Woman Sues IRS Over Denial Of Tax Deduction For Sex Change Operation

[Nova]

???? I'm not getting what you are trying to say? This individual certainly wasn't paying more than her fair share, nor was she underprivileged in the benefits department - I can see nothing where she was out of the ordinary on this at all. The middle class, and upper-middle classes pay more in taxes than they take out, those living hand to mouth do the opposite - and this is precisely as it should be. Taxes should come from those with more, more than from those with less.

Medically necessary - that is where I don't see it. Before gender reassignment surgery was around, people with this issue don't seem to have had such a problem. Insurance companies don't pay for it. Those who can't afford it somehow muddle through without. And I've maybe known too much about some who have had it - I'm not convinced at all that this surgery helps them, long term, or is necessary.

There is that prisoner who is trying to get the state to pay for their surgery, and most people are saying, no way. I think if we wouldn't do it for a prisoner, it's not medically necessary. It's a bonus, a luxury. It's a boob job, a nose job, orthodontia.

The choice is - would I rather have her get this deduction, or have taxes even a little lower on the low income brackets, and I think it's more important to have taxes lower on low income brackets. This is clearly a borderline case, and I'd put it on the other side of the border, since there are a lot of competing interests I consider more deserving.

Insurance companies don't pay for sex reassignment surgery because they can get away with refusing to pay, precisely because of attitudes such as we see here where posters equate sex reassignment with a nose job. Insurance companies refuse to pay for many things that are medically necessary; their greed is no indicator of medical necessity.

Nor is the prisoner. Though prisoners retain some rights, we don't base the rights of the rest of us on those afforded convicts. That's exactly backwards. Nobody has argued that anyone has an inalienable right to have the government pay for sex reassignment or any other surgery, at least not until we get the universal health care we ought to have. In the meantime, the issue isn't whether the government should pay for the surgery (as in the case of the prisoner), but whether an individual should be allowed to take the same medical deductions that others take, even when her medical procedure is uncommon.

When minorities are denied the same rights as others--including the right to deduct money spent on the medical procedures that are necessary to them--then they indeed end of up paying more than their fair share of taxes. (The same is true of gay people who must pay taxes on health care provided for their partners, where staight, married people do not. But that's another issue.)

I actually agree with you that there is a philosophical issue as to whether sex reassignment surgery is the best recourse for transexuals. One might very well argue that we ALL should get over rigid concepts of gender that cause such misery to those who psyches don't match their genitals. But that is a philosophical argument, not a medical one (at least at this juncture).

The medical community holds that sex reassignment surgery is acceptable and necessary for some people, that the risks and problems outweigh the psychological pain of gender dysphoria.

That should be enough for the IRS. And for the rest of us who aren't directly faced with such a problem ourselves.

 

[JBean]

Insurance companies don't pay for sex reassignment surgery because they can get away with refusing to pay, precisely because of attitudes such as we see here where posters equate sex reassignment with a nose job. Insurance companies refuse to pay for many things that are medically necessary; their greed is no indicator of medical necessity.

Nor is the prisoner. Though prisoners retain some rights, we don't base the rights of the rest of us on those afforded convicts. That's exactly backwards. Nobody has argued that anyone has an inalienable right to have the government pay for sex reassignment or any other surgery, at least not until we get the universal health care we ought to have. In the meantime, the issue isn't whether the government should pay for the surgery (as in the case of the prisoner), but whether an individual should be allowed to take the same medical deductions that others take, even when her medical procedure is uncommon.

When minorities are denied the same rights as others--including the right to deduct money spent on the medical procedures that are necessary to them--then they indeed end of up paying more than their fair share of taxes. (The same is true of gay people who must pay taxes on health care provided for their partners, where staight, married people do not. But that's another issue.)

I actually agree with you that there is a philosophical issue as to whether sex reassignment surgery is the best recourse for transexuals. One might very well argue that we ALL should get over rigid concepts of gender that cause such misery to those who psyches don't match their genitals. But that is a philosophical argument, not a medical one (at least at this juncture).

The medical community holds that sex reassignment surgery is acceptable and necessary for some people, that the risks and problems outweigh the psychological pain of gender dysphoria.

That should be enough for the IRS. And for the rest of us who aren't directly faced with such a problem ourselves.

Oh my, what a great post Nova.