Reply to Trump announces policy banning transgender military service

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump announces policy banning transgender military service"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]It is meaningful. Because ED costs far outweigh the costs of transitioning surgeries. That you've chosen to break it down for "average" soldiers or per soldier is what is not meaningful b/c there are always going to be differences between between each individual. The healthy soldier with no medical history is going to cost less than the "average" soldier with asthma, or who injures him/herself, or who has allergies, or . . . pick your ailment. So, this is a bit of cute maneuvering to do it that way. Overall, the financial argument simply doesn't hold up.

And why ED is identified should be obvious. It's not necessary to be able to get an erection to serve in the military just as it isn't, according to people here, "necessary" to undergo transition while in the military. Yet, one is extensively covered. The other people are bitching and complaining about b/c, let's be honest, it has zero to do with cost and all to do with fear of what they don't know. [/quote]

And, some may have ED as a result of injuries incurred in service.  And, I seriously doubt that many enlistees need Viagara when they enlist.  Let's see that statistic first, please.

And, let's face it--there are plenty of other factors involved.  But, if the DOD starts paying for transgender surgery, I guarantee you that there will be a lot more enlistments from transgenders--and the expense will quickly escalate.

This is a bogus argument.

Also, what is your source for the amount spent on Viagara?  I'd love to see that.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics