Doctor Offering Gender Changing Hormone Treatment To Children

**Lemonada8** · 05-20-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by FallenWyvern

I don't care about this if it doesn't affect me. To each their own.

Who pays for this? If out of the parents pocket, I would say go for it. If it is insurance, then I really do care. Insurance costs affect me. I would hate to think my insurance premiums would be higher because of this.

yeah but when you have a big problem where your insurance has to pay for it also, it would effect other peoples premiums also.... so to say that is kinda selfish....

**Tock** · 05-20-2008, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Lemonada8

yeah but when you have a big problem where your insurance has to pay for it also, it would effect other peoples premiums also.... so to say that is kinda selfish....

Ya, but is it fair to deny sex-change insurance coverage to those who need it, yet make them pay for insurance that covers maternity and premature births for heterosexuals?

Seems to me that everyone has different issues and different risks. I knew a lady who had a premature baby, and by the time everything was over, doctor and hospital bills totalled over $4 million. Her insurance company paid for nearly all of it, which drove up my insurance premiums. So, should I have argued with my company to exclude pregnant women from coverage in order to keep costs low?
You tell me . . .

**Lemonada8** · 05-20-2008, 10:03 PM

TOCK,
i think you misunderstood me... i was saying it was selfish of "FallenWyvern" saying that he didnt care as long as his premiums didnt go up...

so in reply to your post...

A) for the people who need a sex change, an insurance company can deny payment to that in the contract because it isnt a major operation for many of the clients that they have, that is just a business decision... is it right? i think that the insurance company is doin what is good for their company, if they did allow sex change operations, that would drive the premiums up of every customer that they have, and then then could lose the "average" client, and basically lose profit... and if a company only did sex change operations wouldnt have enough business to be stable.... so they would have to eventually put the maternity and premature births on their 'insurance card' as what they help with.... then they would have more clients and more profit...

B) the premature baby situation is alot more common than the sex change situation, so if a business were to flourish, they would have to have more 'baby' situations compared to sex change operations.... as for you argueing, no you shouldn't have because its on the contract and know that if you need something in return, you can get it and realize that other people will have to pay more to help you.... its only right if you want to have the insurance that you help pay for other peoples expensive emergancies.........
so thats my point of view...

**FallenWyvern** · 05-21-2008, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Lemonada8

yeah but when you have a big problem where your insurance has to pay for it also, it would effect other peoples premiums also.... so to say that is kinda selfish....

Seemed pretty obvious to me. Controversial expensive elective surgery for kids shouldn't be covered by insurance. Or at least not by my insurance company, unless somehow they are the cheapest one, and if they are then I really, really don't care.