Dookiestix wrote:Baldimo:
Quote:What extraordinary circumstances do you speak of?
Having to deal with the hatred and ignorance towards homosexuals that is currently coming from your mouth.
I haven't said anything about hating homosexuals. In fact I didn't saying anything about homosexuals, I said something about transgendered people, they are not the same. There are many who have sex changes that date the oppisite sex after words. That wouldn't make them gay would it. If a man turned into a woman and then dated men, that wouldn't make him gay it wouldn't make him straight in a sort of way. So this isn't about homosexuals but the other group that gets included with homosexuals. I know the difference how come you don't.
Quote:And why would I, as a San Francisco resident, say that the Board of Supervisors approval of a controversial plan to pay for the sex change operations of transgender employees didn't happen? What strange sense of logic leads you to that conclusion?
By you:
Quote:But I do care about people who have no idea what they're talking about and come off sounding hateful and arrogant. It's a good thing you don't live in S.F.
Enough said here.
Quote:The taxpayers of San Francisco don't seem all that upset by your aforementioned article. But you do. I find it sad that you cannot take into account the indeginous population here and how THEY feel. Where will it stop (as the article asks)? It would be hard to tell in a progressive town where EVERYBODY is generally accepted for what and who they are.
Everyone is accepted in the city unless your a conservative or someone who beleives in religion.
As I said before "progressive" is a new term for liberal agenda.
Why should the city pay for something that is a choice and has no other bearing on life. Sure they pay birth control measures like men and women getting fixed, but that is better then paying for more children, that is why most insurances pay for those types of procedures. The same can't be said for a sex change.
Quote:As I've said, it's a good thing you do not live here. And quite frankly, being against government waste by itself doesn't make you a homophobe. But it plainly makes you sound like an idiot when you do not address ANY of the unique qualities of San Francisco politics that goes along with these issues. And perhaps you failed to notice that those transgendered employees THEMSELVES are obligated to pay into the system.
SF politics? I thought the city was there to provide things to the people, not the people to provide sex changes to employees. I could careless which city this took place in, I still wouldn't agree with it.
It just isn't the employees that want the surgery that pay into it, it is also all city employees that pay into it. That only covers small % of the cost. If it costs about 37,000 to 45,000 to perform the surgery how much do you think $1.70 is really going to cover? I found that it was going to cover maybe 3/4 of it but I doubt it is going to cover that much seeing as how there are currently only 14 employees in the city who are transgendered. I bet this is going to encourage more of them to work for the city because it is a freebee to them. After the surgery is done quite working for the city. Bet it happens. Abuse of the system by a select few. Special privliges for some but nothing for the rest. Great system.
Quote:I also don't see anywhere in the article that you supply that mentions "government waste." Do you? You also conveniently left out this:
Of course you didn't, the piece supported the idea, you aren't going to to find a comment like that in a pro piece.
Quote:Quote:City employees will collectively foot the bill, paying about $1.70 per month each.
So, what REALLY is your problem here?
That still means some of the cost will come from the city. Unlike a regular company like the one I work for who pays a portion of my insurance, the city pays it's portion from city taxes. It is the income of a company that pays for the companies portion of insurance, if you are the city your income is taxes so there for it is the taxpayer that will pay for the surgury in the end. There is no other way around it. I would bet you if a vote was taken by the city that it wouldn't pass, it is wasteful no matter how you look at it.
If you can explain to me how this type of procedure is life threating and cost effective then I might change my mind, but no matter how I try and think it is, I can't do it.
