Pro-Homosexuals Can't be Satisfied

[Shana A]

Pro-Homosexuals Can't be Satisfied

Written by Leah Jones   
Wednesday, 20 October 2010

http://cwnewz.com/content/view/1934/32/

Christian Web News - Benefits are already offered by 337 major American businesses to their homosexual employees, but a prominent pro-homosexual group still isn't satisfied.
The Human Rights Campaign is demanding corporations such as Citigroup, Target, AT&T, IBM, Bank of America, and Ford Motor, to offer unlimited healthcare coverage for transgender employees. The alternative? – They lose their highest ranking offered under the Corporate Equality Index.

"In order to get a 100-percent rating, you now have to provide funding for sex-change operations for transsexuals. So...they keep ramping up the demands to get the 100-percent rating, knowing that companies are bragging about having the rating," states Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.

[spacial]

While I won't pretend to understand the fill intricacies of US health care this line caught my attention:

that means that people who spend their money with those firms are helping underwrite that health coverage.

I don't really understand what the problem is here.

It could equally be said that: that means that people who spend their money with those firms are helping underwrite the family finances of the employees.

Or perhaps people should all work for nothing. The problem with that is that no-bidy would have any money so nothing would be bought and no-one would be able to work. Duh!

[Aidan_]

Pro-Homosexuals Can't be Satisfied

Written by Leah Jones   
Wednesday, 20 October 2010

http://cwnewz.com/content/view/1934/32/

Christian Web News - Benefits are already offered by 337 major American businesses to their homosexual employees, but a prominent pro-homosexual group still isn't satisfied.
The Human Rights Campaign is demanding corporations such as Citigroup, Target, AT&T, IBM, Bank of America, and Ford Motor, to offer unlimited healthcare coverage for transgender employees. The alternative? – They lose their highest ranking offered under the Corporate Equality Index.

"In order to get a 100-percent rating, you now have to provide funding for sex-change operations for transsexuals. So...they keep ramping up the demands to get the 100-percent rating, knowing that companies are bragging about having the rating," states Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.

Jeez, don't they realize what they're asking for from these businesses? Do they even know how much SRS costs? It's like a freakin' luxury car worth of money! Now sure, that's great they want to give transsexuals the option of easy SRS, but I'm not sure. Some might view that working up the money for SRS gives it more value and worth in the eyes of the transgendered person.

Isn't it partially covered already? Or at least covered on an as-needed basis?

[Dana Lane]

Sometimes their willful ignorance is just so adorable. They still don't get it that transsexual has nothing to do with sexuality.

[kyril]

Jeez, don't they realize what they're asking for from these businesses? Do they even know how much SRS costs? It's like a freakin' luxury car worth of money! Now sure, that's great they want to give transsexuals the option of easy SRS, but I'm not sure. Some might view that working up the money for SRS gives it more value and worth in the eyes of the transgendered person.

Isn't it partially covered already? Or at least covered on an as-needed basis?

(1) No, it's not covered, in part or in full. It's completely and totally excluded from most health insurance plans. And in fact other necessary medical treatment (e.g. for PCOS, female reproductive system cancers, skin conditions, etc) may not be covered for trans people if it can be linked in any way to any treatment we've received for transition.

(2) The same could be said for other procedures. Wouldn't Grandma value her triple bypass surgery more, and take better care of herself after, if she had to work up the money and pay for it herself? But that's not a mainstream or acceptable argument, because most people don't see the need for lifesaving heart treatment as a morally wrong "choice." Even though it arguably is, more so than a transsexual's need for lifesaving gender-related treatment, because heart conditions derive largely from diet and lifestyle choices.