Conquer Club

Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Is it right for the Federal Gov't to force Massachusetts to Pay for Inmates Sex Change?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby patches70 on Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:39 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:1. Fat people suffer from a disease which prevents them from reducing their fatness.
2. Suppose these fat people are in jail.

3.Therefore, in order for them to be the thin people which they internally idealize, they should be provided elective surgery at the taxpayers' expense.


Hey, the First Lady is out there saying obesity is a National Security Threat. Apply that designation to something and damn right, taxpayer's pay.
Not only that, if it truly is a National Security Threat, then it would get worse than simply taxpayers paying for elective surgeries. much worse. You'd find yourself in a bad way if you happened to be obese. What does the United States typically do with National Security Threats?
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby MeDeFe on Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:16 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:1. Fat people suffer from a disease which prevents them from reducing their fatness.
2. Suppose these fat people are in jail.

3.Therefore, in order for them to be the thin people which they internally idealize, they should be provided elective surgery at the taxpayers' expense.

Some people are morbidly fat as a consequence of disease.
If, as a result of disease, they're so fat that they need specially reinforced and oversized beds, chairs, toilets, doorways, etc, have special dietary needs, need medication and so on, and surgery could fix all that for good, surgery should be considered and undertaken if it is recommended by medical professionals and the patient in question wishes to have it.

You were talking about obesity and not just 10 kilogram over a BMI of 25, right?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:22 pm

Hey, if we get scientific consensus on #1, then we can justify elective surgeries for all imprisoned fat people.

It may not matter how fat one is because the person may perceive his or her ideal self as thinner. It's relative, and in a sense similar to the woman being born in the body of a man. "I shouldn't physically look like this because I perceive myself as this ideal form."
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:57 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:1. Fat people suffer from a disease which prevents them from reducing their fatness.
2. Suppose these fat people are in jail.

3.Therefore, in order for them to be the thin people which they internally idealize, they should be provided elective surgery at the taxpayers' expense.

Some people are morbidly fat as a consequence of disease.
If, as a result of disease, they're so fat that they need specially reinforced and oversized beds, chairs, toilets, doorways, etc, have special dietary needs, need medication and so on, and surgery could fix all that for good, surgery should be considered and undertaken if it is recommended by medical professionals and the patient in question wishes to have it.

You were talking about obesity and not just 10 kilogram over a BMI of 25, right?


If the medical definition of obesity changes such that "10 kilogram over a BMI of 25" (whatever the hell that means... HAHAHA... damn Europeans with their silly English) is considered obese, then we would include those people in the list of people that must have surgeries paid for by the state. Right? And wouldn't doctors, who get paid to do the surgeries, want to define obese people under a more liberal definition so they could get paid by the state to do those surgeries?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Dukasaur on Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:57 pm

In my internal self-image, I look like Rambo.

Maybe I can go to an American jail and get free steroids?
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:05 pm

Dukasaur wrote:In my internal self-image, I look like Rambo.

Maybe I can go to an American jail and get free steroids?


Yes, but only if the following happen:

Pharmaceutical companies who develop and sell steroids convince doctors (whom they pay and take golfing and the like) to identify steroid abusers as having a mental illness. Then the doctors say that steroid abusers have a mental illness. Then the pharmaceutical companies and doctors lobby the state government to require the state to pay for steroids to give to people with mental illnesses. The state government, with bipartisan support (due to all the loot thrown around by pharmaceutical companies and doctors) pass the law.

Oh, and if we want to live in la la fantasy land where Democrats care about regular people and are socialists and Republicans only care about big companies and are fatcats, then the Democrats would vote for the bill to take care of those poor prisoners and Republicans would vote for the bill to take care of those poor pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

That's United States representative government in action!
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Timminz on Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:06 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Pharmaceutical companies who develop and sell steroids convince doctors (whom they pay and take golfing and the like) to identify steroid abusers as having a mental illness. Then the doctors say that steroid abusers have a mental illness. Then the pharmaceutical companies and doctors lobby the state government to require the state to pay for steroids to give to people with mental illnesses. The state government, with bipartisan support (due to all the loot thrown around by pharmaceutical companies and doctors) pass the law.

Oh, and if we want to live in la la fantasy land where Democrats care about regular people and are socialists and Republicans only care about big companies and are fatcats, then the Democrats would vote for the bill to take care of those poor prisoners and Republicans would vote for the bill to take care of those poor pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

That's United States representative government in action!


This might be the best example of American politics I've ever read.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:51 pm

Dukasaur wrote:In my internal self-image, I look like Rambo.

Maybe I can go to an American jail and get free steroids?


It is your normative-guided Progressive right to do so!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:36 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Jimbostan, in fairness, saying "he followed the law" IS a relevant response to "oust this activist judge"

Judges ARE limited in what they can rule. You claimed this was some outlandish activist judge. Symmetry responded that he followed the law. If you dislike the law, you change the law, you don't try to oust the judge.

To disagree with the judge's ruling, as opposed to the actual rules themselves, you would have to study previous higher court rulings, the laws those rulings were based upon, etc. If you found he ruled in a manner significantly different from the LOCAL precedents (doesn't matter what other areas, judges decide.. he is bound by rulings in his area), THEN you might have a legitimate "activist judge" claim.

So far, though I disagree with this guys ruling, I also acknowledge it is consistant with prior rulings regarding prisoners. I think the rules need to be changed.


I disagree.

The idea of paying for this is so far out of the norm that people are outraged.

Liberal minded people think it's fine for the killer to get the surgery if he paid for it himself... or perhaps maybe... possibly... if money wasn't an issue the State could pay for it.

Right minded people think it's ridiculous in any number of ways.... but they are outraged at the fact that they (we) have to pay for it.

Only a very small minority thinks it makes sense.

it's an activist ruling. Common Law is based on Common Sense and this decision makes no sense.

Oh... and I have every right as a Taxpayer to call for this Judge to be ousted.

Also... please don't compare this guy's "right to having a free sex-change operation" to black people's right to vote or gay people's right to get married. They are not tied together in any way shape or form.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:04 pm

jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Jimbostan, in fairness, saying "he followed the law" IS a relevant response to "oust this activist judge"

Judges ARE limited in what they can rule. You claimed this was some outlandish activist judge. Symmetry responded that he followed the law. If you dislike the law, you change the law, you don't try to oust the judge.

To disagree with the judge's ruling, as opposed to the actual rules themselves, you would have to study previous higher court rulings, the laws those rulings were based upon, etc. If you found he ruled in a manner significantly different from the LOCAL precedents (doesn't matter what other areas, judges decide.. he is bound by rulings in his area), THEN you might have a legitimate "activist judge" claim.

So far, though I disagree with this guys ruling, I also acknowledge it is consistant with prior rulings regarding prisoners. I think the rules need to be changed.


I disagree.

The idea of paying for this is so far out of the norm that people are outraged.

That is irrelevant. A judge's job is not to decide what he likes and does not like, its to decide what is legal and what is not, within the boundaries he is given.
jimboston wrote:Liberal minded people think it's fine for the killer to get the surgery if he paid for it himself... or perhaps maybe... possibly... if money wasn't an issue the State could pay for it.

Right minded people think it's ridiculous in any number of ways.... but they are outraged at the fact that they (we) have to pay for it.

Again, this is essentially irrelevant. The question, for the judge is what is required by law. His ruling is not "this is a good think.. go for it", its "the law says we have to provide care dicated by physicians.... his physician dictates this, so we have to provide it". The only question of "reasonable ness" up for consideration was whether the doctor had medical justification. That is, however, largely a medical decision, not a legal one. The court had already ruled that the prisoner should get hormones.
jimboston wrote:Only a very small minority thinks it makes sense.

it's an activist ruling. Common Law is based on Common Sense and this decision makes no sense.
Sense actually has very little to do with the law or judges ruling. The legislator gets to debate that part, whether a law should exist or makes sense. The judge just decides what the law is/means... and his ruling has to be based partially on higher court rulings (though greekdog may add in a qualification to that).

jimboston wrote:Oh... and I have every right as a Taxpayer to call for this Judge to be ousted.
I never disputed that. I simply said that to claim he is an "activist judge" just because he ruled in a way you dislike is wrong. You have no idea what his personal views are on this matter (and many judges go to great pains to NOT reveal their personal opinions).
A fair standard would be to see how well his rulings actually follow the law, including prior rulings. I mean, I would not have thought this guy should get hormone treatments, but per the article other courts ruled they were necessary and required.

jimboston wrote:Also... please don't compare this guy's "right to having a free sex-change operation" to black people's right to vote or gay people's right to get married. They are not tied together in any way shape or form.
Now I think you are confusing me with other people? I said earlier that I don't like this ruling. However, I also said that the answer was to get the law changed, not to claim this judge was acting wrong and needs to be ousted.

I have a VERY fundamental problem with people politicizing judgeships, claiming they ought to just rule in a way they like, instead of just working on changing the legislation upon which they rule.


Medical care for prisoners is something we need to consider as a society overall. There are plenty of questions brought up by this ruling. How much care, exactly do we owe convicted criminals... and should there be one standard for, say, thieves, and another for murderers and child rapists? I would say "yes", but that is just my opinion... (and for all that has been presented to date on this, it might well be the judge's opinion as well)
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Symmetry on Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:26 pm

That would require different standards of medical treatments to be part of the punishment for different crimes. As satisfying as it might be to say deny anesthetic to the rapists, or refuse cancer treatment to drug dealers, I just find the idea disturbing and illegal at worst, unimplementable and counterproductive at best.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:39 am

Symmetry wrote:That would require different standards of medical treatments to be part of the punishment for different crimes. As satisfying as it might be to say deny anesthetic to the rapists, or refuse cancer treatment to drug dealers, I just find the idea disturbing and illegal at worst, unimplementable and counterproductive at best.

OH come on Symmetry, we can well distinguish between using anesthetics/basic drugs and treatments costing hundreds of thousands that often don't offer real hope of cures (some cancer treatments, other disease treatments) controversial treatments that are not covered by MOST (if any) insurance (sex change operations, for example). In fact, as I indicated earlier.. insurance companies already set such limits for most everyone not in prison.

Again, this is not about denying prisoners BASIC medical treatment, it is about saying they should not get FAR BETTER treatment than those who are free and committed no crime, even those WITH INSURANCE, in many cases.

And.. we can quite well have different standards for different crimes. We already do, in fact.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:22 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Medical care for prisoners is something we need to consider as a society overall. There are plenty of questions brought up by this ruling. How much care, exactly do we owe convicted criminals... and should there be one standard for, say, thieves, and another for murderers and child rapists? I would say "yes", but that is just my opinion... (and for all that has been presented to date on this, it might well be the judge's opinion as well)


YOU TALK (TYPE) TOO MUCH!

Yes... we must provide medical care for prisoners. That's "the law"... though I won't calim to know (nor care about) the details... my understanding is that it's all based on the idea that punishment should not be "cruel or inhumaine".

I DON'T think there should be different standards of care based on the crime. I do think we could dicuss the responsibility of gov't as it pertains to "what" care is require... which would include the types of proceedures and also the proceedures as it relates to age / length of imprisonment. I don't think we should people people with "Life" sentences, who also happen to be 80 years of age on machines to keep them alive. I don't think "not" keeping someone alive (like that) is the same as saying we are "not being humaine". I could even make the arguement that putting somoene on a machine to keep them alive is inhumaine. This however is a different subject.

The "requirement" for the sex-change proceedure does not in my mind... or in the minds of most right-thinking people... reach a level in which said proceedure should be required and paid for by the taxes. I don't see how the law could be expanded to inclue this "proceedure" and I think it's a prime example of a judge pushing the boundaries of what the gov't is required to provide.

I don't think the gov't needs to provide a lot of the things is does regularly provide for convicted criminals. That said... I understand the prison system often takes a cost/benefit analysis approach to providing certain amenities. They have come to the conclusion that some things aren't required, but that it ultimately costs less to provide recreation activities, cable TV, and air conditioning.... only because it keeps prisoners quiet and helps control the population. The sex-change operation does not hae these benefits either.

FRANKLY, THE WHOLE IDEA THAT WE HAD TO SPEND COURT TIME EVEN DISCUSSING THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

Tax dollars already went to the lawyers of the Mass. Correctional system to defend the case... tax dollars went to the public provided lawyer (assuming) that fought for the murderer, and tax dollars were paid to the judge and courthouse used in the case. The entire process has been a waste of money.. The whole idea should have been "laughed out of court" before it even got before a judge.

No amount of "logic" will get me to change my stance here. The simple idea that I should ever be forced to pay for this is a travesty.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Symmetry on Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:36 pm

jimboston wrote:No amount of "logic" will get me to change my stance here.


Well, at least we've got down to the bare bones of your stance.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:42 am

Symmetry wrote:
jimboston wrote:No amount of "logic" will get me to change my stance here.


Well, at least we've got down to the bare bones of your stance.


Please notice the quotes around the word "logic".

If someone could make a compelling argument proving that this guy's "condition" was a "debilitating, painful, or life threatening disease" then I would say we should "fix" it if we can.

I don't believe his "condition" is debilitating, painful, or life threatening... and I also don't believe we can "fix" his condition through surgery or drugs.

My point being is that no one supporting this GUY has provided any LOGICAL reason why I should pay for his modification.... there's been a lot of "logic"... but not logic.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Woodruff on Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:39 pm

jimboston wrote:I don't believe his "condition" is debilitating, painful, or life threatening... and I also don't believe we can "fix" his condition through surgery or drugs.


Your belief versus doctor recommendations?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:50 pm

jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Medical care for prisoners is something we need to consider as a society overall. There are plenty of questions brought up by this ruling. How much care, exactly do we owe convicted criminals... and should there be one standard for, say, thieves, and another for murderers and child rapists? I would say "yes", but that is just my opinion... (and for all that has been presented to date on this, it might well be the judge's opinion as well)



Yes... we must provide medical care for prisoners. That's "the law"... though I won't calim to know (nor care about) the details... my understanding is that it's all based on the idea that punishment should not be "cruel or inhumaine".

I DON'T think there should be different standards of care based on the crime.
I do think we could dicuss the responsibility of gov't as it pertains to "what" care is require... which would include the types of proceedures and also the proceedures as it relates to age / length of imprisonment.

Now wait a second. First you say you don't want differing treatment... then you go on to say we should discuss it??
My position is that we should discuss it, and can make distinctions based on evidence (effectiveness of treatment, availability of care, consequences of no treatment, etc. )

jimboston wrote:I don't think we should people people with "Life" sentences, who also happen to be 80 years of age on machines to keep them alive. I don't think "not" keeping someone alive (like that) is the same as saying we are "not being humaine". I could even make the arguement that putting somoene on a machine to keep them alive is inhumaine. This however is a different subject.
Those are medical questions, and for the community at large not just prisoners. But yes, a different topic.

jimboston wrote:The "requirement" for the sex-change proceedure does not in my mind... or in the minds of most right-thinking people... reach a level in which said proceedure should be required and paid for by the taxes. I don't see how the law could be expanded to inclue this "proceedure" and I think it's a prime example of a judge pushing the boundaries of what the gov't is required to provide.
That is a medical question, not a legal one. That is my point. Whether you agree or I do is irrelevant. MY disagreement is over the doctor's pronouncement that this meets the standards of requirement for prisoner care, not the judge listening to the physicians. In fact, his argument states that... this is deemed medically required, so it must be approved.

Again, the problem is not with the judge, it is with the rules and perhaps the medical establishment.
jimboston wrote:I don't think the gov't needs to provide a lot of the things is does regularly provide for convicted criminals. That said... I understand the prison system often takes a cost/benefit analysis approach to providing certain amenities. They have come to the conclusion that some things aren't required, but that it ultimately costs less to provide recreation activities, cable TV, and air conditioning.... only because it keeps prisoners quiet and helps control the population. The sex-change operation does not hae these benefits either.
I agree on all of that. However,I still say calling the judge an activist judge is not just wrong, but the idea that those kinds of labels are appropriate is wrong. The fights should be with the legislator, not judges. Judges are to be judged on adherance to the law that is established... and that means prior rulings, not just how you or I see the law. In this case, it was already decided that this person had a problem warrenting hormone treatment, etc. Saying the operation should be covered was consistant. However, I think the rules should be rewritten (but not JUST for sex change issues...also other issues).
jimboston wrote:FRANKLY, THE WHOLE IDEA THAT WE HAD TO SPEND COURT TIME EVEN DISCUSSING THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

Tax dollars already went to the lawyers of the Mass. Correctional system to defend the case... tax dollars went to the public provided lawyer (assuming) that fought for the murderer, and tax dollars were paid to the judge and courthouse used in the case. The entire process has been a waste of money.. The whole idea should have been "laughed out of court" before it even got before a judge.

I would rather see money wasted in this manner than have what some other countries have where verdicts never get a chance to be truly argued in any court. That is the bottom line. We have to be very careful in curtailing such things... but the proper way is to lay out such limits more clearly in law, rather than leaving it up to doctors and a judge to decide. Doctors are obligated to protect patients, even prisoners. Judges are required to affirm the law, even when they disagree with the law.
jimboston wrote:No amount of "logic" will get me to change my stance here. The simple idea that I should ever be forced to pay for this is a travesty.

Never disputed that. But judges have to make rulings they themselves dislike all the time, because they are tasked with affirming the law, not changing it.... period.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:56 pm

Woodruff wrote:
jimboston wrote:I don't believe his "condition" is debilitating, painful, or life threatening... and I also don't believe we can "fix" his condition through surgery or drugs.


Your belief versus doctor recommendations?

Doctors are not gods. In fact, study after study shows doctors making stupid mistakes. Here's just one I plucked at random showing that medical mistakes kill 24,000 Canadians a year. Similar studies can be found in pretty much every country where stats are available.

So, doctors make plenty of bad decisions. Furthermore, it's not a 50/50 coin-flip scenario between suggesting too much treatment or not enough. Since they get paid by the procedure, doctors are much more likely to err in favour of unnecessary treatment than against it.

The people paying the bills are vilified when they question exorbitantly expensive procedures that doctors have ordered, but the truth is that very often they are justified in questioning them.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Funkyterrance on Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:38 pm

Well, you live in Taxachussets, you should be used to this sort of thing by now...
I, for one, am a little irritated by how you set up your poll so as to suggest that anyone who didn't agree with you is an idiot. Why bother?
I'm also wondering how much your pocketbook is affecting your judgement on this one? It seems to be your main complaint regarding the decision, the fact that "you" have to pay for it. You are just reinforcing the Masshole stereotype with your ignorant approach to the subject. I would also like you to ask yourself honesty if you personally have ever taken advantage of the "system" as it were? If so, you've got no ground to stand on my friend as that would make you quite the hypocrite.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Woodruff on Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:09 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
jimboston wrote:I don't believe his "condition" is debilitating, painful, or life threatening... and I also don't believe we can "fix" his condition through surgery or drugs.


Your belief versus doctor recommendations?


Doctors are not gods. In fact, study after study shows doctors making stupid mistakes.


Of course, they're human. And yet, does it actually make sense to take someone who is not involved in a profession's word (who is also a human) on a subject over that of professionals?

Dukasaur wrote:The people paying the bills are vilified when they question exorbitantly expensive procedures that doctors have ordered, but the truth is that very often they are justified in questioning them.


I don't have a problem with jimboston questioning it (if you look up in the thread, I don't agree with it either). I DO have a problem with his refusal to get past his own belief of the situation.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:19 am

Dukasaur wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
jimboston wrote:I don't believe his "condition" is debilitating, painful, or life threatening... and I also don't believe we can "fix" his condition through surgery or drugs.


Your belief versus doctor recommendations?

Doctors are not gods.

Neither are judges. Neither are politicians. The point isn't that this guy's ruling is good, its that the JUDGE rules upon the law.. and the law says prisoners get to have procedures doctors determine to be necessary. To dispute that is up to the medical profession (saying this is not a life-threatening condition, for example) OR up to the legislator to change the law. Its not up to the judge to dispute either of those arenas. His arena is the law, as it stands.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Vartiovuori on Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:21 am

So... Jimboston claims that Sexual Dysmorphism isn't a legitimate condition and it shouldn't be treated and calls everyone disagreeing with him idiots. Natty dread disagrees with Jimboston and claims that everyone who doesn't is a bigot, and possibly also a racist and worse! PLAYER57832 takes a moderate stance, provides well-though-out and interesting arguments and gets flamed by both sides. Am I missing something here?

As for my stance, I'd like to agree with Natty, but the way he argues makes that really hard to do. Surprisingly I tend more towards PLAYER57832's stance.
Sergeant 1st Class Vartiovuori
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Symmetry on Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:35 pm

Vartiovuori wrote:So... Jimboston claims that Sexual Dysmorphism isn't a legitimate condition and it shouldn't be treated and calls everyone disagreeing with him idiots. Natty dread disagrees with Jimboston and claims that everyone who doesn't is a bigot, and possibly also a racist and worse! PLAYER57832 takes a moderate stance, provides well-though-out and interesting arguments and gets flamed by both sides. Am I missing something here?

As for my stance, I'd like to agree with Natty, but the way he argues makes that really hard to do. Surprisingly I tend more towards PLAYER57832's stance.


There's always my stance- if it's a treatment recommended by the state's doctors, and the state has an obligation to provide medical treatment, then it should be provided.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:08 am

Vartiovuori wrote:So... Jimboston claims that Sexual Dysmorphism isn't a legitimate condition and it shouldn't be treated and calls everyone disagreeing with him idiots. Natty dread disagrees with Jimboston and claims that everyone who doesn't is a bigot, and possibly also a racist and worse! PLAYER57832 takes a moderate stance, provides well-though-out and interesting arguments and gets flamed by both sides. Am I missing something here?

As for my stance, I'd like to agree with Natty, but the way he argues makes that really hard to do. Surprisingly I tend more towards PLAYER57832's stance.


I claim that believing you're a woman, when you were born a man is a problem. I don't think it should have a name. Most people would just say "that's fucked up" and leave it at that. I'm not saying it's not an issue... I'm not saying it shouldn't be "treated". I am saying that it is not a "medical condition" that should be treated with tax payer dollars ever.

Yes... anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:20 am

jimboston wrote:
Vartiovuori wrote:So... Jimboston claims that Sexual Dysmorphism isn't a legitimate condition and it shouldn't be treated and calls everyone disagreeing with him idiots. Natty dread disagrees with Jimboston and claims that everyone who doesn't is a bigot, and possibly also a racist and worse! PLAYER57832 takes a moderate stance, provides well-though-out and interesting arguments and gets flamed by both sides. Am I missing something here?

As for my stance, I'd like to agree with Natty, but the way he argues makes that really hard to do. Surprisingly I tend more towards PLAYER57832's stance.


I claim that believing you're a woman, when you were born a man is a problem. I don't think it should have a name. Most people would just say "that's fucked up" and leave it at that. I'm not saying it's not an issue... I'm not saying it shouldn't be "treated". I am saying that it is not a "medical condition" that should be treated with tax payer dollars ever.

Yes... anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

Except, the judge did not rule on that issue. The doctor did.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users