SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Left Wing Porch
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (4690)5/3/2001 11:49:13 AM
From: The PhilosopherRead Replies (1) of 6089
 
The point was that you wrote "I see a difference, though, between what
govt. employees have covered, and what strictly public funds such as
Medicare, fund."

I was just pointing out that health care benefits for government workers are strictly public funds, so I think you're making a distinction without a difference.

The question is what should government pay for to improve self-esteem rather than to make physically well. Is a Lexus as important to my self esteem as a sex change operation is to others' self esteem? The costs seem about the same ($37,000 for the sex change operation). If neither is medically necessary, what rational basis is there for paying for the one but not the other from purely public funds.

I have to say that if I were a SF taxpayer I would be more than a bit upset to be paying my hard earned tax dollars for sex change operations. But maybe the SF taxpayers feel differently than I do. But it would be interesting to have had this put to a public referendum.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News