$5.6 million a year, a small fraction of the military’s $47.8 billion annual health care budget is spent on the medical costs of transgender individuals in the military. This is better than spending taxpayer money on Trump's ridiculous golf trips and flights to Mar-a-Lago. We should be grateful for them risking their lives for us, the least we can do is this. http://time.com/money/4874800/heres-what-transgender-service-members-actually-cost-the-military/
While it's true that the proportion of cost is not high in the slightest, it's the principle of the thing. The taxpayer shouldn't need to pay for someone's very, very optional gender transition / hormone therapy.
Also, Trump's own very wasteful expenditures doesn't justify spending even more money on things that aren't necessary, especially given how much in debt we already are in. 5.6 million isn't a lot in regards to our annual budget but given how deep we are in debt, it's a good strategy to not make it worse.
It's not even specifically transgender individuals; it's just a basic economic idea that the taxpayer should avoid continuing to spend money on things that frankly should not be their concern.
Also, while I am continually grateful to the military for their defense of the freedoms and rights I take mostly for granted, I'm not willing to put any of the income I earn towards their own, pre-existing medical issues. They shouldn't be getting special treatment -- the article you quote uses a fairly misleading analogy to try and diminish the price by quoting it as per person, but it's important to take into account that this is 'per person'.
Again, I have no issue with them serving, but it's ridiculous to expect that taxpayers have to deal with it.
Thanks for the response. I hope it didn't come across as me justifying more spending with what Trump is doing, I'm just saying that there are much worse things we could be (and are) spending taxpayer money on. Not the best argument, sorry for that.
About your argument that we should not be spending on things that don't directly concern us, yes this may be true, but we contribute taxpayer money to building infrastructure on the other side of the country, and while it won't necessarily benefit us personally, it's in the interest of helping those around us, many of whom we will never meet. Whilst health care is much more complicated, this is one of the core principles of the system (or lack thereof) and if this is a philosophy close to your heart (haha puns- health care..? no?) then maybe this isn't right for you either.
Although we may have an unstable economy at the moment, this taxpayer spending in this specific field is so minuscule that it really doesn't have a huge impact on the individual taxpayer. Again, this is in the interest of giving other equally able people the chance to serve and protect us. Frankly this is much more of a moral issue than any major economic one.
I can understand that you don't want to put your money forward to support people with pre-existing conditions as it doesn't benefit you- however again this cost is so little I don't understand why this is such a worry. Again, this is very much a subjective argument and I may see these issues differently, especially considering that I am part of the LGBT+ community.
Honestly, I find the principle of this topic totally fine. I would be paying for a tiny fraction of the military budget and in turn allow people to defend our country, something I would never have the courage to do.
Another question is equality or equity? I would think that we should try and strive for the latter, so maybe this is just a step?
Besides the moral side of this argument, your taxpayer money is always going to be paying for something you maybe don't directly ag
Bridges and public works benefit the economy, as well as are circulatory, as people on the other side of the country are paying for works that do affect you as well.
Also, surgery to change gender does make someone able to serve that wouldn't be able to otherwise. That is, unless they wouldn't be willing to serve unless it was payed for. Under that idea, serving your country doesn't exclusively mean giving for it; it means taking from it as well.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against trans individuals--especially not the ones who will serve for our country. But in the interest of fairness, since I don't like paying for Presidential golf trips, I don't like paying for another individual's expenditures
There's a difference between paying for bridges and other public works that benefit the public good and could potentially lead to economic boosts that might eventually trickle down as more economic growth which in turn might come to support me, and paying, as tepig noted, for someone else's expenditures.
While it's true that those soldiers benefit the public good as well, I'm not planning on, say, paying for their groceries too. The costs they incur on their own time -- rather than the cost they incur defending the country -- is not something I wish to pay for.
"Again, this is very much a subjective argument and I may see these issues differently, especially considering that I am part of the LGBT+ community."
Correct.
But then I'd argue that, if this is the case, paying for transgender treatments and hormone therapy should be a charitable cost, not a required one.
Honestly both of you are right, giving someone a chance to serve doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't taking either, but I think this is the case for most things. Funny you would bring up groceries, because I would assume that the military would pay for its members' food and housing with the budget it is given, including taxes. Also, I can understand that your stance is that we don't pay for other trans surgeries so why should we pay for these, and honestly I personally would not mind doing it since it's so little, but I guess I have to respect that you would. I honestly would give these people "special treatment" because they are risking their lives for us, but I guess I could understand if you wouldn't. I'm not sure of the validity of certain "facts" floating around so correct me if I'm wrong, but I swear that I have read in multiple places that the military pays 10x as much for viagra for their members (again not sure how valid this is) than that of trans procedures. So if this is true would it not also be special treatment?
"Funny you would bring up groceries, because I would assume that the military would pay for its members' food and housing with the budget it is given, including taxes."
From what I understand of the military, which is admittedly not much, they don't really have groceries...they are provided rations when in service, and they and their families have access to military discounts and special stores that sell many goods for much cheaper.
But when not in active service from what I understand, they're still paying for their own groceries. And other commodities. And businesses, from what I understand, offer discounts at their own expense.
As transgender surgeries are an optional thing rather than a necessity (such as food) I'm not going to voluntarily pay for it.
"I swear that I have read in multiple places that the military pays 10x as much for viagra for their members (again not sure how valid this is) than that of trans procedures. So if this is true would it not also be special treatment?"
Sep 28, 17 · +1 · Like · Report
Sep 28, 17 · +2 · Like · Report
Sep 28, 17 · +0 · Like · Report
Sep 28, 17 · +2 · Like · Report
Sep 28, 17 · +0 · Like · Report
Sep 29, 17 · +1 · Like · Report
Sep 29, 17 · +0 · Like · Report