Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

[thegreekdog]

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine and who has a vested financial interest in the surgery happening over your medical opinion.

Fixed.

Even with that potentially being true, it still would make more sense to go with the medical opinion of the physician, wouldn't it?

Sure. But the issue is not whether the doctor is correct; the issue is whether the state should pay for it. And the potentially self-interested doctor made that determination.

If I can also interject a pet peeve of mine - Doctors are trusted experts in the sense that some people will literally do anything a doctor says. And doctors have lots of power for that reason. So I hate it when doctors act in a manner that makes them scumbags. Which is what I think this is.

[Woodruff]

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine and who has a vested financial interest in the surgery happening over your medical opinion.

Fixed.

Even with that potentially being true, it still would make more sense to go with the medical opinion of the physician, wouldn't it?

Sure. But the issue is not whether the doctor is correct; the issue is whether the state should pay for it. And the potentially self-interested doctor made that determination.

If I can also interject a pet peeve of mine - Doctors are trusted experts in the sense that some people will literally do anything a doctor says. And doctors have lots of power for that reason. So I hate it when doctors act in a manner that makes them scumbags. Which is what I think this is.

I agree with you. On all counts.

[Funkyterrance]

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine and who has a vested financial interest in the surgery happening over your medical opinion.

Fixed.

Even with that potentially being true, it still would make more sense to go with the medical opinion of the physician, wouldn't it?

I agree, the physician also has his reputation to consider. It's not just all about performing as many surgeries as they can lol.

[thegreekdog]

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine and who has a vested financial interest in the surgery happening over your medical opinion.

Fixed.

Even with that potentially being true, it still would make more sense to go with the medical opinion of the physician, wouldn't it?

I agree, the physician also has his reputation to consider. It's not just all about performing as many surgeries as they can lol.

Oh, I'm sure the physician does think it's medically necessary. I'm not suggesting that the doctors are all sitting around thinking up ways they can make more money. The question is not whether the physician think it's medically necessary (although apparently that has become the question). The question is whether the state should pay for it. And the determination of whether the state should pay for it should not be made by a doctor.

[MeDeFe]

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine over your medical opinion.

Let me ask you... is Gender Identity Disorder a medical or mental condition.

Please answer the specific question asked.

Mental conditions fall within the parameters of medical conditions. Perhaps you meant "physical" instead of "medical"?

Thank you, I don't think I would have put it that succinctly.

[jimboston]

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine over your medical opinion.

Let me ask you... is Gender Identity Disorder a medical or mental condition.

Please answer the specific question asked.

Mental conditions fall within the parameters of medical conditions. Perhaps you meant "physical" instead of "medical"?

I was thinking about the wording of this last night.

Let me rephrase... is Gender Identity Disorder a Psychological/Psychiatric condition or a Physical condition?

[Symmetry]

Surely the state has made a decision to defer to the doctors it employs as to what is or isn't necessary. If an illness of any kind is politically unsavoury to the politicos in charge, should it go untreated when diagnosed and treatment is recommended?

The state already has an obligation to pay for medical treatment of those that it imprisons. The deciders of what or what isn't proper medical treatment shouldn't depend on politicians, but on medical diagnosis by medical professionals.

[thegreekdog]

Surely the state has made a decision to defer to the doctors it employs as to what is or isn't necessary. If an illness of any kind is politically unsavoury to the politicos in charge, should it go untreated when diagnosed and treatment is recommended?

The state already has an obligation to pay for medical treatment of those that it imprisons. The deciders of what or what isn't proper medical treatment shouldn't depend on politicians, but on medical diagnosis by medical professionals.

Why?

[Symmetry]

Surely the state has made a decision to defer to the doctors it employs as to what is or isn't necessary. If an illness of any kind is politically unsavoury to the politicos in charge, should it go untreated when diagnosed and treatment is recommended?

The state already has an obligation to pay for medical treatment of those that it imprisons. The deciders of what or what isn't proper medical treatment shouldn't depend on politicians, but on medical diagnosis by medical professionals.

Why?

Why what?

Do you object to the state paying for the medical expenses of its prisoners? The alternative is a gulag.

Or do you object to medical professionals deciding what is or isn't medically necessary?

[thegreekdog]

Surely the state has made a decision to defer to the doctors it employs as to what is or isn't necessary. If an illness of any kind is politically unsavoury to the politicos in charge, should it go untreated when diagnosed and treatment is recommended?

The state already has an obligation to pay for medical treatment of those that it imprisons. The deciders of what or what isn't proper medical treatment shouldn't depend on politicians, but on medical diagnosis by medical professionals.

Why?

Why what?

Do you object to the state paying for the medical expenses of its prisoners? The alternative is a gulag.

Or do you object to medical professionals deciding what is or isn't medically necessary?

The issue is not whether the prisoner gets treatment. The issue is whether the state pays for the treatment. I think the government is fully able to and should be fully able to determine whether it must pay for the treatment, whether the doctor says it's necessary or not.

[Symmetry]

Surely the state has made a decision to defer to the doctors it employs as to what is or isn't necessary. If an illness of any kind is politically unsavoury to the politicos in charge, should it go untreated when diagnosed and treatment is recommended?

The state already has an obligation to pay for medical treatment of those that it imprisons. The deciders of what or what isn't proper medical treatment shouldn't depend on politicians, but on medical diagnosis by medical professionals.

Why?

Why what?

Do you object to the state paying for the medical expenses of its prisoners? The alternative is a gulag.

Or do you object to medical professionals deciding what is or isn't medically necessary?

The issue is not whether the prisoner gets treatment. The issue is whether the state pays for the treatment. I think the government is fully able to and should be fully able to determine whether it must pay for the treatment, whether the doctor says it's necessary or not.

That seems like a rather disturbing principle. Essentially you're saying that medical diagnoses should be left to popular consensus rather than medical expertise with regards to implementation.

The issue, of course, is whether the prisoner gets treatment.

[jimboston]

blah, blah, blah

Why?

Why what?

Why did you bump this topic when it was essentially dead?

Why have you not answered Jim's question? Are you afraid?

[thegreekdog]

Surely the state has made a decision to defer to the doctors it employs as to what is or isn't necessary. If an illness of any kind is politically unsavoury to the politicos in charge, should it go untreated when diagnosed and treatment is recommended?

The state already has an obligation to pay for medical treatment of those that it imprisons. The deciders of what or what isn't proper medical treatment shouldn't depend on politicians, but on medical diagnosis by medical professionals.

Why?

Why what?

Do you object to the state paying for the medical expenses of its prisoners? The alternative is a gulag.

Or do you object to medical professionals deciding what is or isn't medically necessary?

The issue is not whether the prisoner gets treatment. The issue is whether the state pays for the treatment. I think the government is fully able to and should be fully able to determine whether it must pay for the treatment, whether the doctor says it's necessary or not.

That seems like a rather disturbing principle. Essentially you're saying that medical diagnoses should be left to popular consensus rather than medical expertise with regards to implementation.

The issue, of course, is whether the prisoner gets treatment.

I wish you would stop framing the issue as one about who gets to make the diagnosis when I've already indicated multiple times that this is not the issue. The doctor absolutely should make the diagnosis. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone other than the doctor should make the diagnosis. The issue is not whether the prisoner gets treatment. The prisoner could be diagnosed with a brain tumor by a doctor; the prisoner should have it operated on. The question then becomes who should pay for it. Does the patient pay for it? Does the doctor pay for it? Does the state pay for it? States make determinations as to who gets what money on a daily basis. I'm fairly sure you're familiar with how that works, so I'm struggling as to why this is so difficult for you to grasp right now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Because he doesn't want to argue about government provision v. not government provision?

[thegreekdog]

Because he doesn't want to argue about government provision v. not government provision?

WHAT? Are you saying he would prefer to argue about the propriety of perscribing sex change operations in general rather than the government paying for something? Is that what you're saying? I would never believe that of Symmetry! Of all people!