tax payer funded sex change operation for inmate.

[DeletedUser]

I'll bet i can find some "medical experts" and a judge that are convinced removing this mole is a medical necessity.
Even judges and doctors are influenced by a worldview.

Well that depends is your mole cancerous.

 

[DeletedUser]

The penal system in america has been the same for many years it is a government funded operation and the government is funded by the people. This agreement is fine as long as we lock these people dont feed them and dont clothe them but by god when we take care of another human life that is just a burden on my tax dollars. If a doctor deemed it a necessity then that is what it is we pay for these people to live their life out in prison this wont raise my taxes by to much more as they are anyway so fine with it, sure i wont even see a difference.

I am not saying "don't feed them, clothe them and give them medical care". I am saying: "have them subject to a co-pay like any insured covered person". As person A can appeal to family and friends to cover the co-pay, so can the inmate.

And in America there are ways of gaining governmental help for your patient A.

= Well-fare ... yeh I am not very fond of it.
If person A didn't have to pay so many taxes to cover for so many "governmental help programs", he would be able to pay for himself.

Which is the main reason republicans want Obama and the democratic party out of office because they refer to your patient A as a leech on society.

Now that is just plain wrong and uncalled for.
PS: forgot to mention that I am not a republican

 

[DeletedUser]

Spoken like a true tyrant. FYI, citizens have the right to propose bills. The fact that this does not happen in a million years, it does not meant that it is not possible. Thus, every person is as legislatively competent as Congress.
Plus, everybody is entitled to an opinion about anything in a Debate and Discussion thread. We are not passing a law, nor denying anybody any kind of right. We have the right to be appalled by the loopholes and the advantage some take of the system.

So let's get this straight: I'm the one arguing for observance of the Bill of Rights as it has been instituted and you're the one arguing for its arbitrary suspension in this case, and YOU are calling ME the tyrant? Ok then.

You are aware that the competent, authorised and appointed authorities ruled on this that it was not a loophole or taking advantage after carefully considering alll the circumstances. However, with a bare fraction of their experience, expertise and knowledge and only partial possession of the facts you are saying they are wrong.
Sure, you are entitled to your opinion and your outrage, just as I'm entitled to say I don't attach much weight to either.

 

[DeletedUser]

I brought this up to some people the other day and their response was that this guy is signing his own death sentence. they say woman's prison is a lot tougher.

 

[DeletedUser]

So let's get this straight: I'm the one arguing for observance of the Bill of Rights as it has been instituted and you're the one arguing for its arbitrary suspension in this case, and YOU are calling ME the tyrant? Ok then.

You are aware that the competent, authorised and appointed authorities ruled on this that it was not a loophole or taking advantage after carefully considering alll the circumstances. However, with a bare fraction of their experience, expertise and knowledge and only partial possession of the facts you are saying they are wrong.
Sure, you are entitled to your opinion and your outrage, just as I'm entitled to say I don't attach much weight to either.

Not for your arguing point, but for your view towards all the posters. Yes, you spoke like a tyrant. Something like: "we are all equal, just that some are more equal than others". This is the way you talk about all those " competent" people, who are elected and can be changed at any time is necessary. Because they are put there to represent us all. And just because they are authorized and appointed authorities, it does not necessary means that they are definitely smarter than any of us.
Loopholes can be found anywhere there are rules. And if you have nothing to cover it, you cannot rule otherwise. Just like the guy who left the wheel and went in the back to sleep, because the motorhome manufacturers did not include in the manual that you cannot leave the wheel even when it is in automatic mode (basically cruise control). The guy sued after wrecking his motorhome, won and the manufacturer had to include "do not leave the wheel" in their manuals. Just because they ruled in favor, it does not mean it was not considered a loophole that could be corrected in the future.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

I brought this up to some people the other day and their response was that this guy is signing his own death sentence. they say woman's prison is a lot tougher.

Hmm than why would the judge let him do that?never knew that some of the government of US might be possibly corrupt .

well to be honest he was a lady in a man body lets give "her" a break?I think this might be why the judge ordered his order he thought it would be best for the convict and he might felt sorry for the guy....gal..

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm than why would the judge let him do that?never knew that some of the government of US might be possibly corrupt .

well to be honest he was a lady in a man body lets give "her" a break?I think this might be why the judge ordered his order he thought it would be best for the convict and he might felt sorry for the guy....gal..

and something to note the guy was in prison in the first place for killing his wife.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

and something to note the guy was in prison in the first place for killing his wife.

Than why in earth would the freaking judge order such thing?

 

[DeletedUser]

Than why in earth would the freaking judge order such thing?

Us people from Massachusetts have always been known for are backwards thinking..... I mean innovative forward thinking, but this is ridicules.

need I say more.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

and something to note the guy was in prison in the first place for killing his wife.

Real life is so funny sometimes. Maybe he/she gets their wish and spends the rest of his/her life in a womens prison and catches the eye of the biggest bull dyke there ? Hopefully one thats also in there for killing their "lover" :whistle:

 

[DeletedUser]

Now that is just plain wrong and uncalled for.
PS: forgot to mention that I am not a republican

Your right that was a bit uncalled for and off topic and to be honest i didn't figure you were a republican it wasn't meant towards you directly but in general.

The real point i wanted to make was simply we set this institution (penal system) into effect so we must take it as it is. Nothing within the setup is perfect but rarely that is the case in any governmental funded system.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your right that was a bit uncalled for and off topic and to be honest i didn't figure you were a republican it wasn't meant towards you directly but in general.

The real point i wanted to make was simply we set this institution (penal system) into effect so we must take it as it is. Nothing within the setup is perfect but rarely that is the case in any governmental funded system.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, though our views upon what needs to be changed and to what is different. That's what makes these debates good. If we all agreed it would be boring.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am not saying "don't feed them, clothe them and give them medical care". I am saying: "have them subject to a co-pay like any insured covered person". As person A can appeal to family and friends to cover the co-pay, so can the inmate.

lol, co-pay. Umm, you do realize the government will still be tasked to pay the bulk of the cost. And if they don't have relatives to borrow from, they should go without medical care because they can't afford a co-pay?

You do understand that a co-pay exists for every visit, not for having coverage in the first place. For those who pay co-pays, they, their employers, or the government already pays for their medical coverage.

Sometimes, the things you say... omg!

I brought this up to some people the other day and their response was that this guy is signing his own death sentence. they say woman's prison is a lot tougher.

lol, and I'm sure they spent time in both the men's and women's correctional facilities. *rolls eyes*

and something to note the guy was in prison in the first place for killing his wife.

Indeed, there are many people who, at first, attempt to fit into society's expectations. Some eventually come to terms with their sexuality. Obviously this person shouldn't have even tried to fit in, but what does this have to do with the paying for a surgery? Nothing other than bigotry and presumption.

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed, there are many people who, at first, attempt to fit into society's expectations. Some eventually come to terms with their sexuality. Obviously this person shouldn't have even tried to fit in, but what does this have to do with the paying for a surgery? Nothing other than bigotry and presumption.

not so much paying for the surgery but where he is going to end up. a woman killer going into a maximum security woman's prison.
Don't you think their will be some pissed off women just waiting for him\her. just like their are probably some pissed off inmates in prisons waiting for that next former cop now con to come into the prison.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, co-pay. Umm, you do realize the government will still be tasked to pay the bulk of the cost. And if they don't have relatives to borrow from, they should go without medical care because they can't afford a co-pay?

You do understand that a co-pay exists for every visit, not for having coverage in the first place. For those who pay co-pays, they, their employers, or the government already pays for their medical coverage.

Sometimes, the things you say... omg!

Yes I do realize exactly what I am saying. Enforcing a co-pay can contribute to the reduction of inmates taking advantage of a free medical coverage.
I don't know when was the last time you went to visit a prison. I had the opportunity to visit one last year (took a tour). And what I saw was: most of the food came from fast foods, paid by the inmates through their own jail accounts. Family members can drop in as much as they want in there by paying a simple visit. And since they have enough money to order fast food every day, I am sure they can take care of a co-pay.
Co-pay depends on the treatment. Depending on the required intervention, insurance agencies may cover 50% or 80% (just an example). Usually for more expensive stuff, insurance covers a lower percentage. This will discourage them from taking advantage of the system. The surgery in question might not have been such a necessity if he had a co-pay of say 25%. And lets not forget that the necessity was probably induced by all those hormones he took. I do believe the female hormone treatment was not subsidized by the government as a necessity. So this proves he had plenty of money, was just a lot more appealing to him to take the "free" ride. Yes, co-pay will reduce the free loading.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi Duduie, you really should do your homework before making such claims. Prisoners are provided food, a necessity. If they want snacks, that will have to come out of their own pocket (the acct you're referring to). Medicap treatment is likewise provided, again a necessity. Your argument is invalid in this case precisely because the medical experts and the federal judge indicated the procedure was a necessity.

not so much paying for the surgery but where he is going to end up. a woman killer going into a maximum security woman's prison.
Don't you think their will be some pissed off women just waiting for him\her. just like their are probably some pissed off inmates in prisons waiting for that next former cop now con to come into the prison.

Umm, two problems with your notion:

1. some women in prison have killed women, some killed men, some killed their own kids, some killed other kids. Same with men. In fact, some male prisoners have a major issue with men who harmed women.

2. It is the correctional facility's responsibility to ensure all their inmates are reasonably safeguarded. If it's necessary, this person will be isolated, althoug he will likely be put in a protected population.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi Duduie, you really should do your homework before making such claims. Prisoners are provided food, a necessity. If they want snacks, that will have to come out of their own pocket (the acct you're referring to). Medicap treatment is likewise provided, again a necessity. Your argument is invalid in this case precisely because the medical experts and the federal judge indicated the procedure was a necessity.

My point was not that food is not provided. And yes I pointed out them using their accounts. My point was that they do use it intently for fast food and other stuff. Thus most have family helping/supporting them, thus they could afford a co-pay. And let me tell you, they don't buy just "snacks", but full on meals and they get charged more for the same burger/pizza we buy from a regular fast-food. Business is absolutely booming. I was in the middle of the tour when lunch came in. I was amazed.
My other point was that since the guy could afford the hormones, he could also afford at least a co-pay. But why not take advantage of a loophole, for something self induced/inflicted?! Why preserve some of the taxpayer's money by imposing a co-pay and use it for something like deficit and people who really need help, when it can be wasted on such necessities?! Necessities that won't really be as pressing when one has to pay...
The real damage done is that this case sets a precedent. It will open a can of worms. You just watch.

PS: Forgot to mention that we got a chance to taste the worst of the worst of prison food, which is provided for the ones in isolation once a day, full protein tasteless pack and it is not that bad. The fact that they chose to spend their money on fast food is not necessarily caused by bad prison food.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. some women in prison have killed women, some killed men, some killed their own kids, some killed other kids. Same with men. In fact, some male prisoners have a major issue with men who harmed women.

2. It is the correctional facility's responsibility to ensure all their inmates are reasonably safeguarded. If it's necessary, this person will be isolated, althoug he will likely be put in a protected population.

1. wouldn't there be a special hatred for this woman killing man in this woman's prison?

2. it is kind of hard to isolate someone in an overcrowded "correctional" facility. so with that being said they will put him\her with someone else.
just remember like cops, the guards are just minutes away when seconds count.

 

[DeletedUser]

I asked these question earlier, and nobody dared provide answers, instead dodging it altogether. Makes me wonder why:

1. Do you think the government should mandate what is and is not medical necessity?
2. Do you think bureaucrats and politicians should have the power to dismiss the determinations made by medical professionals as to whether a medical procedure is necessary?

My other point was that since the guy could afford the hormones, he could also afford at least a co-pay. But why not take advantage of a loophole, for something self induced/inflicted?!

You are, once again, making presumptions. Reread the article the article you posted and you'll see where you were wrong in your statements and conclusions.

Why preserve some of the taxpayer's money by imposing a co-pay and use it for something like deficit and people who really need help, when it can be wasted on such necessities?! Necessities that won't really be as pressing when one has to pay...

You are consistently IGNORING that the doctors hired by the Massachussetts Correctional Department indicated it was a medical necessity. The Federal Judge's participation here was ensuring the "existing" Federal laws were being abided by the State of Massachussetts.

The real damage done is that this case sets a precedent. It will open a can of worms. You just watch.

Indeed! It will set a precedent that when doctors make a medical determination, politicians and bureaucrats won't be so easily able to dismiss it offhand.

Sorry HS but it is ridiculous, I agree with the OP. It is completely unfair when law abiding citizens are dying of cancer because they cannot afford the treatment, with or without insurance coverage, but in the same time they are paying for inmates' cancer treatments and sex changes.

Indeed, and yet that's why Universal Health Care was mandated, to ensure medically unqualified businessmen and bureaucrats couldn't deny medical care and/or reasonably priced medical insurance to those suffering from potentially terminal issues. What I find most intriguing is that Gizmo (the original poster) and others raged against Universal Health Care in previous discussions, and now you're arguing alongside him on an issue that goes directly to the point of respecting everyone's right to medical care, particularly when doctors indicate necessity for such.

Go figure, aye?

1. wouldn't there be a special hatred for this woman killing man in this woman's prison?

Hmm, want me to repeat my earlier post? I suppose you think snitches don't gain a special hatred? Or baby killers? Etc? And yet you seem to be fixating on this one person, on one aspect, and trying to make a federal case... intriguing.

2. it is kind of hard to isolate someone in an overcrowded "correctional" facility. so with that being said they will put him\her with someone else.
just remember like cops, the guards are just minutes away when seconds count.

An erroneous assumption on your part as to how the correctional facility manages high risk convicts. In any event, your argument is no longer about whether this person should receive the medical treatment due to it being determined, by correctional facility doctors, as a necessity. You are saying they should deny this person "necessary medical treatment" because doing so poses a potential correctional facility hardship on housing "one" convict?!?

Wow... no wait, yeah... wow!

 

[DeletedUser]

An erroneous assumption on your part as to how the correctional facility manages high risk convicts. In any event, your argument is no longer about whether this person should receive the medical treatment due to it being determined, by correctional facility doctors, as a necessity. You are saying they should deny this person "necessary medical treatment" because doing so poses a potential correctional facility hardship on housing "one" convict?!?

you must think that prisons isolate everyone that comes into their facilities and think they have no problems. lets put it this way. they can not isolate every potential person that might have some risk inside the prison, if that where the case everyone would be isolated.