<p>Does anyone else support this? </p>
<p>I mean, on one hand, sure we should help people who want to have sex changes, but should tax payers foot the bill? I think they should, but I'm skeptical about it. What do you think?</p>
<p>God no. If someone wants to have a transgender procedure, they can pay for it.</p>
<p>Why should they?</p>
<p>Because they're the ones getting it, not the taxpayers.</p>
<p>Why would the school offer to pay for it in the first place? Does the school believe that its imperative for these students to have sex changes, hell why don't they put money towards books or something..</p>
<p>We pay for other stuff that only a few people get.. say Medicaid and welfare, so why not this?</p>
<p>Because this is not an absolutely do-or-die, necessary procedure.</p>
<p>"Because this is not an absolutely do-or-die, necessary procedure."</p>
<p>Obviously spoken by someone who doesn't know very many trans people, if any at all.</p>
<p>Why should health insurance pay for medical transition? Because it's been deemed medically necessary time and time again, and to not cover something that's been deemed medically necessary is discriminatory. Not all trans people experience intense body dysphoria, but those who do often become suicidal if they can't transition. The only proven medical treatment that alleviates transsexuals' dysphoria is transition. Period. Nothing else works. Hormone therapy, top surgery, bottom surgery--none of these are experimental. None of these can be obtained without multiple medical and mental health professionals agreeing that they're necessary to the requester's well-being. So why shouldn't health insurance cover them?</p>
<p>I don't know anything about the particular situation in Berkeley (and I'm not sure if you're talking about the city or UCB), but insurance coverage of trans-related healthcare is a real no-brainer. The only reason companies have gotten away with withholding coverage for so long is prejudice and discrimination.</p>