Mass. judge orders taxpayer-funded sex change operation for convicted murderer

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Wow, didn't expect people to read my post





Badger Bob:
7. I'm not as familiar as the US health system so I may be mistaken. I would expect if John Bobbit got it sliced, and went to the emergency room right away, the surgeons would re-attach it as part of his emergency surgery. The bill would then go to his insurance or to him if he didn't have any.
If he decided a time later that he needed an artificial one, it would no longer be emergency and cosmetic, and I guess it really depends on his insurance if they cover it or not. For prisoners, like in Canada, their health care is covered by the state and they are insured by the state. In this case, she was she successfully had her treatments covered by the states including the final operation as she was able to document that it's a legitimate procedure. As a civilian on private insurance, I can see how that might not be fair, but such the way the system works. In theory here, a prison is covered by the Federal system rather than provincial, and they can have much faster access to MRIs and other procedures. In fact, I think there already has been a Canadian precedent where a prisoner got SRS while serving a jail sentence.





LChoy

It's probably an oversimplification to refer to the way health care is administered in the US as a system. It's more accurately groups of various plans. Everything is dependent about the extent of coverage.

Yes, pretty much ever illness or injury would get billed directly to the insurance company. The exception would be Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans' benefits through the VA.

The Bobbit case happened so long ago, but, in that instance, the reattachment surgery would be billed directly to the insurance company. They probably weren't happy about having to pay it for something so preventable. Then there might've been legal implications with the fact that it resulted from an assault. Not sure if JWB actually pressed charges, and there were reports that he wanted to remain married or reconcile (believe it or not).

With somebody in penitentary, it likely isn't that radically different. My hunch is that there are some form of insurance carriers, who'd be billed for treatment. If that's the case, then a lot would depend on their willingness to cover costs.

That brings us back to this specific case. Obviously, this inmate didn't have any income since incareration, except small payments for jobs. That wouldn't be enough, under any circumstances, to finance the legal bills compiled from this case. So, that begs the question as to who foot the bill. Maybe some organization with a stake? Then again, if he had money stashed, ppl. could just as easily conclude, "well, if you have money for lawyers, then you can afford to pay for an elective surgical procedure..."

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Yes there is a difference. Not understanding is fine, being disrespectful is not. Azure was being the latter. I'm sorry, I'm always going to call that out.

You just couldn't handle the fact that he called you out on the previous page. IIRC, you once completely overreacted in the Entertainment section at HF, just because I didn't think Radiohead was the greatest band in world history, like you do, even after saying I liked them and had some of their albums. It shouldn't be a surprise that on a little more controversial topic, hysteria would ensue.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

You just couldn't handle the fact that he called you out on the previous page. IIRC, you once completely overreacted in the Entertainment section at HF, just because I didn't think Radiohead was the greatest band in world history, like you do, even after saying I liked them and had some of their albums. It shouldn't be a surprise that on a little more controversial topic, hysteria would ensue.

Wow talk about an irrelevant story from literally 5 years ago.

I use strong language now because CalPuck has a terrible habit of giving respect to people who are completely disrespectful to minorities. I want to make it clear how unacceptable and gross those opinions are. I want to make sure you know I don't have an ounce of respect for your views.

You aren't going to misgender and dehumanize trans people and expect me not throw your hatred in your face.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Wow talk about an irrelevant story from literally 5 years ago.

It's not even a question of whether or not it's relevent, there's just a pattern of overreaction on your part, even on trivial matters.

I use strong language

You're sure it's not just being obnoxious?

now because CalPuck has a terrible habit of giving respect to people who are completely disrespectful to minorities. I want to make it clear how unacceptable and gross those opinions are.

Yes, and it's been made clear that you and your ilk have no compassion for the deceased victim of that heinous crime, because certain select groups are to be treated like Protected Animals no matter how they conduct themselves in civil society.

I want to make sure you know I don't have an ounce of respect for your views.

How will I ever sleep tonight?

You aren't going to misgender and dehumanize trans people and expect me not throw your hatred in your face.

He doesn't need any help from me. Most rational people would already agree that he's a lowlife. Of course, you're entitled to continue feeling sorry for him.

[Azure]

Epic meltdown coming up?

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Azure

Epic meltdown coming up?

Can't wait! Also couldn't help but notice that a certain someone ceased to participate in the discussion when it got more "intellectual," but reappeared when it became emotional.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

You shouldn't be part of this discussion if you won't use correct pronouns. It's gross and bigoted.

If that person is still legally recognized as a man then you are in the wrong here. It may be insensitive and hurt that poor murderer's feelings but it is not technically wrong (I only skimmed the article and did not see the legal recognition).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

If that person is still legally recognized as a man then you are in the wrong here. It may be insensitive and hurt that poor murderer's feelings but it is not technically wrong (I only skimmed the article and did not see the legal recognition).

Indeed. Unless the surgery has been carried out already.

[Rathji]

So someone self identifies as a woman and presents themselves as a woman, but you would not call them a woman unless there was an F on their drivers license and no penis between their legs>?

Must be awkward asking every female you meet for ID and a peek up the skirt before you use any gender specific pronouns.

[Azure]

I actually never intended to call them anything. I only said 'he' because I had quickly glanced at the article and noticed that the person was actually a 'he.'

I would guess if I looked at someone and they looked like a male, I would call them a 'he', and if I looked at someone and they looked like a female, I would call them a 'she'...but apparently that doesn't work anymore.

Better to refer to them as an 'it' and refrain from pissing people off.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

You claim that all these medical professional agree, but then admit that you never investigated it. How do you know then?

I have typed out a response to this post twice but I kept forgetting to post it and close my browser, so this will be short.

I meant to say that I have not investigated the exact countries medical associations which follow WPATHs Standards of Care, but my review of the literature has indicated that Canadian health providers, the AMA, the BMA all follow them. Many countries follow localized versions of the same standard, including Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Thailand.

The literature also indicates that many Latin American countries have some form of the standards, but there is enough variation that I would hesitate to call them the same.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I want to make sure you know I don't have an ounce of respect for your views.

You want to make sure he knows that you don't care about what he thinks (or knows)? That is brilliant, and the first interesting post you have made in this thread.

I have asked you many many questions in this thread, and you never responded once. Instead, you have insulted and slurred several posters over nothing, except for your outrageous allegations.

I am quickly concluding from this thread and some others that there is something seriously wrong with you. I agree, epic meltdown is coming.

[Nage Waza]

I find out that inmates of federal prisons are 10 times more likely to die of suicide than people in the general population, and 50 times more likely to die of a drug overdose. What this means is we must immediately release them all, that environment is really bad for them.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I have typed out a response to this post twice but I kept forgetting to post it and close my browser, so this will be short.

I meant to say that I have not investigated the exact countries medical associations which follow WPATHs Standards of Care, but my review of the literature has indicated that Canadian health providers, the AMA, the BMA all follow them. Many countries follow localized versions of the same standard, including Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Thailand.

The literature also indicates that many Latin American countries have some form of the standards, but there is enough variation that I would hesitate to call them the same.

Then its going to come down to the counter-arguments are going to the trouble of peer reviews and getting them published. So, it's difficult to gauge the level of acceptance. On so many illnesses, there's dispute over the treatment, then there's even more about the cause. That leads one to conclude that it's much more complex for psychiatric illnesses. Even something a lot less complex, like ADD, is debated. It's been questioned whether it's an actual psychological condition or just an excuse to pump hyperactive kids full of Ritalin.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Then its going to come down to the counter-arguments are going to the trouble of peer reviews and getting them published. So, it's difficult to gauge the level of acceptance. On so many illnesses, there's dispute over the treatment, then there's even more about the cause. That leads one to conclude that it's much more complex for psychiatric illnesses. Even something a lot less complex, like ADD, is debated. It's been questioned whether it's an actual psychological condition or just an excuse to pump hyperactive kids full of Ritalin.

Your right, that's what it comes down to.

I will trust the science and the doctors and you can trust whatever it is you want to trust.

I hear Jenny McCarthy is selling books now.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I hear Jenny McCarthy is selling books now.

She's gotta do something with that extra free time.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You want to make sure he knows that you don't care about what he thinks (or knows)? That is brilliant, and the first interesting post you have made in this thread.

I have asked you many many questions in this thread, and you never responded once. Instead, you have insulted and slurred several posters over nothing, except for your outrageous allegations.

I am quickly concluding from this thread and some others that there is something seriously wrong with you. I agree, epic meltdown is coming.

Here's the study you asked for:

"it is concluded that there is no reason to doubt the therapeutic effect of sex reassignment surgery."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k497mtt07u131l06/


There is nothing wrong with me, you are just extremely sheltered so you aren't used to my opinions or being called out on yours.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

It's not even a question of whether or not it's relevent, there's just a pattern of overreaction on your part, even on trivial matters.



You're sure it's not just being obnoxious?



Yes, and it's been made clear that you and your ilk have no compassion for the deceased victim of that heinous crime, because certain select groups are to be treated like Protected Animals no matter how they conduct themselves in civil society.



How will I ever sleep tonight?



He doesn't need any help from me. Most rational people would already agree that he's a lowlife. Of course, you're entitled to continue feeling sorry for him.

I don't really think much of any murderer or abuser. But I think she deserves to be treated humanely and that treating her humanely has the added benefit of actually rehabilitating her better than treating her badly.

Most of my objections come from the bigotry displayed throughout the thread towards transgender people. Which is really gross, just like sexism, racism, homophobia or any other bigotry is really gross. The lack of ability for people to think outside themselves to treat people who are different from norms like human beings is astounding. That's the minimum standard for calling yourself a good or decent person.

If I called you she, that would be extremely disrespectful. It's the same thing when you use the wrong pronoun for a trans person. So everyone needs to stop with that right now.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

If that person is still legally recognized as a man then you are in the wrong here. It may be insensitive and hurt that poor murderer's feelings but it is not technically wrong (I only skimmed the article and did not see the legal recognition).

It's ok, you can go ahead and use correct pronouns without government approval.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

I actually never intended to call them anything. I only said 'he' because I had quickly glanced at the article and noticed that the person was actually a 'he.'

I would guess if I looked at someone and they looked like a male, I would call them a 'he', and if I looked at someone and they looked like a female, I would call them a 'she'...but apparently that doesn't work anymore.

Better to refer to them as an 'it' and refrain from pissing people off.

Oh poor you, having to show people basic respect. Must be so hard.