A good move

[_subgenius]

Here's a really bad move:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/26/j ... be-robbers

Derail much?

[_The CCC]

That is the stupidest argument you've made in a long time. The next a transgender person gets pregnant and has an abortion we'll talk.

[_Maksutov]

Here's a really bad move:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/26/j ... be-robbers

Derail much?

Oh, we can get around to it.

Your demagogue in chief is just pushing all the buttons he can to take attention away from his eff ups. We've seen it before. Next he'll want Muslims out of the military. He'll announce it at Liberty University in front of a crowd of orgasming fundies.

Okay, so enough of your culture war distractions. You think asset forfeiture is okay?

[_Jersey Girl]

I too am curious what makes Subs think this was such a good decision.

Here were my thoughts from where Water Dog posted this.

I can't say that I am surprised by Trump's decision (much like my response to the OP, incidentally). If I'm not mistaken the Pentagon had already put Obama's order on hold till Jan 1 2018 in order to study potential impacts anyway.

I'm uncertain if some might be worried that a transgendered individual will volunteer for military service just for the medical insurance (it looks like only hormones and therapy are covered under Tricare, I'd appreciate a correction if this is not right though).

Xeno you can get right into the Tricare website and search out the details on what treatment/procedures are allowable under Tricare. From the article you posted, it looks like mental health and hormone therapies are allowed.

There's an issue I was wanted to address here. When I looked at the article, a glaring example is included right there so I'll use it as an example.

My question was going to be, will this new policy result in forced separation for active duty currently serving and will they be denied benefits for those who are eligible. For example, how many of the 1-6K are nearing retirement and will they be denied their earned benefits? But look, the beginning of the Miltary.com article demonstrates what and why I'm asking in reference to medical benefits under Tricare.

- The U.S. military's Tricare health care system now covers transgender military family members and retirees, despite the official policy not yet going live, a top official said.

"I'm not going to wait for the final policy," Navy Vice Adm. Raquel Bono, head of the Defense Health Agency, said in a wide-ranging interview with Military.com on Thursday atJoint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.

"We're going to go ahead and do that because that's what our patients need," she said.

The policy, published for public comment in the Federal Register in February, will allow for hormone therapy and mental health counseling for "gender dysphoria," the clinical term for those who identify as a different gender than the sex they were assigned at birth. Tricare is prohibited by law from covering sex-change surgery.

Pulling out what I'm after:

The U.S. military's Tricare health care system now covers transgender military family members and retirees, despite the official policy not yet going live, a top official said.

You'll notice that my concern regarding forced separation just shy of retirement is clearly represented in the above statement. How many trans military members will be forced out thus denying already contracted for health care to not only the soon-to-be retired military service member themselves, but also their dependents and will this apply retroactively to those who are already retired?

Other benefits such as GI Bill and VA educational benefits, commissary (which we don't need to start with) right to free legal advice for life (advice, not representation), VA home loans, and whatever else I haven't thought of here.

What about those trans (assuming there are any in this category) that are currently being treated for combat related injuries/disabilities? Are they going to lose their right to future VA benefits? Are they going to lose their right to current treatment as active duty?

This is serious as cancer and a President who has promised to take care of the military (have their backs) just caused a ripple of mayhem and concern throughout the armed forces and retiree population by tweeting out a new policy change in 40 characters or less, like the uninsightful dope that he is making it impossible to address the complexity of the policy change itself.

[_Xenophon]

I too am curious what makes Subs think this was such a good decision.

Pretty sure that is detailed in the OP, see also reasons from actual military leaders and the whole distraction thingy.

And I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong. Did you seriously post something without reading it? The Pentagon won't even comment on this and is redirecting all questions to the White House. The closest there is to an answer to that question is this:

Earlier this month, for instance, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that there would be a six-month delay in implementing recruitment policies for transgender Americans so that military chiefs could determine how they would affect the force’s “readiness or lethality.”

Of course no determination of negative affect has been made, or if it has they have failed to share those findings (see the RAND study found both in the article you didn't read and my post, which you probably didn't really read). As to "the distraction", can you quantify what that actually means, do we now consider all policy updates a distraction? So let us try again. Why do YOU think this is a "good decision".

[_Xenophon]

Excellent questions, Jersey Girl, and I'm sure there are no answers at this time. This is why I am generally not in favor of announcing major policy changes for our government via Twitter.

[_Jersey Girl]

Again from the article that Xeno linked to because the justification that Trump made is fully outrageous.

The policy, published for public comment in the Federal Register in February, will allow for hormone therapy and mental health counseling for "gender dysphoria,"

I would like to bring to everyone's attention that in a population of approx. 1.3 million active duty members (not to mention their dependents) every single active duty member and every one of their dependent wives (at least) are entitled to both hormone therapy and mental health counseling. If I or JB, as a military retiree and his dependent wife (always hated that term!), needed to avail ourselves of either form of therapy, those are also allowable under Tricare.

So, out of a population active duty of appox, 1.3 million (MILLION) plus dependents, the President in all his wisdom lacking glory has chosen to single out an insignificant 1-6 thousand (THOUSAND) active duty members AND their dependents because it will save us money and time and whatever the hell else he claimed.

So help me God.

[_Jersey Girl]

Excellent questions, Jersey Girl, and I'm sure there are no answers at this time. This is why I am generally not in favor of announcing major policy changes for our government via Twitter.

My aim is to present the precarious position of active duty and retired members of the armed forces, and their dependents, by raising the practical questions involved in this "tweet policy" who either are (or dependent on) a trans member of the military currently serving or now retired.

Ya wanna save some money, President? Get the hell rid of AFCOMS (and it's branch related counterparts) except for those outside of CONUS.

God he's stupid as crap.

[_Jersey Girl]

There are several reasons why people are denied entry to the armed services and why theit service contracts may be cancelled, etc.

What are the reasons?

[_Maksutov]

Did you seriously post something without reading it?

Xenophon, meet Subgenius. When he says "sub", he's not kidding.