News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: traci_k on March 22, 2016, 06:42:16 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Disputed health law rule would broaden transgender rights
Post by: traci_k on March 22, 2016, 06:42:16 AM
Post by: traci_k on March 22, 2016, 06:42:16 AM
Disputed health law rule would broaden transgender rights
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/medical/article/Disputed-health-law-rule-would-broaden-6942500.php
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar,
Associated Press via Seattle Pi
Updated 3:46 am, Tuesday, March 22, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — Big companies are pushing back against proposed federal rules they say would require their medical plans to cover gender transition and other services under the nondiscrimination mandate of President Barack Obama's health care law.
Civil rights advocates representing transgender people say the regulation, now being finalized by the Health and Human Services Department, would be a major step forward for a marginalized community beginning to gain acceptance as celebrities like Caitlyn Jenner tell their stories.
******************************************
Unfortunately rules are still being promulgated and heaven forbid if they go to court and we have a Ted Cruz president. These insurance rules mandating transition related coverage for: (see below)
The legal text refers to entities "receiving federal financial assistance," interpreted to include insurers, state Medicaid agencies, hospitals and other service providers. It doesn't mention major private employers that run their own health plans.
I'm not an attorney but to me it seems federal financial assistance would include job credits, corporate welfare and subsidies. Considering big corporations spend millions to receive government largesse, although not specifically named, I think reasonable people might see that as government assistance, and they would be included.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/medical/article/Disputed-health-law-rule-would-broaden-6942500.php
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar,
Associated Press via Seattle Pi
Updated 3:46 am, Tuesday, March 22, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — Big companies are pushing back against proposed federal rules they say would require their medical plans to cover gender transition and other services under the nondiscrimination mandate of President Barack Obama's health care law.
Civil rights advocates representing transgender people say the regulation, now being finalized by the Health and Human Services Department, would be a major step forward for a marginalized community beginning to gain acceptance as celebrities like Caitlyn Jenner tell their stories.
******************************************
Unfortunately rules are still being promulgated and heaven forbid if they go to court and we have a Ted Cruz president. These insurance rules mandating transition related coverage for: (see below)
The legal text refers to entities "receiving federal financial assistance," interpreted to include insurers, state Medicaid agencies, hospitals and other service providers. It doesn't mention major private employers that run their own health plans.
I'm not an attorney but to me it seems federal financial assistance would include job credits, corporate welfare and subsidies. Considering big corporations spend millions to receive government largesse, although not specifically named, I think reasonable people might see that as government assistance, and they would be included.
Title: Re: Disputed health law rule would broaden transgender rights
Post by: suzifrommd on March 22, 2016, 07:00:56 AM
Post by: suzifrommd on March 22, 2016, 07:00:56 AM
You make a good point, Traci, though not every large company receives one of those types of assistance.
What's troubling is that we don't see this sort of pushback for other conditions they're required to cover, so I'm not sure this is really about money, the way they seem to be saying.
What's troubling is that we don't see this sort of pushback for other conditions they're required to cover, so I'm not sure this is really about money, the way they seem to be saying.
Title: Re: Disputed health law rule would broaden transgender rights
Post by: traci_k on March 22, 2016, 08:07:48 AM
Post by: traci_k on March 22, 2016, 08:07:48 AM
Oh I'm sure much of it is transphobic, but services can be broadly defined. Let's take an example from the news, Starwood Hotels has 188,000 employees. Government routinely houses diplomats overseas at hotels. This could be seen as a service. Assume 1/2 of 1% are transgender would give us a relatively small number - 940 times let's say $50,000 for transition costs equals $47,000,000. Granted not much compared to billions in revenue but still an expense and granted not everyone is going to run out for surgery or even hormones. The costs would be staggered over years. How about employer tax credits for hiring certain categories of employees, this would certainly been seen as "assistance" for encouraging a company to hire more employees.I'm sure a liberal HHS would come up with many creative ideas on what constitutes assistance. My main point was though that I don't think we would receive as liberal an interpretation of the law under a Cruz administration, especially in light of the fact that the Republican majority in Congress wants to repeal lock, stock and barrel and Cruz has said one of the first items on his agenda would be repeal also. The combination of these two branches of government getting together would be disasterous for the LGBT community as a whole, but especially for trans-folks.