See Edit ^

(April 19, 2016 at 1:46 am)Sterben Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 1:30 am)Losty Wrote: It's not really that different. I'm not asking for pills. My doctor told me I need this medicine. My doctor diagnosed me with an illness and prescribed a medicine. If he diagnosed me with an illness and prescribed a surgery I would expect my insurance to cover it just like they'd cover any other thing my doctor said I need. I don't care how much it costs. I pay for insurance for them to cover the things I need not just for them to cover the things they feel are cheap enough.

      It's not a matter of cost, a lot doctors are controlled by big pharma. If a doctor tells you something it's not always true, if a HMO or PPO wants to cover something that's up to them. There also within there rights to deny a more costly operation and replace it with it a older and cheaper operation. It does not make it right, I can understand there hesitation to cover SRS. In my last post, they could offer a variety of packages that cover it and all the other operations that are needed afterwards. I'm sure I am not alone on this, main stream insurance should not be forced to cover it, they can get special higher end packages that do cover it.

Well duh. These are for profit companies. I can understand their hesitation to cover anything. Mine just denied a lithotripsy that had already been pre-approved and that I already had. They'll try not to cover things if they can get away with it.

I mistakenly thought we were discussing what should happen.

(April 19, 2016 at 7:54 am)Losty Wrote: They'll try not to cover things if they can get away with it.

That's why I always say, healthcare shouldn't be in the hands of for profit organisations. I had them try to wiggle out twice. Once when our house burned down. They only paid after we lawyered up and threatened to make the case public. And the second time when my computer was damaged by lightning. They only paid the measly 200 Euros for parts when being threatened to withdraw all family contracts from their company if the played it coy.

I don't know about SRS being covered by insurance but I don't think it should be covered by the NHS.  I just don't find it reasonable.  People should be free to change their bodies in that way however they want but not to force other people to pay for it via taxation.

Which, of course, wouldn't cost you a single penny, outside of what you already pay in taxes, regardless of what is covered.

So, what's your argument again?

(April 19, 2016 at 10:20 am)abaris Wrote: Which, of course, wouldn't cost you a single penny, outside of what you already pay in taxes, regardless of what is covered.

So, what's your argument again?

Outside of what I and other taxpayers pay towards the NHS we don't pay a single penny unless it's charitable.  Agreed. I'm talking about what the taxpayers do pay in tax.  Let me try and use your logic in debate. 

 You keep basically saying "Outside of the argument you made I see no argument, outside of the taxes you pay you don't pay a penny towards taxes, outside of the toilets you know of that are guarded what toilets do you know of that are guarded?"

All of the arguments you make are great, outside of the ones you use your brain to come up with.

Simple, really. You wouldn't pay single penny on top of what you already do, if they'd covered the treatment. So, moot argument stays moot.

(April 19, 2016 at 10:03 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't know about SRS being covered by insurance but I don't think it should be covered by the NHS.  I just don't find it reasonable.  People should be free to change their bodies in that way however they want but not to force other people to pay for it via taxation.

I don't find it reasonable that I have to pay taxes for people who smoke to get medical treatment for lung cancer, or for that matter anyone who eats unhealthily and does not eat organic food including their 5 a day. I don't find it reasonable for people to be treated for depression or psychiatric issues because their bodies function perfectly normal. I don't find it reasonable to pay for people who have broken their legs. They should have been more careful in the first place.

I don't find it reasonable to cure people who were born with an affliction that they had no choice over because that's the way they were obviously meant to be.

People should be free to change their bodies and brains in order to fix them but not to force other people for it via taxation.

At least I would be saying all this if I used your logic.

(April 19, 2016 at 11:24 am)abaris Wrote: Simple, really. You wouldn't pay single penny on top of what you already do, if they'd covered the treatment. So, moot argument stays moot.

If they cover the treatment it's payed for by the NHS, which is funded by taxes.  If they choose to go privately it's not funded by taxes.  I'm in favor of the choice being there for it to be available for people who want private medical treatment but for it to not be funded by taxes.

Some NHS employees do work private anyway so sometimes it's the same person providing treatment but without having to wait.

(April 19, 2016 at 11:32 am)paulpablo Wrote: If they cover the treatment it's payed for by the NHS, which is funded by taxes.

So you're against it because it would be funded by taxes - at all. Not because it would cost you anything on top of what you already pay. Yup, that's pretty much what I expected and Mathilda already framed the response to that kind of non argument pretty nicely.