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