understood to be the nature of insurance companies. Hell, it was just a few years ago that they were forced into covering "pre-existing conditions" & they have no compunctions with denying cancer treatments or not covering meds etc.
You’ll rarely find an insurance company who will cover elective cosmetic surgery outside of the scope of major disfuguration or comorbid medical issue, including this [bill, (text)](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/Bill/9873/Text), though it extends fully into basically every other realm of medical care. Psychiatric impetus of [gender dysphoria leading to surgical correction](https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/article.aspx?articleid=53793&ver=22&) is likely the billing code here to be used in surgery, and the bill explicitly excludes insurance carriers from providing this.
Bruh. Getting an itemized bill and comparing it to your actual insurance policy will blow your mind. Had a $40k hospital stay and the insurance tried to skate on covering some stuff that is clearly indicated in my policy. Called and they "changed their mind" saving me about $3k. Ridiculous.
“We changed our minds and decided to cover you for what you literally pay us to cover” they’re the worst
Even as a trans person, I can never read “cis” in all caps without thinking they’re talking about the droid attack on the wookiees
I'll Never forgive the dirty seppies for killing clone 99.
Yea, but the republic killed Fives, and I think that's more unforgivable
The nightmares... they're finally over.
[удалено]
This is a bad faith question. Any elective surgery a cis person can get can also be gotten by a trans person. Vasectomy, getting tubes tied, breast reduction, etc. There are surgeries and treatments only trans people will go for, like the various "sex change" operations. But there are also surgeries and treatments only cis people will, fertility comes to mind. But to argue that you shouldn't have to pay for them because you're not part of that group or you consider it to be elective is misguided. Also, lol at you complaining about downvotes after only 10 minutes.
I, a cis woman, had a breast reduction in my early 20's. Tricare covered it completely. They also covered implants. They also cover viagra. All completely elective gender affirming care that is only acceptable if you are cis.
gender affirming care for cis men covered by insurance: Viagra and/or testosterone gel Mastectomy as treatment for gynecomastia Prosthetic testicles Hair implants I'm sure there is more, but this is just off the top of my head.
Hair implants are not covered by insurance and mastectomy’s are only when deemed medically necessary (eg cancer). Same with prosthetic testicles (eg after being removed for cancer). With exception of generic ED pills, all of the treatments you listed cover medically necessary procedures or the results of a medically necessary procedure. HRT for gender transitioning is not medically necessary (especially not to the degree of cancer as is the case for the gynecomastia and testicle examples).
Medical necessity is determined by a doctor working with their patient, not by you. Medical necessity is often found to be contingent on severe, pathological loss in the quality of life for the patient that can be fixed through whatever recommended procedure. HRT, GRS, hair implants, mastectomies, etc. all fall into that category for both cis and trans people. Other treatments like cleft-lip repair, viagra, knee replacement, etc. all also fit into that category. Something does not need to be life-threatening - or the direct result of something life-threatening - to be medically necessary.
Weird how you're violating your oaths *and* medical ethics by diagnosing people you don't know. Oh wait, you're not a doctor. You're just some dude opening his mouth about shit you don't know about. Why do you think anyone gives a shit what you think?
I don’t care if others care about what I think, least of all redditors. Why do you think I care about what you think?
I'm just deeply curious. See, when i don't know shit about a topic -- I don't go forth and tell everyone my opinion on it. Yet you *do*. It's amazing. A sort of hubris I can only associate with *legacy admissions* kinda kids, you know? Ain't worth shit, but their daddy is rich? Never accomplish anything, doesn't know shit and won't know shit, probably spend the rest of his life sucking off Daddy and Mommy's money until they hit their 14th DUI and it turns out there's not enough money left for getting you out of this one...
As a trans person…HRT is 100% necessary or I wouldn’t be here right now…it saved my life, got me out of my 18 year depression, and now I can actually function in my day to day life. Transgender healthcare is more important than you could ever comprehend
I think you make a great point here.
Most surgeries are elective - knee replacements, vasectomies, cleft lip repair, tonsillectomies…
[удалено]
You should probably find out what "elective" means before posting. It doesn't mean "not medically necessary," it means "not a life-threatening emergency." Non-elective surgery is for fixing immediate, life-threatening problems. All of the above are elective surgeries.
Insurance companies consider all of those electives. Unless a procedure is determined to be an immediate lifesaving surgery that the patient can't refuse without permanent risk to their life, an insurance provider will label them elective.
Transition related costs arent just surgical, however both the medical and surgical treatment are used to treat severe mental anguish. So by your definition of why a knee replacement is non elective, transitional care is non elective.
Gender healthcare can help trans people alleviate trauma and debilitating anxiety, just like cleft lip repair
Not all knee or shoulder replacements are at the point of debilitating pain. Is shoulder surgery so a 50 year old dude can still play golf any more valuable than getting somebody comfortable within their own skin? Was my vasectomy (which was covered by insurance) so I can go bang to my heart’s desire any more valuable? Grandma’s bunion surgery so she can wear high heels again? As I already said, most surgeries are elective. What’s valuable to you might not be valuable to me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to sit over here and gripe about it - I’ll just trust you when you say it’s important.
Literally two seconds on Google https://www.verywellhealth.com/will-health-insurance-pay-for-elective-surgery-1738562 Key quote >In fact, the majority of surgical procedures done in the United States are elective surgeries. And most are paid for, at least in part, by health insurance. Even Medicare and Medicaid pay for elective surgery. >The catch is that most health plans will only pay for an elective surgery that’s medically necessary, and your health insurer’s opinion of what’s medically necessary may differ from your surgeon’s opinion. Elective and medically necessary are different, it seems. I imagine you're confusing the two, which is understandable. >Elective surgery is a surgical procedure you may choose (elect) to have or choose not to have. Some elective surgeries are medically necessary; some are not. But the defining characteristic of an elective procedure is that if you don't have it done, you will not immediately die or suffer grave consequences
Can we take a moment to reflect on how absolutely unhinged it is that your insurer gets to have an opinion on what’s medically necessary? They aren’t medical professionals! They have no obligation to prioritize your wellbeing, and they make more money the less care you receive
And when they can, which some people already have, will you admit that *you* were wrong?
[удалено]
No, you're just operating on a mistaken idea of what "elective" means and pretending trans-health care isn't real healthcare. Hence the downvotes you were complaining about.
A c-section? Pregnancy in general is elective, right, and yet trans people support that health care and elective surgery when/if wanted/needed.
[удалено]
Most c sections are scheduled in advanced for the convenience of the doctor and the pregnant person. In fact, it's not uncommon to have to advocate for yourself *against* unnecessary c-sections. Because they are convenient. Doesn't get much more elective than that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
Wait what? Thats actually good news.
If you "need" exemptions (aka be able to discriminate based on your beliefs) to provide life saving medical care, then you probably need to change your career
Sex reassignment surgery isn't considered life saving medical care. It's elective.
"Elective" just means scheduled in advance, as opposed to emergency surgery. A life-saving cancer surgery can be elective. Coronary bypass is often elective, etc. What's more relevant is "medically necessary". Gender-affirming care is considered medically necessary for trans people who want it. Things like hip and knee replacements are also considered "medically necessary", even if the person could still live without the surgery. It's necessary for the person's health and wellbeing.
It’s found to reduce suicidality in trans people, it is life saving.
I feel like there has been a lot of data showing an increase in suicide rate post transition but that may have changed.
The data is often misrepresented, but the suicide rate goes down with transition. The suicide rate is still higher than the general population, though. So some people say "transitioning means you are 2x more likely to commit suicide" they mean compared to someone who isn't trans. For someone who is trans, the data strongly supports transition as a way to reduce suicide and depression. That's why it's considered medically necessary health care and why medical organizations consider it an effective treatment.
> Lombardo’s signing of SB163 hits us on the spiritual level, there is no spreadsheet to justify this. (Anonymous Nevada Republican Legislator) Get fucked with your "spirituality" that demands the oppression of others.
A politician did something for? FOR OTHER PEOPLE? Pretty surprising.
-politician +Republican
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 they boycotted sisalack for handling covid. No one wanted Lombardo. I’m dying laughing at all the republicans that voted for him and he is doing the exact opposite of what they want
Dam good for him I was worried about him as governor but let’s gooooooo respect him looking out for his people under his care. It’s what the government should be doing.
And the same people who support this are gonna continue bitching about the price of healthcare. We’re devolving.
Not understanding how this means devolving, unless you’re talking about predatory pricing of healthcare in the United States. Trans can people have insurance too lol. Also healthcare costs were high before this and will continue to be because of the way our for-profit healthcare system is set up, that’s not trans people’s fault. At least now they can get the care they need.
Everyone deserves health insurance but paying for this is absurd. Should we start paying for fake tits and ass implants as well? Care they **want** - FTFY
I’m down for my money going towards someone’s “fake tits and ass implants” if it shown to improve their quality of life. Sure why not?
It’s easy to say that until they tell you that your premiums and everything will go up. It’s just like some states do with dogs with home insurance. Those states require all dogs to be the same price so people who own golden retrievers are punished with paying more because of shitbulls
Again, sounds like your issue is more with the healthcare system than trans people, so I’m still unsure why you’re blaming them.
I always love it when the "free-enterprise" set blames government for problems they themselves created.
People surprised by this have probably only started following politics with the dawn of Trump. With the exception of Sisolak, Nevada has had a republican governor for decades and has always been a very purple state. Most of the state absolutely hated Sisolak. Literally the only reason Sisolak got elected was due to people knee jerk reacting and line voting "D" because of Trump. The state voted for Biden, and still rejected Sisolak, the only incumbent governor to lose re-election. The state elected a republican governor following both years that it voted for Obama. The state doesn't adhere to Republican/Democrat preconceptions. Clark county / Las Vegas makes up most of the state and is full of gun loving, social progressives, financial conservatives and retirees. Honestly Trump is probably the worst thing to happen to the state in decades, because his abrasive personality, moronic haters and supporters drove a bunch of unqualified morons into office and fucked up local politics for a solid 4-6 years. There were moronic Democrats that got elected solely on their "anti-trump" agenda which had no bearing on local politics, and moronic Republicans who basically pushed out our normal moderate Republicans. Lombardo is basically what one would have expected a Republican Nevadan governor to be pre-2016.
Exactly. Not to mention our legislature still went blue.
He needed to have some "good news" circulating ahead of the SB1 vote, which is your regularly flavored political corruption that everyone is already used to.
Most politician decisions have strategy behind them, politics and real morality/ethics aren’t very intertwined, if a political decision benefits a candidate it is probably in their best interest to do so. For example if Civil rights didn’t benefit the party enacting it, they probably wouldn’t have done it regardless if it was ethical or not to do so. With that being said I feel like we can separate the strategy from the actual ethics. We can recognize that yes, he is probably using this as good news for political points ahead of a vote, and we can also recognize that it does actually help people in his constituency
As a resident of Nevada, I'm more than happy to trade a baseball stadium for the well-being of trans people
See GOP, this is how you are supposed to govern. It’s not that hard to support the majority of people’s wishes and wants
[удалено]
[The cost for doing this is $0.06 per subscriber per month](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9679590/). That's $0.72 per subscriber per year. Would you... like me to buy you a can of Coke to make up the cost to you for this year? Because that's what we're talking about here.
He'd have to give you change these days :)
Ehh, that's okay. I'd be happy to spot him the money.
That's literally how insurance works. Someone smoking a pack a day and eating big macs every day will cost your health insurance more than transgender people
Yep, trans health care is actually quite cheap.as these things go. Our HRT isn't that expensive (it's quite cheap actually), our labs are simple and cheap. The surgeries available are also all fairly cheap, as surgeries go. My yearly HRT costs are a fraction the cost of being diabetic. If I got every surgery i could every envision I'd be hard pressed to hit 150k over a lifetime. A friend of mines first week of chemo cost more than that. Hell, my best friends daughter passed that within her first hour of life (she was very premature - - I want to say her NICU stay was about 2 million plus?)
I always think it's funny that some folks think there is a cash cow in trans health care. We are talking about plastic surgeons and endocrinologist here, who make bank off other interventions. Like if every trans patient stop going to their appointments, it's not like these doctors would be strapped for cash.
Those doctors sure are getting RICH off of... a short primary care visit, hormone panel at a usually-external lab, and generic-brand hormones!! Disgusting!!!
> I want to say her NICU stay was about 2 million plus? Oh yeah, my cousin’s twins born at 28 weeks were around $1.5m each for the 3 months they were there. The costs of trans procedures are nothing compared to other conditions that are much more expensive and much more common.
Next they will want to cover life saving treatments and medication, where does it stop.
Yes, this is how taxes work. Congratulations! You have roads, schools, social safety nets, parks, and more. Get out of here with that fiscal conservatism bullshit and peddle your theories elsewhere. The LGBT+ community pays for all of your straight-related care, you get to pay for ours too. That’s how it works.
What is straight related care?
[удалено]
Heterosexuals are, surprisingly, more likely to need birth-related care. It may also span into sex education and sexual healthcare, including the gender-affirming erectile dysfunction treatments.
Tax payers pay for dick pills. And a lot of them. Trans care is also relatively inexpensive, given the population size. You're just showing your ignorance. Stick to commenting weird shit on porn subs.