So: what do you think the following language means?
Explicit categorical exclusions in coverage for all health care services related to gender transition are facially discriminatory.This sentence is part of a "rule"--a decree--issued by the federal department of "Currying Favor with Our Base"--a.k.a. HHS under emperor Obozo. In effect, it orders medical providers--including insurers--to provide sex-change surgery. Which means every insurance policy would have to cover that service.
For those whose health insurance is subsidized, this means sex-change operations would be provided at taxpayer expense. Watch how cunningly the bureaucrat rule-makers set this up to make it hard to recognize what was really being decreed:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a proposed rule to advance health equity and reduce disparities in health care.Hey, how could anyone possibly object to any rule said to "advance health equity," eh?
The proposed rule, "Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities," will assist some of the populations that have been most vulnerable to discrimination, and will help provide those populations equal access to health care and health coverage.
It harmonizes protections provided by existing, well-established federal civil rights laws, and clarifies the standards HHS would apply in implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which provides that individuals cannot be subject to discrimination based on their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
Building on long-standing and familiar civil rights principles, the proposed rule takes important steps forward.Notice how they invoke "non-discrimination." The rule "harmonizes protections." How could anyone oppose harmony? And they tell you it's based on long-standing and familiar civil rights principles. So since all right-thinking people support those 'familiar principles', you must accept this new rule too.
Except the new rule does no such thing. Instead it invokes the language of "Title 9" to do something the folks who wrote that law never envisioned: To force taxpayers to pay for sex-change procedures for people who can't afford it themselves. But watch how hard the HHS bureaucrats work to make you think the new rule didn't change anything:
Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in health care. Section 1557 has been in effect since its enactment in 2010 and the HHS Office for Civil Rights has been enforcing the provision since it was enacted."Everyone agrees that discrimination is bad, awful. This rule agrees, and doesn't do a single thing that's new, citizen--not a bit--cuz we've been enforcing this provision since it was enacted seven whole years ago! So, nothin' new here. Not at all."
Specific ProvisionsWow, sure a lot of "discrimination" language here, eh? Almost like they're tryin' to set up a rationale that every good-thinking 'Merican will accept without question. Hmm....
The basic requirement of the law is that consumers cannot be denied health services or health coverage or discriminated against in other ways in health services or coverage because of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The proposed rule addresses some of the populations that have historically been subject to discrimination.
For example, the proposed rule includes prohibitions on gender identity discrimination as a form of sex discrimination...Whoa, what just happened there? The 'graf titled "Specific Provisions" correctly notes that the law said you can't deny services or coverage because of "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability." But the phrase in red decrees that "gender-identity discrimination" is "a form of sex discrimination."
This definition isn't anywhere in the, y'know, actual law. They just unilaterally decreed that A=B.
The bureaucrats in HHS--with the explicit approval of Obama's minions--just added a new benefit to Obamacare, by adding a prohibition against "gender-identity discrimination."
Protections Against Sex DiscriminationIt doesn't just "make it clear." Rather, it re-defines "sex discrimination" to include people who want to be the opposite sex.
The rule makes clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity.
"For example:The phrase "coverage for all health care services related to gender transition" is perfectly clear: Insurers providing policies under Obamacare must now cover sex-change operations. Because the bureaucrats at HHS have simply decreed that failure to do so is "facially discriminatory."
- Individuals cannot be denied health care or health coverage based on their...gender identity.
- Individuals must be treated consistent with their gender identity, including in access to facilities.
- Explicit categorical exclusions in coverage for all health care services related to gender transition are facially discriminatory. Other exclusions for gender transition care will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Let me be clear that in a free society, if someone wants a sex-change operation that's fine--if they can pay for it. But forcing insurers to extend that coverage to every single health-insurance policy is insane.
As are most of the programs and policies pushed by Dems and liberals.