Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any and all service members who require medical procedures are processed out no matter the severity?
That depends on the military standard.
see above post 695
I already said, I don't necessarily agree with a blanket ban on transgender people in the military. I think Trump should address the issue of active duty transgender troops. So arguing with me is pointless and a waste of your time.
Because it is non-service related. I don't believe the military should pay for somebody's viagra either.
They can draw service-related disability benefit after they are medically retired, like everybody else dose.
So you are of the belief that any medically necessary yet non-service related procedures should not be covered for military members or their families?
-Well child visits
-OBGYN
-Childbirth
-Broken bones from non-service related activities
-Antibiotics for infections
-Doctor appointments for illnesses
-Vaccinations
There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according the RAND Corp. which conducted a study for the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would like to seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.
Treatment is estimated to cost as much as $50,000 per soldier. Treatment generally moves from counseling to hormone therapy, and in relatively rare cases, gender reassignment surgery. A military doctor must deem the treatment medically necessary.
What percentage of the military budget that the bold represent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
you know it. Plus, let's please not pretend transgender troops are the "best." (Let's stop pretending the military cannot live without them) That money can go somewhere else, screw them if they don't want to serve, kick them all out.
After they get out, they can receive service related disability benefits. No wonder civilians are p*ssed. Even if you are 100% pro military, you know the above is just plain wrong.
I am 100% pro military and I know no such thing.
And, I'm not "p*ssed." Not in the least.
What I am is disgusted that there are so many people who feel that they have a right to condemn any person who is willing to serve their country in such a capacity.
Never thought I'd see the day, but I actually have to call Sen. Hatch's office to thank him for making such a strong statement:
"In a written statement to USA Today Hatch went further than the other senators and suggested that transgender people should not only be allowed to serve, but that “[t]ransgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.â€"
What percentage of the military budget that the bold represent?
I am 100% pro military and I know no such thing.
And, I'm not "p*ssed." Not in the least.
What I am is disgusted that there are so many people who feel that they have a right to condemn any person who is willing to serve their country in such a capacity.
Never thought I'd see the day, but I actually have to call Sen. Hatch's office to thank him for making such a strong statement:
"In a written statement to USA Today Hatch went further than the other senators and suggested that transgender people should not only be allowed to serve, but that “[t]ransgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.â€"
What percentage of the military budget that the bold represent?
]
Doesn't matter.
A waste is a waste.
Tax payers should not pay for somebody's viagra; tax payer should not pay for somebody's sex change operation. If you have no problems with paying for their sex change operations, then you should help them paying.
What I am is disgusted that there are so many people who feel that they have a right to condemn any person who is willing to serve their country in such a capacity.
]
Fake outrage.
No one is saying they are not capable of serving. I am saying if they expect the military to pay for their sex change procedure, then they should be processed OUT!
There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according the RAND Corp. which conducted a study for the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would like to seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.
Treatment is estimated to cost as much as $50,000 per soldier. Treatment generally moves from counseling to hormone therapy, and in relatively rare cases, gender reassignment surgery. A military doctor must deem the treatment medically necessary.
If there's no way to ensure the individual can continue their mission and/or survive in worst case "what if" scenarios that aren't far-fetched, there's no reason for them to remain in the military. There's nothing discriminatory about it either. Many people have been medically forced out for conditions that came up while already serving too - and for the same reason (medical readiness).
No need to make it political would be my thoughts.
Except that 45's ban doesn't look at it on a case-by-case basis, does it?
It's absolutely is wholesale discrimination, no different than deciding that people of a certain gender, ethnic or racial background couldn't serve.
As was noted by someone yesterday: "First they came for the transgenders..."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.