Carborendum Posted February 22, 2023 Report Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) This is genius. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/952/BillText/Filed/PDF Quote An act relating to employer coverage of gender dysphoria treatment... requiring employers that provide coverage of gender dysphoria treatment to also cover the full costs associated with treatment that reverses such gender dysphoria treatment, regardless of the rate of coverage provided for the initial treatment; providing that employees who receive gender dysphoria treatment through coverage provided by an employer are entitled to full coverage of total costs associated with treatment that reverses such gender dysphoria treatment under certain circumstances, regardless of whether they are still employed by that employer; providing construction; prohibiting employers from making coverage of the subsequent treatment contingent on whether the employee receives such treatment in this state; creating a right of action for aggrieved persons to recover actual total costs and damages from an employer or former employer, as applicable... Edited February 22, 2023 by Carborendum NeuroTypical, Just_A_Guy and Vort 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 (edited) . Edited February 23, 2023 by Godless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 5 hours ago, Carborendum said: An act relating to employer coverage of gender dysphoria treatment... requiring employers that provide coverage of gender dysphoria treatment to also cover the full costs associated with treatment that reverses such gender dysphoria treatment, regardless of the rate of coverage provided for the initial treatment; providing that employees who receive gender dysphoria treatment through coverage provided by an employer are entitled to full coverage of total costs associated with treatment that reverses such gender dysphoria treatment under certain circumstances, regardless of whether they are still employed by that employer; providing construction; prohibiting employers from making coverage of the subsequent treatment contingent on whether the employee receives such treatment in this state; creating a right of action for aggrieved persons to recover actual total costs and damages from an employer or former employer, as applicable... If the core subject of the bill were different, the bolded sections (and maybe the rest of it as well) would have your side screaming about government overreach. I have no issue with the rest, and I doubt that many people in my political camp would either, apart from the larger issue that employer-based insurance coverage is exploitative, but that's another conversation entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 21 minutes ago, Godless said: If the core subject of the bill were different, the bolded sections (and maybe the rest of it as well) would have your side screaming about government overreach. I have no issue with the rest, and I doubt that many people in my political camp would either, apart from the larger issue that employer-based insurance coverage is exploitative, but that's another conversation entirely. Geez @Godless more talk like this and you might as well get a MAGA cap. 😉 JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted February 23, 2023 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Godless said: If the core subject of the bill were different, the bolded sections (and maybe the rest of it as well) would have your side screaming about government overreach. Two things: Maybe that is because the core subject is exactly the problem. If the current laws required that health coverage pay for assisted suicide, we'd probably say the same thing. I absolutely do not believe in murder. I'm even on the fence with capital punishment. But I will kill in self-defense and in the defense of another. Maybe it is because the whole reason we have the problem is because government pushing this on people in the first place. One of the primary mechanisms of our governmental system is to use government to fight government. That is what this proposed legislation is doing. What would really be helpful is if "your side" actually allowed for free and open debate about the topic instead of ad hominems & efforts to cancel people for daring to disagree. Edited February 23, 2023 by Carborendum Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Godless said: If the core subject of the bill were different, the bolded sections (and maybe the rest of it as well) would have your side screaming about government overreach. Not necessarily. In tort law, there are certain activities deemed "ultra-hazardous" where even if I do the activity with all reasonable caution (keeping a known-vicious dog as a pet, for example; or manufacturing dynamite) and someone still gets hurt--I can be held strictly liable even though I wasn't found to be negligent. I haven't read the Florida bill; but it seems like one might argue that transgender surgeries are ultra-hazardous, at least for children (it's not a half-bad argument, given that apparently 4/5 of transgender youths eventually grow out of it and eventually become comfortable with their own bodies if they don't receive "gender-affirming care"); and that people who aid and abet such surgeries should be held strictly liable for the consequences of their actions. That said--under that rubric, the bill (as represented here) seems awfully selective. One would think the natural approach would be for parents, insurers, doctors and mental health providers to be held jointly and severally liable for de-transitioning costs of an adult who transitioned as a minor; and for the latter two categories to also be compelled to disgorge any payments received for their role in the original transition. [I must have a twisted mind, because I just imagined the following exchange: Inigo Montoya: "Offer me money." Rugen: "Yes!" Montoya: "Power, too, promise me that." Rugen: "All that I have and more. Please . . ." Montoya: "Offer me anything I ask for." Rugen: "Anything you want!" Montoya: "I want my ability to have children back, you son of a %#^&!"] Edited February 23, 2023 by Just_A_Guy JohnsonJones and Carborendum 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.