US political - House bill may restrict gender care money
Posted: Fri May 30, 2025 3:48 pm
I find my digestion is a lot better when I avoid politics 
and it is generally not allowed on the site with the limited exception of when it applies to our favorite subject.... However my GF pays far more attention to it than I think is healthy for her, but... 
She has sent me the following, allowed as relevant:
As written it only applies to Medicaid and CHIPs not Medicare or private insurance, however private insurance frequently will follow the feds in defining their standards for what they will cover.
It also does not appear to impact paying out of pocket and certainly wouldn't stop trips to Mexico and elsewhere.
<Moderator mode ON> Discussion of policy is OK, Factual statements (i.e. "politician x said...") are OK, BUT Discussion of a politician or party's anatomical features / imagined activities or sexual preferences / what should happen to them / other derogatory comments are NOT OK - we want to keep this polite and civilized...
<Moderator mode OFF>
and it is generally not allowed on the site with the limited exception of when it applies to our favorite subject.... However my GF pays far more attention to it than I think is healthy for her, but... She has sent me the following, allowed as relevant:
That the US HOUSE version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill has it is a concern, but it only becomes a real problem if the SAME language gets into the Senate version (the two must match before the bill can go to the President)I am finding multiple AI summaries and news reports which say that the USA House of Representatives budget reconciliation bill contains language which 1. prohibits use of federal money applied to Medicaid and CHIP from being used for gender confirmation treatment of adults and children and 2. re-categorizes gender. Confirmation treatment is no longer being an essential health benefit. The latter has to do with insurance coverage. I understand that states would still be allowed to fund gender, confirmation treatment with their own money. I have found one source that names the author of some the first part of this language. It's the congressman's own website.
https://crenshaw.house.gov/2025/5/rep-c ... tiful-bill
I have not succeeded in finding the relevant text in the current version of the Senate counterpart bill, which has not passed yet, but I am not confident that it is not there or could not be added back.
Should we do anything?If so, wWhat?
As written it only applies to Medicaid and CHIPs not Medicare or private insurance, however private insurance frequently will follow the feds in defining their standards for what they will cover.
It also does not appear to impact paying out of pocket and certainly wouldn't stop trips to Mexico and elsewhere.
<Moderator mode ON> Discussion of policy is OK, Factual statements (i.e. "politician x said...") are OK, BUT Discussion of a politician or party's anatomical features / imagined activities or sexual preferences / what should happen to them / other derogatory comments are NOT OK - we want to keep this polite and civilized...
<Moderator mode OFF>