Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

[jimboston]

However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

I SAY AMEN!

PLAYER SPEAKS THE TRUTH.

I KNEW YOU WERE A SMART WOMAN PLAYER!

[jimboston]

Also... I DEMAND that those people who voted for Option 2 identify themselves forthwith.

Honestly... how can anyone vote for that option.

I may need to change the wording their (again).

[PLAYER57832]

Here are a couple of NPR stories.. just because they provides more information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =160585599

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654718 ... ery-ruling

There was a lot of negative commentary about this later.

Here's one comment from that forum that I liked.

(Even though the person leans to the left, the commentator obviously still has a brain.)

OK, I usually fall on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I'm feeling fuddy duddy conservative on this one. I am not against transgender people. I understand it is an inclination they cannot help. However, if it was so important to this woman, why didn't she have an operation before she landed in the Big House? She is IN JAIL. For MURDER. My tax dollars should not pay for her journey to self awareness. If she is having a heart attack or her leg is cut off, OK. But she is not in prison to be comfortable and have all her dreams fufilled. Transgender operations are NOT basic health care.

Yes, I agree as well. I would be against ANY public funding for this.. simply as a matter of "triage". If we had enough money and medical resources to provide everyone else what they NEED first, then.. maybe (but only maybe) it would be reasonable to consider paying for this for people who are not convicted of crimes. (not even tackling the is the surgary justified ever issue.. just not getting into that in this thread at all)

However, that doesn't happen. To provide criminals that which tax-paying and working citizens cannot get is just wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

The underlined is where I'm falling on this sex-change operation.

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

[spurgistan]

Here are a couple of NPR stories.. just because they provides more information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =160585599

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654718 ... ery-ruling

There was a lot of negative commentary about this later.

Here's one comment from that forum that I liked.

(Even though the person leans to the left, the commentator obviously still has a brain.)

OK, I usually fall on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I'm feeling fuddy duddy conservative on this one. I am not against transgender people. I understand it is an inclination they cannot help. However, if it was so important to this woman, why didn't she have an operation before she landed in the Big House? She is IN JAIL. For MURDER. My tax dollars should not pay for her journey to self awareness. If she is having a heart attack or her leg is cut off, OK. But she is not in prison to be comfortable and have all her dreams fufilled. Transgender operations are NOT basic health care.

Yes, I agree as well. I would be against ANY public funding for this.. simply as a matter of "triage". If we had enough money and medical resources to provide everyone else what they NEED first, then.. maybe (but only maybe) it would be reasonable to consider paying for this for people who are not convicted of crimes. (not even tackling the is the surgary justified ever issue.. just not getting into that in this thread at all)

However, that doesn't happen. To provide criminals that which tax-paying and working citizens cannot get is just wrong.

The Farmerist critique of this would be to say that the money exists to pay for these things, but we simply refuse to provide it. The injustice isn't that she got medical help doctors felt she needed while others go without, the injustice is that others go without.

[PLAYER57832]

The Farmerist critique of this would be to say that the money exists to pay for these things, but we simply refuse to provide it. The injustice isn't that she got medical help doctors felt she needed while others go without, the injustice is that others go without.

This is a true argument, but rather irrelevant, because we live in the real world. In the real world there just is neither funding nor resources to serve everyone right now.

That is why I referred specifically to "triage". Also, I do have a fundamental issue with paying for non-necessary things for convicted murderers. I realize there is a slippery slope there, but this definitely seems to have crossed over the ridge onto the other side.

[jonesthecurl]

I'd have thought that cutting off a criminal's meat and two veg would fit right in with a lot of right-wingers' preferences...

LOL

Depending on the crimes yes!

but not...
1) if the offender WANTS that.
2) if we have to "reconstruct" things down there after.

hMM. what if a criminal WANTS to be locked up? Or Executed?

[PLAYER57832]

I'd have thought that cutting off a criminal's meat and two veg would fit right in with a lot of right-wingers' preferences...

LOL

Depending on the crimes yes!

but not...
1) if the offender WANTS that.
2) if we have to "reconstruct" things down there after.

hMM. what if a criminal WANTS to be locked up? Or Executed?

There is an abundance of case law and real cases on that.

The one I remember most is the guy who asked to be executed in Utah. If I remember correctly, he was a Mormon, and had the belief that the only way to be forgiven for murder was if someone else killed him. (or some such)

There is also, of course, the folks who rob or such so they can be returned to prison.

Hmm... though if you want something interesting, albiet a tad off topic, look into the "suicide by proxy" bit. In the Middle Ages, this really happened. People would kill someone (innocent). That person, being innocent would go to heaven, the killer would have time to confess to a priest, and therefore be forgiven. Enough twisted minds saw this as logical that the church had to make specific proclomations and new laws were instituted.

[jimboston]

The Farmerist critique of this would be to say that the money exists to pay for these things, but we simply refuse to provide it. The injustice isn't that she got medical help doctors felt she needed while others go without, the injustice is that others go without.

1) He NOT She!

2) The injustice is that I have to pay for this faux treatment.

[jimboston]

I'd have thought that cutting off a criminal's meat and two veg would fit right in with a lot of right-wingers' preferences...

LOL

Depending on the crimes yes!

but not...
1) if the offender WANTS that.
2) if we have to "reconstruct" things down there after.

hMM. what if a criminal WANTS to be locked up? Or Executed?

I THAT case I would oblige the Offender!

[natty dread]

Can this thread be closed for bigotry and jimboston be given a ban according to the bigotry guidelines?

Oh, I almost forgot- this is CC where guys like NightStrike wield mod powers. Carry on then.

I am outraged because I am paying for it as a taxpayer in Massachusetts.

I am annoyed whenever I have to pay for someone else's medical care... but I understand (a bit) when it's a poor person or even someone incarcerated. I understand they need legitimate medical treatment and can't get it on their own. It annoys me... but I understand.

I am outrage when I have to pay for things that ARE NOT LEGITIMATE.

Right. You're a taxpayer so you should get to decide what your tax money is being spent on. Are you one of those guys who yells at police officers that you pay their salary? I think you probably are, although I don't want to make any assumptions.

(I think you are.)

It's NOT A DISEASE...and It's NOT a LEGITIMATE procedure.

Suddenly, I'm convinced you're right because you used capital letters.

(That was sarcasm, just FYI.)

Its particularly outrageous when you recognize that many other prisoners, some not even convicted yet (just being held for trial and therefore supposed to be considered innocent), and fully innocent kids are not getting care THEY need.

A lot of poor African children are not getting the food THEY need. Why should you rich Americans give food to the homeless Americans?

As much as I do think even killers should get reasonable medical treatment, to say that this convicted murderer has the "right" to an operation that might make him feel better about himself, but that is not necessary to save his life or to provide for the general safety of the population is just ridiculous.

So you're saying that prisoners who have depression or other mental problems shouldn't receive any medication or therapy at all? It seems like you're saying that.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

Who should provide them for them then?

Also... I DEMAND that those people who voted for Option 2 identify themselves forthwith.

Perhaps you should start a petition. If you get 1000 signatures, or "likes" on Facespace or whaterv, maybe those evil commies will come out from under your bed.

I would be against ANY public funding for this..

Yes, you only want your pet issues addressed, to hell with anyone else's problems, amirite?

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

[jimboston]

Can this thread be closed for bigotry and jimboston be given a ban according to the bigotry guidelines?

Please explain how my comments a bigoted in any way.

I don't believe that the Taxpayer should pay for Sex Change operations for any reason ever.

I don't equate the "need" for sex change on par with broken bones, cancer, or high cholesterol.

If you're gonna make a comment like this... please support it with evidence.

[jimboston]

Right. You're a taxpayer so you should get to decide what your tax money is being spent on. Are you one of those guys who yells at police officers that you pay their salary? I think you probably are, although I don't want to make any assumptions.

(I think you are.)

1) You'd be wrong.

2) Yes, I am a Taxpayer, so I should have input into how my tax dollars are spent... and I should be able to point out instances where the spending is unnecessary.

[jimboston]

It's NOT A DISEASE...and It's NOT a LEGITIMATE procedure.

Suddenly, I'm convinced you're right because you used capital letters.

(That was sarcasm, just FYI.)

1) Please don't edit my name. That should be a ban-able offense.

2) Yes... I saw the sarcasm. It was not effective.

[jimboston]

blah, blah, blah, blah

You are a stoopid self-righteous ass.

You make fun of "you Americans"... sitting in Finland.

Perhaps if you were from some poorer country your comments about what "you Americans" pay-for or not pay-for would carry weight. Being from Finlad it doesn't.

GFY

[PLAYER57832]

Can this thread be closed for bigotry and jimboston be given a ban according to the bigotry guidelines?

Give it a rest. not wanting to pay for someone else's sex change operation is hardly bigotry.

Its particularly outrageous when you recognize that many other prisoners, some not even convicted yet (just being held for trial and therefore supposed to be considered innocent), and fully innocent kids are not getting care THEY need.

A lot of poor African children are not getting the food THEY need. Why should you rich Americans give food to the homeless Americans?

Your sarcastic argument doesn't even make sense. Homeless Americans are needy and giving food to them is not taking away from poor African children. Their problems are distinct.

Paying for non critical surgaries for prisoners directly takes away from both other prisoners and people outside of prison needing assistance.

As much as I do think even killers should get reasonable medical treatment, to say that this convicted murderer has the "right" to an operation that might make him feel better about himself, but that is not necessary to save his life or to provide for the general safety of the population is just ridiculous.

So you're saying that prisoners who have depression or other mental problems shouldn't receive any medication or therapy at all? It seems like you're saying that.

Really, with no exaggeration?
This guy is and continues to recieve hormone treatments. I never said they should stop. (not a doctor, not going to decide that).

Basically, it would depend on the cost. We ARE limiting healthcare to everyone. Prisoners should not get better treatment than those outside of prison. Yet, they often do. That is just wrong.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

Who should provide them for them then?

If they want them when they get out of prison, they can pay themselves.. or do without like most people.
You like to pretend that costs don't matter, there is no triage, etc. That is just not reality.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

[natty dread]

Please explain how my comments a bigoted in any way.

Your transphobic assertions that trans-sexual people are not really the gender or sex they say they are, or that gender dysphoria is not a real thing, are bigotry. It's analoguous to claiming that all homosexuals are mentally insane.

Face it Jimbo, you're a bigot.

2) Yes, I am a Taxpayer, so I should have input into how my tax dollars are spent... and I should be able to point out instances where the spending is unnecessary.

You have, it's called voting. If the majority of people disagree with you and vote for people who disagree about your ideas about the proper usage of taxpayer money, then you're in the minority with your opinion. Or at least that's how it works in theory.

Either way, you don't get to opt out of taxes just because they get used to something you disagree with. You can't just say "I found out that 5% of these taxes go to paying XXX, so I'm going to pay 5% less taxes because I disagree with it". The world just doesn't work that way.

1) Please don't edit my name. That should be a ban-able offense.

But it isn't. Deal with it.

You are a stoopid self-righteous ass.

Thank you. You're a bigot troll so I'm going to take that as a compliment.

Perhaps if you were from some poorer country your comments about what "you Americans" pay-for or not pay-for would carry weight. Being from Finlad it doesn't.

Yes it does.

[natty dread]

Give it a rest. not wanting to pay for someone else's sex change operation is hardly bigotry.

Asserting that trans-people are all mentally insane (which is exactly what jimbo implied) is bigotry.

Your sarcastic argument doesn't even make sense. Homeless Americans are needy and giving food to them is not taking away from poor African children. Their problems are distinct.

Paying for non critical surgaries for prisoners directly takes away from both other prisoners and people outside of prison needing assistance.

Oh, so you're the one who gets to assess which operations are necessary and which aren't? Funny, I always thought it was the doctor who would do that.

Really, with no exaggeration?

Yes really. Depression is not physically life-threatening, so according to your standards, prisoners suffering from it shouldn't receive treatment for it, at least if it's paid by taxpayers.

Same goes for psychosis, schitzophrenia, anxiety, etc... the whole spectrum of personality disorders. All should go untreated because they're not "critical" or "life-threatening" (hey, if the prisoners try to harm themselves/others, you can always just strap them to their beds and force-feed them, no biggie).

This guy is and continues to recieve hormone treatments. I never said they should stop. (not a doctor, not going to decide that).

So why draw the line at that? If you're ok with the treatments in general, why is the operation such a big deal?

Basically, it would depend on the cost. We ARE limiting healthcare to everyone. Prisoners should not get better treatment than those outside of prison. Yet, they often do. That is just wrong

So why is your solution worsening the healthcare of prisoners, instead of improving the healthcare of everyone else?

If they want them when they get out of prison, they can pay themselves.. or do without like most people.
You like to pretend that costs don't matter, there is no triage, etc. That is just not reality.

So, would you say that a mentally ill person should pay for their own medications, or "do without"? That if you suffer from depression, you should pay for your own doctor, your own anti-depression medication, and if you can't pay for them, just "do without"?

Or, are you like Jimbo, and also asserting that gender dysphoria is "not a legitimate condition" despite there being tons of evidence of it being such? Is this a religious thing? Like, you shouldn't change what god made you into and so on? And if so, don't you think religion should be kept separate from politics?

[PLAYER57832]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

I see, so according to you conservatives and right wingers never do that?

Even in these threads, the right is far more represented by close-minded individuals than the left. Note, I don't agree with Natty, but your accusation against liberals in general was highly biased to the point of representing what you yourself are attacking.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

I see, so according to you conservatives and right wingers never do that?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Even in these threads, the right is far more represented by close-minded individuals than the left. Note, I don't agree with Natty, but your accusation against liberals in general was highly biased to the point of representing what you yourself are attacking.

Again, completely irrelevant.


I'm just tired of seeing natty's ignorant and close-minded (oooh! and bigoted in a bad way!) strawman argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Give it a rest. not wanting to pay for someone else's sex change operation is hardly bigotry.

Asserting that trans-people are all mentally insane (which is exactly what jimbo implied) is bigotry.

Asserting that homosexuals are insane IS very much bigotry. Transgenderism is still more controversial. More evidence is needed before you can flat out claim anyone disagreeing is just a "bigot". Also, context matters. Saying "I don' think this is a legitimate illness" is a legitimate argument when the question is should we be paying for this surgery. Saying someone is mentally ill is, in THIS context, an opinion pertinent to the subject, it is not a slur. If he were saying "hey, these people just don't deserve to live", then maybe. However, I can find posts where you yourself have called people "insane" (and yes, I am guilty as well) simply for disagreeing.

Freedom means allowing a diversity of opinion, not that anyone who disagrees with anyone else is automatically a bigot. Open discussion means allowing people to express opinions, find facts to back them up. Rather than calling him a bigot, why not ask him to provide legitimate sources to back up his beliefs ... and provide some of your own. That said, for most of us whether transgenders should get surgery at all for that condition is actually irrelevant.

Your sarcastic argument doesn't even make sense. Homeless Americans are needy and giving food to them is not taking away from poor African children. Their problems are distinct.

Paying for non critical surgaries for prisoners directly takes away from both other prisoners and people outside of prison needing assistance.

Oh, so you're the one who gets to assess which operations are necessary and which aren't? Funny, I always thought it was the doctor who would do that.

In the real world, in the US, its generally an insurance company that decides. When it comes to prisoners and such, then it does fall to the voters.

I WISH it were just up to doctors. But, even in that scenario, there is still the point of "triage".

Really, with no exaggeration?

Yes really. Depression is not physically life-threatening, so according to your standards, prisoners suffering from it shouldn't receive treatment for it, at least if it's paid by taxpayers.

Same goes for psychosis, schitzophrenia, anxiety, etc... the whole spectrum of personality disorders. All should go untreated because they're not "critical" or "life-threatening" (hey, if the prisoners try to harm themselves/others, you can always just strap them to their beds and force-feed them, no biggie).

At some point, when kids are being denied vaccinations and food in school so the state can pay for drugs for prisoners.. yes, we have to make limits.

The problem is not the basic idea that limits must exist. The issue is that they need to be made based on evidence, within an intelligent framework. In any case, the idea of taxpayers having to pay for an UNUSUAL surgary that most insurance companies won't pay for, that most law-abiding citizens, who may be equally in need cannot get.. is just wrong.

This guy is and continues to recieve hormone treatments. I never said they should stop. (not a doctor, not going to decide that).

So why draw the line at that? If you're ok with the treatments in general, why is the operation such a big deal?

Cost, and need. This surgery is not covered by most insurance plans. That alone, says there is some justification for denying payment. Though I don't think the insurance standard should be "the standard," it does point to this being an issue reasonably worth consideration and not just automatic approval.

Basically, it would depend on the cost. We ARE limiting healthcare to everyone. Prisoners should not get better treatment than those outside of prison. Yet, they often do. That is just wrong

So why is your solution worsening the healthcare of prisoners, instead of improving the healthcare of everyone else?

Necessity. To claim I am not for care for everyone is to deny most of what I have written on the subject and to go off on a tangent. None-the-less, whether we like it or not, we are not, tommorrow or anytime soon going to get universal healthcare. Even if we did, there is still going to be a limit to the number of doctors practicing in some specialties, some areas, etc.

Its triage. Triage is one of the nastiest words there is in health care, particularly emergency services, because it means you actually let some people die, BUT, it is a standard of protocols that assess how to best utilize limited resources (of ANY type) to do the most good for the most people. Triage says you turn your back on some people you might otherwise try to save, BUT you are then able to save many more as a result.

Stop trying to pretend the world is ideal and that everything is just an obscure intellectual excercise. You sound like a fanatic, not a sensible person when you ignore reality.

If they want them when they get out of prison, they can pay themselves.. or do without like most people.
You like to pretend that costs don't matter, there is no triage, etc. That is just not reality.

So, would you say that a mentally ill person should pay for their own medications, or "do without"? That if you suffer from depression, you should pay for your own doctor, your own anti-depression medication, and if you can't pay for them, just "do without"?

That IS what happens, that is my point. Millions of people DO have to "go without", not just for psycotic medications, but for blood pressure, cancer, other medications.

In addition, you have some factory limitations that have nothing to do with ability to pay. Right now, in PA, for example, there has been a shortage in adderol in some areas. Certain cancer drugs are limited. U

Or, are you like Jimbo, and also asserting that gender dysphoria is "not a legitimate condition" despite there being tons of evidence of it being such? Is this a religious thing? Like, you shouldn't change what god made you into and so on? And if so, don't you think religion should be kept separate from politics?

Oh please. I am not weighing in on that, except to say that it is more controversial than the idea of homosexuality being something inherent. I mean, from the liberal side, there is a debate as well --- among other issues, if we are aiming for a gender equal society as our goal, then why would anyone even need to change. I am not debating this, but for you to just make such blanket statements shows YOU are not even trying to understand other people's perspectives and, to be honest, have not really looked fully at all the literature.

Tolerance goes many ways. Its not just about accepting people who are different.. its also about accepting people with whom you fundamentally disagree, and acknowledging that even if you dislike their ideas, they still have a fundamental right to those ideas and to express them.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

I see, so according to you conservatives and right wingers never do that?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Even in these threads, the right is far more represented by close-minded individuals than the left. Note, I don't agree with Natty, but your accusation against liberals in general was highly biased to the point of representing what you yourself are attacking.

Again, completely irrelevant.


I'm just tired of seeing natty's ignorant and close-minded (oooh! and bigoted in a bad way!) strawman argument.

Honestly, I am too. However, you did not just attack him, you very much DID make the statement that implies this is typical or common from the left, instead of just a factor of those at the extreme.

We need a diversity of opinion to have good discussions. I am not upset that Natty has a different view, though I am a tad irritated at him and others who often just go on the attack without really understanding or caring about the sheer complexity of ideas. But, we all are guilty at times.

[natty dread]

Asserting that homosexuals are insane IS very much bigotry. Transgenderism is still more controversial.

Oh, I see. Your pet issues matter. Everyone else: fuck them.

How can you even say that? Can you seriously not see the hypocrisy in your claim? It's like saying "racist against black people IS very much bigotry. Racism against asians is still more controversial".

More evidence is needed before you can flat out claim anyone disagreeing is just a "bigot".

No it's not. There are people who are suffering because they feel their body parts do not match their experience of their gender. Are you saying that those people's experiences are invalid? That you know better than them? Why not just classify them as "insane" like was done for homosexuals a few decades ago. Problem solved sweeped under the carpet.

Also, context matters. Saying "I don' think this is a legitimate illness" is a legitimate argument when the question is should we be paying for this surgery.

No, it doesn't matter. The ends do not justify the means. Would you tell a depressed patient to just suck it up and grow a pair because their "illness is not legitimate" and then justify it with "I don't want to be paying for your treatment so it's ok for me to say that"?

Saying someone is mentally ill is, in THIS context, an opinion pertinent to the subject, it is not a slur.

No... just, no. Here's a fun thought experiment for you: Replace transgender people with homosexuals and see how you feel about that sentence.

. If he were saying "hey, these people just don't deserve to live", then maybe.

Oh. Just "maybe"? Ok, everyone, Player thinks it's maybe wrong to assert that transgender people don't deserve to live. Maybe they should be allowed to live.

Player, I think you should check your cisgender privilege.

However, I can find posts where you yourself have called people "insane" (and yes, I am guilty as well) simply for disagreeing.

Maybe, but that still doesn't make it ok. The "but someone else also did it" is never a justification for anything.

Also, I've never classified an entire group of people as "insane" because of their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or other attributes. That makes all the difference.

Freedom means allowing a diversity of opinion, not that anyone who disagrees with anyone else is automatically a bigot. Open discussion means allowing people to express opinions, find facts to back them up. Rather than calling him a bigot, why not ask him to provide legitimate sources to back up his beliefs ... and provide some of your own.

So, now it's the "you have to be tolerant of peoples' intolerance" line? So if I'm calling out racists for calling black people n***ers, are you going to tell me that I should just let them voice their opinions?

That said, for most of us whether transgenders should get surgery at all for that condition is actually irrelevant.

I think it's pretty relevant.

At some point, when kids are being denied vaccinations and food in school so the state can pay for drugs for prisoners.. yes, we have to make limits.

So, first you put more people in prisons for more ridiculous sentences than any other civilized country. Then you're complaining that you have to pay for the healthcare of your prisoners.

I say, you made your bed, now lay in it.

The problem is not the basic idea that limits must exist. The issue is that they need to be made based on evidence, within an intelligent framework. In any case, the idea of taxpayers having to pay for an UNUSUAL surgary that most insurance companies won't pay for, that most law-abiding citizens, who may be equally in need cannot get.. is just wrong.

So again... why not campaign for the same treatment being available for non-prisoners instead of taking away from the ones that are in the worst possible position to defend themselves?

Cost, and need. This surgery is not covered by most insurance plans. That alone, says there is some justification for denying payment. Though I don't think the insurance standard should be "the standard," it does point to this being an issue reasonably worth consideration and not just automatic approval.

So, it appears you think insurance companies should be the ones deciding who gets what treatment. Funny - I keep thinking it should be up to the doctors to decide.

And "automatic approval" is a total red herring, that's not even what's in stake at here. Don't move the goalposts. "Automatic approval" is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to operations such as gender reassignment.

Necessity. To claim I am not for care for everyone is to deny most of what I have written on the subject and to go off on a tangent. None-the-less, whether we like it or not, we are not, tommorrow or anytime soon going to get universal healthcare. Even if we did, there is still going to be a limit to the number of doctors practicing in some specialties, some areas, etc.

Its triage. Triage is one of the nastiest words there is in health care, particularly emergency services, because it means you actually let some people die, BUT, it is a standard of protocols that assess how to best utilize limited resources (of ANY type) to do the most good for the most people. Triage says you turn your back on some people you might otherwise try to save, BUT you are then able to save many more as a result.

Stop trying to pretend the world is ideal and that everything is just an obscure intellectual excercise. You sound like a fanatic, not a sensible person when you ignore reality.

Aren't you being a bit overly dramatic here? It's not like you live in a 3rd-world country or anything - it's not like there's a shortage of malaria shots and you need to decide which 6/10 of the children in your family get vaccinations and assess which ones are least likely to die of starvation or scurvy anyway.

Maybe if you stop wasting so much money into supporting insurance companies, bailing out banks, subsidizing oil & coal and playing world police, you could use that money for healthcare.

That IS what happens, that is my point. Millions of people DO have to "go without", not just for psycotic medications, but for blood pressure, cancer, other medications.

Really? That's insane. Why wouldn't you give medications to those people? In my country, the state pays for the necessary medications of anyone who's too poor to afford to buy them, and even pays part of the cost for people who just have low income. We've yet to go bankrupt because of it. We've yet to have to deny surgery to transgender patients because of it, or even consider matters of "triage".

Oh please. I am not weighing in on that, except to say that it is more controversial than the idea of homosexuality being something inherent. I mean, from the liberal side, there is a debate as well --- among other issues, if we are aiming for a gender equal society as our goal, then why would anyone even need to change.

Seriously? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard this whole week. Just think about it for a while.

I am not debating this, but for you to just make such blanket statements shows YOU are not even trying to understand other people's perspectives and, to be honest, have not really looked fully at all the literature.

Sorry, but I don't need to read Mein Kampf to know that racism is wrong.

Tolerance goes many ways. Its not just about accepting people who are different.. its also about accepting people with whom you fundamentally disagree, and acknowledging that even if you dislike their ideas, they still have a fundamental right to those ideas and to express them.

And I have the right to call them out on their bullshit.

It's been fun, let's do this again sometime.

[patches70]

I think natty should take up the cause and offer to pay for the inmate in question's sex change operation. After all, someone will have to pay for it. It would be better for someone who is willing to pay for it rather than confiscate from people who are not willing.

Wouldn't you agree natty? Or do you believe that if a person is against something, for whatever reason, that they must be forced through the power and violence of The State to comply even if their objections are not unlawful?

It is not unlawful for a Player or an OP to object to being force to pay for this inmate's procedure. Are you saying it's all right to say "Screw you", reach into their wallet and just take the funds anyway?

You're for the procedure, you pay for it then. Simple, expedient and fair. Voluntary charity is better than coerced...um...charity. Can it be called charity if it's coerced? I'll have to look into that....