ForumGarden

Maybe, if you're a convicted murderer:

Judge Orders Sex-Change Operation for Prisoner - Law Blog - WSJ

I just couldn't put that under "adequate medical care" myself.

valerie;1403406 wrote: I just couldn't put that under "adequate medical care" myself.Because of the murderer bit, or because of the sex change bit?

Gender Reassignment on the National Health happens throughout Europe, you don't have to murder someone to qualify. What do you have against taxpayer funded sex change operations?

If he wanted/needed a gender reassignment surgery, then I think he should

find other means to pay for it.

I wonder if it didn't come up at trial, and if he tried before to get help.

I'll quote the mom of a murdered child (directed at the murderer) "Divorce

WAS an option".

Then there's the whole problem that if he does get it, he has to move prisons?

Then there's the whole problem that if he does get it, he has to move prisons?
That's the least of it! Prisoners are moved around all the time, no big deal on that part. I don't know valerie well, so I can't speak for her, but spot, in this country taxpayers don't want to pay anything that involves other people--there is even a move away from public education, public anything. It seems to me that half our citizens strongly feel this way. I don't mean valerie, it just appears that way to me.

PS -- I love the name valerie, one of my favorite female names.

Yeah, I know about the prison moving... many family members in law enforcement,

including one who worked for many years at Folsom Prison.

I wouldn't/don't have a problem w/ public education etc. but I guess I would

have a problem looking family members of the murder victim in the eye and

saying yes, we ARE going to pay for his surgery. All while so many in this

country don't have good access to affordable health care or are

under insured.

Where then do we draw the line? How far do we go paying for things?

Years ago, when my home was burglarized, the reporting police

officers said a lot of them (probably not nearly as much now with

3 strikes laws) were serial offenders, do something to go to jail

so they got "3 hots and a cot" which was better by far than what

they had.

(Thank you for the name compliment, I've always liked it!)

I wouldn't/don't have a problem w/ public education etc. but I guess I would

have a problem looking family members of the murder victim in the eye and

saying yes, we ARE going to pay for his surgery. All while so many in this

country don't have good access to affordable health care or are

under insured.


I hear you, & can't disagree. If only an operation could bring back the victim.

valerie;1403505 wrote: If he wanted/needed a gender reassignment surgery, then I think he should

find other means to pay for it. You make it sound like a whim on the part of the rich as opposed to a medical condition. You feel that if a person can't find the means to pay for it, they shouldn't be treated?

Substitute "convicted murderer" for person, then yes.

That's treated as far as the reassignment surgery,

I mean. Drug treatment, maybe... but then the courts

also have to figure out confinement for this person

since it's a fair bet he'd be a target for sure.

I don't mean to make it sound like a whim, either. That's

why I wondered if it was brought up at trial, I think this

person has been affected by this for a long, long time.

spot;1403492 wrote: Because of the murderer bit, or because of the sex change bit?

Gender Reassignment on the National Health happens throughout Europe, you don't have to murder someone to qualify. What do you have against taxpayer funded sex change operations? The subject of Valerie's thread Is American and It Is the Massachusetts Authority that has agreed the sex change....

It's Irrelevant to post a link to the National Health Service Spot. I don't see the point of your link. The Health service of the UK Is a world away from the USA's system.

We do gender changes on the National health agreed but In the USA, anyone wishing the same would need to pay for It In some respect and I believe that Is the Issue Valerie Is raising here.

That NHS covers this procedure could show a stark difference between the attitudes of the people of the two nations (UK and US). It's difficult for many people to feel compassion towards people who behave badly and especially towards those who would take the life of another, especially of a child. But then what of the argument of: what about people who tolerate their governments military to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent children in the name of war, and being one of the aggressors of those wars? If I turn a blind eye to what my country does in the name of war, freedom and security surely I'd have to turn a blind eye to a transgendered person who takes the life of a child here at home and allow a sex-change operation..

valerie;1403534 wrote: Substitute "convicted murderer" for person, then yes.So you feel that if anyone who's not in jail can't find the means to pay for it, the taxpayer should fund their treatment?

spot;1403556 wrote: So you feel that if anyone who's not in jail can't find the means to pay for it, the taxpayer should fund their treatment?


Why not... the Uk does.

oscar;1403587 wrote: Why not... the Uk does.


Oscar, either "this thread's not about the UK" or "Why not... the Uk does" but not, please, both. You swing about like a candelabra in a draught.

spot;1403589 wrote: Oscar, either "this thread's not about the UK" or "Why not... the Uk does" but not, please, both. You swing about like a candelabra in a draught.


Okey Dockey then Spotness... let's stick to the USA health system.

That has, after all, been what the rest of us have been discussing between your sporadic pokes.

spot;1403592 wrote: That has, after all, been what the rest of us have been discussing between your sporadic pokes. Then please explain the relevance of your link to the UK's NHS ?

It's elective surgery. Rhinoplasty shouldn't be given to prisoners either even if they do have a deviated septum. Millions of people have the same problem and don't expect a free ticket to get it fixed.

UK healthcare is completely different than anything we have in this country and bringing it up is off topic, IMHO.

Sometimes people look at what other countries do to see if inspires them to want a change to their own system. Sometimes they look at the other countries and decide they like their own way better. A person generally starts their approach from the point of view of the system they live in, so it would make sense for Brits to think of the British health system for reference or for me to think of the Canadian one when framing my point of view.

My pov on this is that people not in jail don't require funding for their sex change because the need for it hasn't made them suicidal or a criminal. Some people are all for castrating sex offenders, those people should also be in approval of a sex change that reduces the psychotic tendencies of any other prisoner. That he's in jail is really the only reason the taxpayers should consider paying for it. If people wishing a sex change suddenly start committing crimes more often then the system should consider adding it as a covered service to protect the public. That's why we pay tax dollars, in part, to keep our society safer.

I really like the way this article worded it:

Perhaps, instead of unleashing our fury about Michelle Kosilek's sex-changing operation, we should consider where these feelings of anger are really coming from. Our nation is plagued with inequality. We see those who need health care -- kids with cancer, seniors barely able to afford food -- going without it, while the most wicked people in the world are receiving it for free. We have every right to be angry -- not at the prisoners receiving health care, but at the system that makes it so difficult for hard-working, respectable citizens to afford it.

Transgender Murderer Michelle Kosilek Deserves Sex-Change Treatment - Yahoo! News

koan;1403646 wrote: I really like the way this article worded it:

Perhaps, instead of unleashing our fury about Michelle Kosilek's sex-changing operation, we should consider where these feelings of anger are really coming from. Our nation is plagued with inequality. We see those who need health care -- kids with cancer, seniors barely able to afford food -- going without it, while the most wicked people in the world are receiving it for free. We have every right to be angry -- not at the prisoners receiving health care, but at the system that makes it so difficult for hard-working, respectable citizens to afford it.

Transgender Murderer Michelle Kosilek Deserves Sex-Change Treatment - Yahoo! News


Funny, that I find out from Canadians and Brits that we are all in a fury over some guy getting a sex change operation paid for by taxpayers.

I guess not living in Massachusetts, I don't really care what the Mass. taxpayers pay for.

There are just so many things to get riled up over taxpayer money paying for, I have a hard time worrying about this kind of thing.

I mean, if we quit spending so much money on keeping troops in Afghanistan, we could pay for every prisoner in the country to get a sex change, and still have plenty left over for beer and kibble.

koan;1403646 wrote: I really like the way this article worded it:Perhaps, instead of unleashing our fury about Michelle Kosilek's sex-changing operation, we should consider where these feelings of anger are really coming from. Our nation is plagued with inequality. We see those who need health care -- kids with cancer, seniors barely able to afford food -- going without it, while the most wicked people in the world are receiving it for free. We have every right to be angry -- not at the prisoners receiving health care, but at the system that makes it so difficult for hard-working, respectable citizens to afford it. Transgender Murderer Michelle Kosilek Deserves Sex-Change Treatment - Yahoo! NewsWhat system? America doesn't have a health care "system", America has a health care "market". And, I'll say, as a market, that system is beginning to develop surprisingly well. The problem is, however, that if you ain't got enough dough, you can't get in.

Ahso!;1403649 wrote: What system? America doesn't have a health care "system", America has a health care "market". And, I'll say, as a market, that system is beginning to develop surprisingly well. The problem is, however, that if you ain't got enough dough, you can't get in.


I'm just surprised the Romney Camp hasn't picked this up to use it as a goad on Obamacare.

LarsMac;1403650 wrote: I'm just surprised the Romney Camp hasn't picked this up to use it as a goad on Obamacare.


Careful, you might end up in the compost pile.

These medical care stores are popping up in shopping centers now - $110.00 for treatment on almost any diagnosis, including follow-ups. Interesting.

The reason I posted the link showing that such operations are performed within the free-to-the-patient medical sector (as a health issue, not as elective cosmetic surgery) across the whole of Europe, not just in the UK, was to show that there are some parts of the world which recognize gender reassignment as surgical intervention on health grounds rather than pandering to personal vanity. Have we got the health grounds wrong across Europe in this instance?

I still don't know, from what she's written in the thread she started, whether Valerie thinks it's personal vanity or a health issue. If she thinks it's personal vanity then she has good reason not to want it paying for by the taxpayer.

If she agrees it's on health grounds I still don't know whether she thinks that if a person can't find the means to pay for the sex change operation they should be operated on at the taxpayers' expense or not.

That's why I raised those two matters, whether it's health and whether it should ever be public-funded. It would bring out to the foreground the reason Valerie started the thread.

Why would this procedure be based on health grounds? Do you mean mental health?

Ahso!;1403678 wrote: Why would this procedure be based on health grounds? Do you mean mental health?That seems to be the current basis, yes. Do you think the mental state of the person counts for so little that they should be left to suffer rather than have their life put back on course?

spot;1403683 wrote: That seems to be the current basis, yes. Do you think the mental state of the person counts for so little that they should be left to suffer rather than have their life put back on course?I don't know for sure because I've come to understand labels and how it can become for some people to depend on them for identity. Emotional/Mental state is often tricky. It seems to me that it's possible that the person with the identity issue could be displacing how they desire affection. Many gay people don't need cosmetic surgery and I wonder how many go through a stage when they believe they do.

Several of my acquaintances are post-op, none of them were chasing a label. Each had a conviction from childhood that life without gender reassignment would be a mockery of their self-identity. What would you prefer? Re-education? Aversion therapy? Operating to create a balanced individual seems a sensible approach. They do go through a rigorous years-long preparation to explore the extent to which they're right about their fundamental state.

I don't know why any gay people would need surgery

It isn't my place to decide what's best for other people. If the process is as you describe it and the results are more mentally healthy individuals then that's great.

Transgender has nothing to do with being gay. Two separate issues.

If they're a convicted murderer, then their mental health issues concerning their sexual identity is the least of their problems. If they receive any kind of help at all, it should be to determine why they MURDERED SOMEONE!!!

I suspect that had something to do with it. He appeared to be a man then, after the police questioned him, he crumbled and was found walking around a mall in women's clothing. I haven't found anything that states what he and his wife were arguing about when he killed her but I imagine it to be along the lines of "I forbid you to wear my pantyhose."

SnoozeAgain;1403700 wrote: If they're a convicted murderer, then their mental health issues concerning their sexual identity is the least of their problems. If they receive any kind of help at all, it should be to determine why they MURDERED SOMEONE!!!


I'd not argue against that point of view. I'd find it difficult distinguishing between someone with a treatable condition and someone wanting to mess the system while serving a life sentence just to stave off boredom.

How about those not serving jail terms, snooze. If a free citizen convinced of a need can't find the means to pay for the sex change operation, should they should be medically treated at the taxpayers' expense in your opinion?

Ahso!;1403552 wrote: That NHS covers this procedure could show a stark difference between the attitudes of the people of the two nations (UK and US). It's difficult for many people to feel compassion towards people who behave badly and especially towards those who would take the life of another, especially of a child. But then what of the argument of: what about people who tolerate their governments military to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent children in the name of war, and being one of the aggressors of those wars? If I turn a blind eye to what my country does in the name of war, freedom and security surely I'd have to turn a blind eye to a transgendered person who takes the life of a child here at home and allow a sex-change operation..


All I will say about this is you really have no idea if *I* am tolerant or turn a blind eye. Or any number of other people as well.

If those people are in the minority and can't really DO anything about it, and so am I, then the way it looks only reflects

what more people are able to do.

spot;1403556 wrote: So you feel that if anyone who's not in jail can't find the means to pay for it, the taxpayer should fund their treatment?


I could waffle and say it depends, but I'll go with no, I don't think it should be paid by taxpayers, either. Not

while 5 year olds can't get good dental care, not while grannies have a hard time paying for their arthritis meds

and FOOD.

SnoozeAgain;1403700 wrote: If they're a convicted murderer, then their mental health issues concerning their sexual identity is the least of their problems. If they receive any kind of help at all, it should be to determine why they MURDERED SOMEONE!!!


:yh_clap

valerie;1404071 wrote: I could waffle and say it depends, but I'll go with no, I don't think it should be paid by taxpayers, either. Not

while 5 year olds can't get good dental care, not while grannies have a hard time paying for their arthritis meds

and FOOD.
They're the reasons one might expect to hear from a third world country, not the richest go-anywhere do-anything hyperpower the world's ever seen. Do you feel you have an inherent national problem distributing resources?

spot;1404084 wrote: They're the reasons one might expect to hear from a third world country, not the richest go-anywhere do-anything hyperpower the world's ever seen. Do you feel you have an inherent national problem distributing resources?


Alright spot I've had enough. I don't like your posting style (and don't come back with something

like I'll post however I please) because I don't give a rat's patootie, post as you will, but don't expect

more from me out of it. You like to 'debate', I don't. What do you want from me? You want to continue

poking until I blow up? Okay, here's your (small) blow up.

You want to 'win' okay, you WIN. You want me to say you're more intelligent than I am? Done. You're

more intelligent than I am.

Somebody sticky it for chrissakes.

valerie;1404092 wrote: Somebody sticky it for chrissakes.Isn't it " for christ's sake"? My father, being catholic on sundays used to say "for cripes sake". He didn't like to go anywhere near using the lords name in vain.

spot;1404084 wrote: They're the reasons one might expect to hear from a third world country, not the richest go-anywhere do-anything hyperpower the world's ever seen. Do you feel you have an inherent national problem distributing resources?


Spot, could you please explain that further?

Ahso!;1404094 wrote: Isn't it " for christ's sake"? My father, being catholic on sundays used to say "for cripes sake". He didn't like to go anywhere near using the lords name in vain.


Surely it's whatever Valerie chooses to say?

theia;1404103 wrote: Surely it's whatever Valerie chooses to say?Surely!

You might have taken my post too seriously.

Ahso!;1404104 wrote: Surely!

You might have taken my post too seriously.


If you give no indication at all that your post is not serious, how else would I take it?

theia;1404102 wrote: Spot, could you please explain that further?I was rather hoping Valerie might observe that she has no idea how her country has ended up in this ideological fantasy world where citizens who are incapable of profitable production are considered useless and left to rot. If nothing else they're ideal consumers, and consumption drives the wheels of industry, and the madness is keeping from them the resources wherewith to consume.

Handing all society's winnings to the mega-rich doesn't lead to increased consumption, it leads to mass poverty. The only people capable of changing that besotted state of affairs are those like Valerie but she'd rather not bother her pretty little head with the mass suffering around her. And I'm meant not to get angry about that?

spot;1404111 wrote: I was rather hoping Valerie might observe that she has no idea how her country has ended up in this ideological fantasy world where citizens who are incapable of profitable production are considered useless and left to rot. If nothing else they're ideal consumers, and consumption drives the wheels of industry, and the madness is keeping from them the resources wherewith to consume.

Handing all society's winnings to the mega-rich doesn't lead to increased consumption, it leads to mass poverty. The only people capable of changing that besotted state of affairs are those like Valerie but she'd rather not bother her pretty little head with the mass suffering around her. And I'm meant not to get angry about that?


Are we any "better" in the UK?

I'm really surprised at the way in which you spoke about Valerie...you don't know her, nor do you know how she feels.

Who has said that you're not meant to get angry? You need no-one's permission to be angry.

Hmmm, I've bothered my pretty little head for about 41 years now by giving BLOOD

including one time a pint that was immediately picked up by courier and driven to a

hospital a fair distance away to be given to a preemie. Several GALLONS total

lifetime donations.

Hmmm, I bothered my pretty little head enough to learn CPR and administer it

to someone.

Nah, I don't consider other people's suffering.

theia;1404105 wrote: If you give no indication at all that your post is not serious, how else would I take it?The indicator is there, you just didn't see it.

When a comment is made which diverts attention away from the main discussion and onto some insignificant part it's often intended as a means to lighten the mood, let everyone take a breath and then continue on a bit refreshed.

Ahso!;1404125 wrote: The indicator is there, you just didn't see it.

When a comment is made which diverts attention away from the main discussion and onto some insignificant part it's often intended as a means to lighten the mood, let everyone take a breath and then continue on a bit refreshed.


It is hard to see ahso, do you use the smilies? they so help people who don't know your sense of humour.