Posted on Aug 12, 2015
How much will it cost the U.S. military to allow transgender service members to serve?
21.8K
142
86
4
4
0
How much will it cost us to let trans people serve openly? It's a valid question and I worked out some of the math down below. Some things to take into consideration before though, there are only around 15,000 trans people currently serving, we don't know how many veterans but it's probably around 75,000. Not all trans people get "the surgery" for various reasons, and the recovery time is typically 3 months. If half the current trans .mil population had sexual reassignment surgery, it would cost around $150,000,000 (assuming the cost for surgery remains around $20,000, which around North America is usually the case).
Now, the average length of enlisted service in the U.S. is around 7 years rounded up, and an average of 188,000 people join every year. Trans people make up .6% of the military population (rounded up), and therefore we could expect another 1,128 transgender recruits to join every year. Again, lets say half have SRS, the total estimated annual cost would be around $11,280,000. If we say 50,000 (66%) trans vets want the surgery (a very liberal estimate), that would be around $1,000,000,000. We might expect half the recently separated trans vets who didn't get it while in to get it through the VA while out.
Lets just assume for the sake of convenience that the same number of trans people that enter each year also leave (actually more people have been leaving than joining lately but w/e). So a quarter of those might want SRS (remember half would have already got it while in). That number is 282, and the cost would be $5,640,000 a year.
So to recap:
Initial wave of surgeries for active duty under Tricare - $150,000,000
Initial wave of surgeries for veterans/retired personnel - $1,000,000,000
Annual cost of surgeries for active duty under Tricare - $11,280,000
Annual cost of surgeries for veterans/retired personnel - $5,640,000
Sounds like allot of money, but how much will it increase our budget? In 2012, the DoD spent $52,000,000,000 on healthcare for service members. The Department of Veteran Affairs spends 42% of it's budget on healthcare, and it's budget was $168,800,000,000, with $70,896,000,000 spent directly on healthcare.
If we spend $150,000,000 more dollars in the initial wave of providing service members with SRS, it would reflect an overall budget increase of .3% (rounded up). The annual cost spent providing new recruits with SRS would be $11,280,000, which would reflect an overall annual budget increase of around .022% (rounded up).
If we spend $1,000,000,000 on the initial wave of surgeries for veterans (again a very very liberal estimate), it would reflect an overall budget increase of 1.4%. If we spend around $5,640,000 annually on surgeries for new veterans, it would reflect an increase of .008% (rounded up).
One more fun figure:
The total initial cost between both the DoD and DVA would be around $1,150,000,000. Out of the total amount of national debt, $18,342,202,555,158, this would reflect an overall increase of .0063% (rounded up).
My personal opinion is slanted on whether or not trans people should serve openly (I'm trans myself, left the service 4 days ago). So with the above numbers in mind, I'd love to hear from you. Do you support allowing transgender people to serve openly?
Now, the average length of enlisted service in the U.S. is around 7 years rounded up, and an average of 188,000 people join every year. Trans people make up .6% of the military population (rounded up), and therefore we could expect another 1,128 transgender recruits to join every year. Again, lets say half have SRS, the total estimated annual cost would be around $11,280,000. If we say 50,000 (66%) trans vets want the surgery (a very liberal estimate), that would be around $1,000,000,000. We might expect half the recently separated trans vets who didn't get it while in to get it through the VA while out.
Lets just assume for the sake of convenience that the same number of trans people that enter each year also leave (actually more people have been leaving than joining lately but w/e). So a quarter of those might want SRS (remember half would have already got it while in). That number is 282, and the cost would be $5,640,000 a year.
So to recap:
Initial wave of surgeries for active duty under Tricare - $150,000,000
Initial wave of surgeries for veterans/retired personnel - $1,000,000,000
Annual cost of surgeries for active duty under Tricare - $11,280,000
Annual cost of surgeries for veterans/retired personnel - $5,640,000
Sounds like allot of money, but how much will it increase our budget? In 2012, the DoD spent $52,000,000,000 on healthcare for service members. The Department of Veteran Affairs spends 42% of it's budget on healthcare, and it's budget was $168,800,000,000, with $70,896,000,000 spent directly on healthcare.
If we spend $150,000,000 more dollars in the initial wave of providing service members with SRS, it would reflect an overall budget increase of .3% (rounded up). The annual cost spent providing new recruits with SRS would be $11,280,000, which would reflect an overall annual budget increase of around .022% (rounded up).
If we spend $1,000,000,000 on the initial wave of surgeries for veterans (again a very very liberal estimate), it would reflect an overall budget increase of 1.4%. If we spend around $5,640,000 annually on surgeries for new veterans, it would reflect an increase of .008% (rounded up).
One more fun figure:
The total initial cost between both the DoD and DVA would be around $1,150,000,000. Out of the total amount of national debt, $18,342,202,555,158, this would reflect an overall increase of .0063% (rounded up).
My personal opinion is slanted on whether or not trans people should serve openly (I'm trans myself, left the service 4 days ago). So with the above numbers in mind, I'd love to hear from you. Do you support allowing transgender people to serve openly?
Posted in these groups: 
Transgender
Budget
Transgender Budget
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
0
0
0
Stumbled across this article: http://truthuncensored.net/disgraceful-us-military-now-allowing-soldiers-to-cross-dress/ in my news feed on Facebook and pictured above is a screen cap of the public's response to it. [Note: I did not edit the above screen cap and cut out the positive responses.]
Granted this is not a scientific survey of public opinion and people that think alike tend to friend each other on Facebook. These responses came from a public group having to do with Border Control and it gives you some indication of how people in America are reacting to this change within our military... Note that the purpose of the Facebook page was border control so these people were not on that page with intent to discuss gays and gay bash. While the OP is not related to border control, nonetheless it elicited a response and people let go with their feelings on the subject and suffice it to say they aren't happy to see these changes. Aside from places like Key West and San Francisco, you will probably find most people in America share similar sentiments about both the changes that Obama has made to our military [which clearly isn't making them feel safer] and their tax dollars being wasted on operations for TG's.
Granted this is not a scientific survey of public opinion and people that think alike tend to friend each other on Facebook. These responses came from a public group having to do with Border Control and it gives you some indication of how people in America are reacting to this change within our military... Note that the purpose of the Facebook page was border control so these people were not on that page with intent to discuss gays and gay bash. While the OP is not related to border control, nonetheless it elicited a response and people let go with their feelings on the subject and suffice it to say they aren't happy to see these changes. Aside from places like Key West and San Francisco, you will probably find most people in America share similar sentiments about both the changes that Obama has made to our military [which clearly isn't making them feel safer] and their tax dollars being wasted on operations for TG's.
Disgraceful: U.S. Military Now Allowing Soldiers To Cross-Dress
The military has undergone some controversial changes under Obama's presidency. In December, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that women would b...
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SPC Angela Burnham - Oy . . . piling numbers in numbers has no basis in reality.
Please see RAND Corporation Executive Summary and Fully Detailed Final Report here . . .
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html
Impact of Transgender Personnel on Readiness and Health Care Costs in the U.S. Military Likely to Be Small
The study estimates the number of transgender individuals currently serving in the active component of the U.S. military at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of a total of about 1.3 million service members. However, not all of these transgender service members would be expected to seek medical treatment related to their gender status or become nondeployable.
The study estimates that between 30 and 140 new hormone treatments could be initiated a year and 25 to 130 gender transition-related surgeries could be utilized a year among active component service members. Additional health care costs could range between $2.4 million and $8.4 million, representing an approximate 0.13-percent increase.
In terms of readiness, RAND estimates that 10 to 130 active component members each year could have reduced deployability as a result of gender transition-related treatments. This amount is negligible relative to the 102,500 nondeployable soldiers in the Army alone in 2015, 50,000 of them in the active component.
The RAND Corporation Fully Detailed Final Report is downloadable for free here . . .
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html
CW2 Lindsey Muller LTJG (Join to see)
Cpl (Join to see) MSG Mitch Dowler 1SG (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. SPC George Rudenko MSgt Curtis Ellis
SSG(P) (Join to see) MSgt Aaron Brite SGT (Join to see)
1stSgt (Join to see) CPT L S CPT T F CSM Michael Chavaree
MAJ (Join to see) SFC (Join to see) MSgt (Join to see)
Please see RAND Corporation Executive Summary and Fully Detailed Final Report here . . .
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html
Impact of Transgender Personnel on Readiness and Health Care Costs in the U.S. Military Likely to Be Small
The study estimates the number of transgender individuals currently serving in the active component of the U.S. military at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of a total of about 1.3 million service members. However, not all of these transgender service members would be expected to seek medical treatment related to their gender status or become nondeployable.
The study estimates that between 30 and 140 new hormone treatments could be initiated a year and 25 to 130 gender transition-related surgeries could be utilized a year among active component service members. Additional health care costs could range between $2.4 million and $8.4 million, representing an approximate 0.13-percent increase.
In terms of readiness, RAND estimates that 10 to 130 active component members each year could have reduced deployability as a result of gender transition-related treatments. This amount is negligible relative to the 102,500 nondeployable soldiers in the Army alone in 2015, 50,000 of them in the active component.
The RAND Corporation Fully Detailed Final Report is downloadable for free here . . .
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html
CW2 Lindsey Muller LTJG (Join to see)
Cpl (Join to see) MSG Mitch Dowler 1SG (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. SPC George Rudenko MSgt Curtis Ellis
SSG(P) (Join to see) MSgt Aaron Brite SGT (Join to see)
1stSgt (Join to see) CPT L S CPT T F CSM Michael Chavaree
MAJ (Join to see) SFC (Join to see) MSgt (Join to see)
Impact of Transgender Personnel on Readiness and Health Care Costs in the U.S. Military Likely to...
The U.S. Department of Defense has been reviewing its policy that bans transgender personnel from serving openly. If transgender people were allowed to serve openly, the number would likely be a small fraction of the total force and have minimal impact on readiness and health care costs.
Cpl (Join to see)
I would hope that "budgets" are the defining order of things. We all know that when the budget of a dept is dry, everything in that dept is effected. Which is more important, restoring a combat/training injury or psychological counseling with "elective" surgeries and hormone treatments? I know for a fact military clinics/hospitals take budget into account when performing even routine procedures. I waited 2 years for a procedure because they "deemed" it non-critical.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Cpl (Join to see) - I was not speaking about whether the priorities and projected budgets are reasonable . . . only that they are closer to $5-10MM / year . . . not $150MM as originally proposed and bandied about in the discussion of the question, Frankly, this is not even a drop on the bucket in the overall scheme of things . . . affects maybe 65 of the 2600 or so TS/TG troops . . . and achieves the constitutional goal of equal protection. If we fight over this issue we waste valuable policy maker, senior officer, and court time. Even if you support illegally discriminatory practices . . . orders are orders . . . it is done now . . . and all the complaining and second guessing is not going to turn back the clock. Warmest Regards, Sandy
(1)
(0)
SPC Angela Burnham
Thanks for this wonderful data 1st Lieutenant. While I am aware of RAND's findings, and have great respect for their organization, I believe the Palm Research Center give a more accurate assessment regarding the transgender population in the military. The cost is negligible either way however, the numbers I came up with were just ballpark figures, and it changes drastically depending how many people you count as transgender, and how many of that sample would want any sort of medical intervention.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google