Moderator: Community Team
thegreekdog wrote:
I don't believe this is a legal conflict of interest. It may be a conflict of interest generally (and I think it is).
However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.
natty dread wrote:jimboston wrote:(Reuters) - A federal judge has ordered Massachusetts officials to pay for a convicted murderer's sex change operation, ruling that the state had violated the inmate's constitutional rights in denying the procedure.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... V820120905
How frickin' ridiculous is this?
Please don't bother trying to tell me it's a justified medical expense. It will just prove to me that you are more idiotic than this judge.
Honestly... how is this possible? Why are we not frickin' outraged?
Why should you be outraged? It's a legitimate procedure. Sexual dysphoria is a disease which requires treatment, which can be a sex-change operation.
What's ridiculous about it? Do you perhaps think that there are people who go to sex change operations "just for laughs"?
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
thegreekdog wrote:However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote: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.
jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:
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.
jimboston wrote:jonesthecurl wrote: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.
jonesthecurl wrote:jimboston wrote:jonesthecurl wrote: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?
spurgistan wrote:
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.
jonesthecurl wrote:jimboston wrote:jonesthecurl wrote: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?
Jimbo stone wrote: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.
Jim Boss-tone wrote:It's NOT A DISEASE...and It's NOT a LEGITIMATE procedure.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
jimboston wrote:Also... I DEMAND that those people who voted for Option 2 identify themselves forthwith.
PLAYER57832 wrote: I would be against ANY public funding for this..
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.
natty dread wrote:Can this thread be closed for bigotry and jimboston be given a ban according to the bigotry guidelines?
natty dread wrote:
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.)
natty dread wrote:Jim Boss-tone wrote: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.)
natty dread wrote:blah, blah, blah, blah
natty dread wrote:Can this thread be closed for bigotry and jimboston be given a ban according to the bigotry guidelines?
natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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?
Really, with no exaggeration?natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
If they want them when they get out of prison, they can pay themselves.. or do without like most people.natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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?
natty dread wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: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 wrote:Please explain how my comments a bigoted in any way.
jimboston wrote: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.
jimmy bots son wrote:1) Please don't edit my name. That should be a ban-able offense.
jimboston wrote:You are a stoopid self-righteous ass.
jimboston wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Give it a rest. not wanting to pay for someone else's sex change operation is hardly bigotry.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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).
PLAYER57832 wrote: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
PLAYER57832 wrote: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 wrote:natty dread wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: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?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users