Support NeoGAF

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

GRS is not cosmetic surgery it is medical treatment.

False argument and you miss the point entirely. Your law abiding and tax paying uncle Arthur wants to be aunt Martha but has to pay their own way. Explain to me in what logical world an inmate gets a free pass with respect to the greater good?

When the entire system supports GRS then I'd begin to support it for inmates mental health etc. As the current public and prison support systems stand this is bat shit crazy IMO. There are far more appropriate and arguably more effective ways to be spending money for far more deserving people.

Treat more sick kids more homeless kids, create more jobs etc. GRS free for an inmate is a self serving short term fix, money spent elsewhere is a promotion of goodwill and community that could increase the well being for generations. Just some food for thought why some react as I have to this type of news.

 

[AColdDay]

and if your cousin had cancer?

She would go into staggering medical debt to try to live. She is not getting GRS at the moment because her circumstances are not life threatening and she doesn't have the money.

False argument and you miss the point entirely. Your law abiding and tax paying uncle Arthur wants to be aunt Martha but has to pay their own way. Explain to me in what logical world an inmate gets a free pass with respect to the greater good?

When the entire system supports GRS then I'd begin to support it for inmates mental health etc. As the current public and prison support systems stand this is bat shit crazy IMO. There are far more appropriate and arguably more effective ways to be spending money for far more deserving people.

Treat more sick kids more homeless kids, create more jobs etc. GRS free for an inmate is a self serving short term fix, money spent elsewhere is a promotion of goodwill and community that could increase the well being for generations. Just some food for thought why some react as I have to this type of news.

No one knows how to be pragmatic and that while you may feel encouraged that a prison is being so progressive, you should probably admit that money could have gone somewhere better. Our prison system is deeply flawed and stretched completely thin, so was fronting the bill on this surgery the best use of the resources? I don't personally think so.

 

[excelsiorlef]

False argument and you miss the point entirely. Your law abiding and tax paying uncle Arthur wants to be aunt Martha but has to pay their own way. Explain to me in what logical world an inmate gets a free pass with respect to the greater good?

When the entire system supports GRS then I'd begin to support it for inmates mental health etc. As the current public and prison support systems stand this is bat shit crazy IMO. There are far more appropriate and arguably more effective ways to be spending money for far more deserving people.

Treat more sick kids more homeless kids, create more jobs etc. GRS free for an inmate is a self serving short term fix, money spent elsewhere is a promotion of goodwill and community that could increase the well being for generations. Just some food for thought why some react as I have to this type of news.

False argument you're the one who crassly compared it to cosmetic surgeries, you made no point beyond that in your intial post...

If you had read this thread you'd see that GRS is covered more and more by California health care providers.

Want to make it free for all trans folk. Please fight that fight with us.

You don't fight that fight by taking it from other people (no matter how bad of a person might be).

Your "argument" could be used against all health care for inmates...

Btw your argument has been addressed like 25 times by now but now we can make it 26

 

[Nepenthe]

False argument and you miss the point entirely. Your law abiding and tax paying uncle Arthur wants to be aunt Martha but has to pay their own way. Explain to me in what logical world an inmate gets a free pass with respect to the greater good?

It makes sense in a world where prison isn't anything like the outside world. Not sure why people keep comparing a system where people are holed up in boxes for most of the time for years on end and unable to pursue activities and work that's contributive to society, with the larger society where you're expected to pay your own way as a free person.

 

[QuantumSquid]

I would love for GRS to be free for all transgender people. It's not their fault that they were born with the wrong equipment.

 

[Enzom21]

I'm not really complaining, but no.

We have a big fat budget surplus(thanks to democrats) so this GRS doesn't really affect any tax payers here.

False argument and you miss the point entirely. Your law abiding and tax paying uncle Arthur wants to be aunt Martha but has to pay their own way. Explain to me in what logical world an inmate gets a free pass with respect to the greater good?

When the entire system supports GRS then I'd begin to support it for inmates mental health etc. As the current public and prison support systems stand this is bat shit crazy IMO. There are far more appropriate and arguably more effective ways to be spending money for far more deserving people.

Treat more sick kids more homeless kids, create more jobs etc. GRS free for an inmate is a self serving short term fix, money spent elsewhere is a promotion of goodwill and community that could increase the well being for generations. Just some food for thought why some react as I have to this type of news.

It is the state of California's responsibility to provide proper health care to those people who are incarcerated. Do you think an inmate's medical need should not be met?
Why can't society do all of the things you're complaining about and provide GRS for this woman?
Even if she wasn't get GRS, all of those other bad things would still exist.

 

[Vamphuntr]

This thread sure is a roller coaster of disaster. I do feel uneasy knowing people without medical coverage needing GRS can't get it while a murderer gets it for free but in the end she's now a responsibility of taxpayers during her incarceration and it is a life threatening situation so she really needs it. Good for her. Where I live in the Great White North it's actually covered by my province's medicare.

I really disagree with the argument tossing this asides as being only about pennies. Considering how governments have issues assuring needs for every citizen 20 000$ isn't pennies to me. You could feed and give lodging to a homeless person for a year for that much. You could fund the education of someone living in a poor neighborhood for that much. You could fund hiring someone as an aid to a heavily handicap person with that money. Governments don't have unlimited funds and they have to make choices on what and where to spend and there are some really heartbreaking choices in there. Considering all the issues and institutions that requires funding simply labeling this as pennies is terribly wrong to me. I fully agree with the decision but still feel weird tossing it asides because of the above.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

False argument you're the one who crassly compared it to cosmetic surgeries, you made no point beyond that in your intial post...

If you had read this thread you'd see that GRS is covered more and more by California health care providers.

Want to make it free for all trans folk. Please fight that fight with us.

You don't fight that fight by taking it from other people (no matter how bad of a person might be).

Your "argument" could be used against all health care for inmates...

Btw your argument has been addressed like 25 times by now but now we can make it 26

Sure I made a sarcastic post, this is a public form full a varying opinions, facts and jokes. I don't wish to fight for transgender rights, it's not on my personal agenda. I'm not opposed to it but I'm not an activist for it either. Just being honest.

When I read about this from the article for the specific inmate we're talking about:

Ms. Quine and an accomplice kidnapped and fatally shot Shahid Ali Baig, 33, a father of three, in downtown Los Angeles in February 1980, stealing $80 and his car during a drug- and alcohol-fueled rampage.

and this from the victim's daughter:

”My dad begged for his life," said Farida Baig, who tried unsuccessfully to block Ms. Quine's surgery through the courts. ”It just made me dizzy and sick. I'm helping pay for his surgery; I live in California. It's kind of like a slap in the face."

IMO a sarcastic post is what this deserves. It is a slap in the face to all those doing the right thing, a middle finger this the victim's kids/daughter and those from the public having to pay their own way. You want change? Sure I agree free GRS for the general public is a worthy cause, put that before inmates being paid for though. Inmates getting free GRS in the current climate is the real joke to me. It's a perverse way of spending money.

Fucking $80 this guy was killed over, 3 kids without their 33 year old dad but hey let us pay for the killer's food, water, housing, exercise and now GRS to make them a whole person again. What has the govt. done for the victim's family all this time? How about the deceased victim themselves? What of the kids growing up? Yeah you get an idea why in this particular case I think it's all ass backwards.

I get there is a larger agenda for GRS in the public and it's a warranted issue for mental well being of many. I don't get that an inmate comes before the good public nor a litany of other "better" avenues to spend that money first.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Im strictly against life sentences, I think prison main objective should be to make the inmate a better person, punishing the individual is important, but it shouldnt be the main focus.
With that in mind, theres another point Im thinking about... If shes been life sentenced theres no point trying to reform her, she will just die in prison, so why should the state, that has no interest in making this person a better individual, care about her mental well being? Its very clear that the state is only trying to punish her by locking her away for her whole life, so I guess making her life better is not acting in accordance with the punishment.

Because the State is there to serve the punishment, all while conserving the prisoner's human rights. But why, when she didn't respect her victim's rights to life? Because the State has to take the higher road, because it needs to prove that you can keep order having to resort what is essentially tantamount torture (yes, it is, because it's evident when you take in account that people with gender dysphoria have higher suicide rates).

And then you also need to take in account that there are actually innocent people in the system, or people who haven't been fully judged, should they be punished so harshly? You might say that you are only referring to those with life sentences (and you have), but doesn't it go against the principles that all men are equal? No, I'm not saying that stealing candy and murder should have the same amount of years in prison, but actually it should be the same kind of process of rehabilitation and/or punishment. Or else it'll go to the slippery slope where such justice system punishes certain minorities, which already does punishes African Americans, so there's that.

I just can't see a judge saying "we are not going to take care of your health, fuck your rights", and this case is no different. Mental wellbeing is part of people's health, and the State has to guarantee the health of all its citizens. Gender dysphoria (despite not suffering from it) is one thing I wouldn't wish upon anyone. It should be treated, regardless of who you are. I applaud California for doing this, and hope that law abiding citizens can also get GRS for free, because it'd make a better society.

 

[AColdDay]

We have a big fat budget surplus(thanks to democrats) so this GRS doesn't really affect any tax payers here.

It is the state of California's responsibility to provide proper health care to those people who are incarcerated. Do you think an inmate's medical need should not be met?
Why can't society do all of the things you're complaining about and provide GRS for this woman?
Even if she wasn't get GRS, all of those other bad things would still exist.

I think the argument is that there are many other ways to spend the limited resources afforded prisons and that GRS is lower on the list of medical needs. Compounding this issue is the fact that many law-abiding citizens can't afford this surgery, while a convicted felon can.

I know that we like like to be progressive on this forum, but I think that when you look at the big picture it is hard to feel like this is a victory for anyone other than a really bad person.

 

[Ekai]

GRS is not cosmetic surgery it is medical treatment.

This has been repeated so much and that people still try to argue it is false despite facts and medical professionals being against them is just so mindblowing. This topic is a revolving door of the same illogical/highly suspect transphobic argument from different people. Seriously, no one coming in is even bothering to read the topic that debunks their arguments already. That bingo card is so accurate.

 

[WipedOut]

I think the argument is that there are many other ways to spend the limited resources afforded prisons and that GRS is lower on the list of medical needs. Compounding this issue is the fact that many law-abiding citizens can't afford this surgery, while a convicted felon can.

I know that we like like to be progressive on this forum, but I think that when you look at the big picture it is hard to feel like this is a victory for anyone other than a really bad person.

Someone who actually gets it. Well said.

 

[How About No]

This has been repeated so much and that people still try to argue it is false despite facts and medical professionals being against them is just so mindblowing. This topic is a revolving door of the same illogical/highly suspect transphobic argument from different people. Seriously, no one coming in is even bothering to read the topic that debunks their arguments already. That bingo card is so accurate.

I think it can be filled out twice for just this thread even

 

[uncelestial]

You merely asserted it was controversial. I see no argument. There was only a hand-wave of Ri'Orius's post. I see nothing "fine" about that.

There are over 1,000 posts in this thread. Republicans are repealing the ACA right now. Millions of people are about to lose their health coverage this year in America. Millions more around the world will die of preventable causes because of lack of access to proper care. Health care is literally the #1 thing Americans want the government to focus on right now.

And you want me to argue that subsidizing medical access for vulnerable groups is not controversial?

If you can think of an argument of why this is controversial that doesn't fit into one of my arguments, you are welcome to go ahead.

Nah. Instead, why don't I invent stupid bullshit arguments that you don't believe and ask you to defend them? Given your insistence that this matter is all good and settled, you must be arguing that:

1) Poor people can actually afford health care and just don't want it, or
2) Poor people should not have their health care subsidized because they don't deserve it.

You can only choose one of these arguments -- and now you must state the case for them, regardless of whether they capture what you believe. And... go!

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Actually, I missed something. I was confused re: what post you were replying to, which made my reply inappropriate. Please accept my apology.

Not at all a problem. : )

 

[Deleted member 80556]

I think the argument is that there are many other ways to spend the limited resources afforded prisons and that GRS is lower on the list of medical needs. Compounding this issue is the fact that many law-abiding citizens can't afford this surgery, while a convicted felon can.

I know that we like like to be progressive on this forum, but I think that when you look at the big picture it is hard to feel like this is a victory for anyone other than a really bad person.

Of course it's a victory. What better argument do you have to make GRS an insured/free procedure covered by the Government than the fact that it is covered for inmates?

Stop asking for rights to be taken away from certain groups because others don't have them. Ask and fight so that everyone has those rights.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sure I made a sarcastic post, this is a public form full a varying opinions, facts and jokes. I don't wish to fight for transgender rights, it's not on my personal agenda. I'm not opposed to it but I'm not an activist for it either. Just being honest.

When I read about this from the article for the specific inmate we're talking about:



and this from the victim's daughter:



IMO a sarcastic post is what this deserves. It is a slap in the face to all those doing the right thing, a middle finger this the victim's kids/daughter and those from the public having to pay their own way. You want change? Sure I agree free GRS for the general public is a worthy cause, put that before inmates being paid for though. Inmates getting free GRS in the current climate is the real joke to me. It's a perverse way of spending money.

Fucking $80 this guy was killed over, 3 kids without their 33 year old dad but hey let us pay for the killer's food, water, housing, exercise and now GRS to make them a whole person again. What has the govt. done for the victim's family all this time? How about the deceased victim themselves? What of the kids growing up? Yeah you get an idea why in this particular case I think it's all ass backwards.

I get there is a larger agenda for GRS in the public and it's a warranted issue for mental well being of many. I don't get that an inmate comes before the good public nor a litany of other "better" avenues to spend that money first.

So you don't want to fight trans rights? Fine. But don't make shitty sarcastic jokes that belittles what GRS means to trans folk and our health.


Because it is healthcare. Your argument seems to want to separate GRS from being healthcare.

You could say the money could go elsewhere for literally all health care for inmates...

Someone who actually gets it. Well said.

Someone who actually gets it?

Really?

This thread is 20+ pages full of trans folks trying to explain ad nauseum that GRS is an important, crucial and key part of our health care but it is someone who thinks GRS just isn't that important who actually gets it? Please.

 

[uncelestial]

Someone who actually gets it?

Really?

This thread is 20+ pages full of trans folks trying to explain ad nauseum that GRS is an important, crucial and key part of our health care but it is someone who thinks GRS just isn't that important who actually gets it? Please.

This thread is about a lot more than how great GRS is.

It's about how a victims' families get treated vs their murderers.

It's about whether being free while destitute is preferable to being incarcerated while having medical care.

It's about the limited capacity of our state to take care of our most vulnerable people.

And it's about what constitutes medical necessity in a very specific case with extenuating circumstances.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This thread is about a lot more than how great GRS is.

It's about how a victims' families get treated vs their murderers.

It's about whether being free while destitute is preferable to being incarcerated while having medical care.

It's about the limited capacity of our state to take care of our most vulnerable people.

And it's about what constitutes medical necessity in a very specific case with extenuating circumstances.

1) Victims don't get to dictate if prisoners get health care for very understandable reasons

2) No trans person is going to commit a serious enough crime to be locked in jail long enough to get GRS.

3) Homelessness and fucked up healthcare systems outside of prison is not germane to this topic at hand. Unless one want to argue healthcare for prisoners just shouldn't be given period and that's a whole different animal.

4) Healthcare is healthcare. GRS is how you treat trans folk like this prisoner. This is no different then providing lithium to a prisoner with bipolar disorder. There are no extinuating circumstances.There's no list of importance, if a prisoner needs treatment they get it. There isn't a merit system based on what you are in prison for. If you need health care, you get healthcare. GRS is healthcare ergo she gets healthcare.

Like I said before there's a reason this made the news and stories of prisoners getting treatment for bipolar disorder don't and it isn't because prisoners getting health care is suddenly a controversial topic.

 

[uncelestial]

1) Victims don't get to dictate if prisoners get health care for very understandable reasons

What a weird unrelated sentence to say in response to the comparison between how average people access medical service vs. convicts.

2) No trans person is going to commit a serious enough crime to be locked in jail long enough to get GRS.

Huh? Are you asserting that trans people are all incapable of horrible crimes, or that the event referenced in the OP never happened?

3) Homelessness and fucked up healthcare systems outside of prison is not germane to this topic at hand. Unless one want to argue healthcare for prisoners just shouldn't be given period and that's a whole different animal.

Like hell it isn't. The state has finite resources and we have to choose how to apply them. That $20,000 could have kept a family in a home. Even if you want to be obtuse and narrow and pretend nothing is connected, there are trans people in this thread saying it stings that they will have to pay for their GRS while this gets covered by the state.

If you want to pretend that poor people have all this agency that makes up for how their most basic needs are utterly unaccounted for, and further pretend that the state has infinite money to throw at prisoners, go right ahead.

4) Healthcare is healthcare. GRS is how you treat trans folk like this prisoner. This is no different then providing lithium to a prisoner with bipolar disorder. There are no extinuating circumstances. There isn't a merit system based on what you are in prison for. If you need health care, you get healthcare.

Not in the real world you fucking don't. What if they had a medical budget of $100,000 for the year -- and this person reported that their dysphoria wasn't so bad that they were ideating suicide, but that they'd like GRS. Then two other prisoners had Stage IV cancer requiring surgery, chemo, and radiation. Well, newsflash, it might not have been $100k, but they did have a budget. Meanwhile, this only came up because it was a solution to this person belonging in the women's prison -- a person who had gone their entire life in an environment where you don't have to be a certain gender to be among the general population. So that's a pretty fucking extenuating circumstance.

Personally I think you're blinded by the fact that this was a victory for a trans person and skipping straight to being outraged at people asking questions about this and whether it was the right call. You didn't even bother acknowledging that this thread is about more than the necessity of GRS, you just went from one angry, obstinate, venting post to the next. I'm not even in disagreement that GRS is necessary, I'm just not blind to reality outside of the in-and-of-itself-good of a trans person getting their GRS covered by the state.

 

[QuantumSquid]

What a weird unrelated sentence to say in response to the comparison between how average people access medical service vs. convicts.


Huh? Are you asserting that trans people are all incapable of horrible crimes, or that the event referenced in the OP never happened?


Like hell it isn't. The state has finite resources and we have to choose how to apply them. That $20,000 could have kept a family in a home. Even if you want to be obtuse and narrow and pretend nothing is connected, there are trans people in this thread saying it stings that they will have to pay for their GRS while this gets covered by the state.

If you want to pretend that poor people have all this agency that makes up for how their most basic needs are utterly unaccounted for, and further pretend that the state has infinite money to throw at prisoners, go right ahead.


Not in the real world you fucking don't. What if they had a medical budget of $100,000 for the year -- and this person reported that their dysphoria wasn't so bad that they were ideating suicide, but that they'd like GRS. Then two other prisoners had Stage IV cancer requiring surgery, chemo, and radiation. Well, newsflash, it might not have been $100k, but they did have a budget. Meanwhile, this only came up because it was a solution to this person belonging in the women's prison -- a person who had gone their entire life in an environment where you don't have to be a certain gender to be among the general population. So that's a pretty fucking extenuating circumstance.

Personally I think you're blinded by the fact that this was a victory for a trans person and skipping straight to being outraged at people asking questions about this and whether it was the right call. You didn't even bother acknowledging that this thread is about more than the necessity of GRS, you just went from one angry, obstinate, venting post to the next. I'm not even in disagreement that GRS is necessary, I'm just not blind to reality outside of the in-and-of-itself-good of a trans person getting their GRS covered by the state.

This is a good post.

 

[LionPride]

It's so funny how many people suddenly care about prisoners and their healthcare when it comes to a trans person.

.

 

[excelsiorlef]

What a weird unrelated sentence to say in response to the comparison between how average people access medical service vs. convicts.


Huh? Are you asserting that trans people are all incapable of horrible crimes, or that the event referenced in the OP never happened?

As in intentionally commit a crime specifically to get free GRS.

Like hell it isn't. The state has finite resources and we have to choose how to apply them. That $20,000 could have kept a family in a home. Even if you want to be obtuse and narrow and pretend nothing is connected, there are trans people in this thread saying it stings that they will have to pay for their GRS while this gets covered by the state.

If you want to pretend that poor people have all this agency that makes up for how their most basic needs are utterly unaccounted for, and further pretend that the state has infinite money to throw at prisoners, go right ahead.

Do you honestly think that if they had denied GRS to this woman that that 20 000k was going to go pay off someone's mortgage? You try and tell me about the "real world" and then argue that this woman getting GRS is preventing the state from helping a random family keep their house? It is a total non sequitur to the topic at hand.

Not in the real world you fucking don't. What if they had a medical budget of $100,000 for the year -- and this person reported that their dysphoria wasn't so bad that they were ideating suicide, but that they'd like GRS. Then two other prisoners had Stage IV cancer requiring surgery, chemo, and radiation. Well, newsflash, it might not have been $100k, but they did have a budget. Meanwhile, this only came up because it was a solution to this person belonging in the women's prison -- a person who had gone their entire life in an environment where you don't have to be a certain gender to be among the general population. So that's a pretty fucking extenuating circumstance.

Again you call it real world and then argue some sort of made up scenario where the state of California's Prison health care budget is 100 000k to prove your point?

I notice you also went straight to cancer. I have constantly compared this to treating something like treating bipolar disorder, it is a much more down to earth comparison.

In 2011 (latest I could find) the State of California spent over 2 million on health care for inmates and that is spent not budget. This surgery was all of 1% of that total 2011 expenditure. She received roughly 6 k more than the yearly average per prisoner expenditure by California, and keep in mind that is average, which means she is likely not the only one who received more than the average.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/07/stateprisonhealthcarespendingreport.pdf

Personally I think you're blinded by the fact that this was a victory for a trans person and skipping straight to being outraged at people asking questions about this and whether it was the right call. You didn't even bother acknowledging that this thread is about more than the necessity of GRS, you just went from one angry, obstinate, venting post to the next. I'm not even in disagreement that GRS is necessary, I'm just not blind to reality outside of the in-and-of-itself-good of a trans person getting their GRS covered by the state.

I'm not blinded, nor outraged, exhausted maybe but not outraged. I've been respectful and have engaged in conversation with everyone who has entered this thread just about.


Though I noticed you avoided answering my question as to why this is news when prisoners getting other treatments is not.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's okay to find that distasteful. It's okay to find that wrong. Trying to paint everyone pointing that out with a broad brush and calling them transphobic is not okay.

Sure, it's okay to find it awful that poor law-abiding people don't get healthcare and prisoners do, but what does this have to do with this specific treatment? It's like LionPride said:

It's so funny how many people suddenly care about prisoners and their healthcare when it comes to a trans person.

 

[Ekai]

Personally I think you're blinded by the fact that this was a victory for a trans person and skipping straight to being outraged at people asking questions about this and whether it was the right call.

This topic is literally littered with people who believe necessary healthcare for trans individuals isn't essential. It's the #1 response. It's extremely telling how often we have to correct them and they continue their transphobic shit. I already didn't have a high opinion of Gaf's view of trans individuals and this topic really doesn't help with that. It's very telling that many want to restrict healthcare for trans inmates but not for other people. It's also very telling the logic hoops people will jump through to defend denying a trans individual care but not others. It's also distressing how much people who post this transphobic shit think they know better than actual doctor's....and you know, all the trans people who have posted in this topic.

The rest of your post is just more of the same garbage that's been debunked time and again in this topic. You should save everyone the time and just admit you want to shitpost. Seriously this is such a pointless repetitive topic at this point, I don't even see why it's still open. No one seems to want to actually engage with the facts at hand here in regards to trans care.

 

[Opto]

.

yeah you should check any other thread talking about prison conditions. you'll likely see the same people arguing for prisoners overall to have better treatment


edit: I see you mean it the other way. Sorry about that!

 

[excelsiorlef]

In fat from what I can gather the budget for California inmate health system might be:

Many of the extra costs have been absorbed in the receiver's budget, which has nearly doubled to $1.9 billion since a federal judge seized control of California's prison medical system a decade ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/california-prisons-medical-records-overhaul-cost.html

So if this is accurate this surgery was 0.00105263157% of the budget....

 

[Tranqueris]

Jesus, I only managed to make it through the first few pages of this thread. It never ceases to surprise me how fast logic will go out the window when people have a need to be bloodthirsty and angry about shit that has, at best, a negligible effect on their lives.

"Fuck this murderer! Who they think they are getting this special treatment?! They don't deserve to be living in the first place! I'm so angry about this one thing even though my taxes pay for a hundred other more important things that I should probably be worried about!"

It's like people forget that this person is already being punished and pretty fucking seriously too.

Listen guys I don't know if you forgot but there's already this whole system meant for punishing people who commit a crime, wherein said person has to live in a cell day in and day out, ask permission for everything like a fucking child and deal with the fact that they're paying for their crimes with what's left of their valuable and limited time on this planet.

In this particular case this person will probably be there for the rest of their life.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

To people who remotely have a problem with this story, answer me this: do you think a convicted (not necessarily truly guilty, mind, but convicted) murderer should have access to these treatments? And if not, why not?

- Pills for bipolar disorder
- Antidepressants
- Dialysis for kidney troubles
- Chemo for cancer
- Physical therapy for chronic back pain management
- Asthma pumps
- Insulin pumps
- Hearing aids for the hearing impaired
- Blood pressure pills

Note that not all of these things are immediate physically-life-saving treatments. Some of them are just QOL-enhancing medication/treatments, some of them are life-saving but only in the long-term and not immediate "must do right now or else they'll die" treatments. All of these would be at the taxpayer's expense. All of these, in the US, would have to be paid for by regular law-abiding citizens. Some of them would be covered by insurance, but probably not everything under every plan.

In fact, I bet most, if not all, of these things, are freely available to inmates in American prisons. Is there any outrage because of that? "Outrage: your tax money is used to pay for a convicted murderer's blood pressure medication!", said no headline ever...

So tell me, what should be granted to inmates among this list, what shouldn't, and explain your reasoning. Thanks.

 

[excelsiorlef]

California's inmate health care is fascinating... it's over seen by a federal judge because during Schwarzenegger's Governorship their health care was so poor it was unconstitutional and the state's response was so poor the Federal government literally took it out of their hands.

Who oversees the Receiver's activities?

The Receiver reports directly to federal Judge Thelton E. Henderson, of the U.S. District Court for Northern California.

Judge Henderson presides over the Plata v. Schwarzenegger case in which medical care in California's adult prisons was found to be unconstitutional. After the State failed to make court-ordered corrections, Henderson put the system into Receivership.

The Receiver may request that the Judge issue court orders or waive state laws in order to remediate the problems in the prison medical care system effectively and create a new, constitutional structure for medical care delivery. These powers are spelled out in the February 14 2006 Order Appointing the Receiver, which is available on this web site in the Court Materials section.

http://www.cphcs.ca.gov/faq.aspx#boss

 

[zoku88]

And I guess this is related to the above, but Cali had to release a whole bunch of people as well.

(I would argue that many of those crimes were minor enough that they didn't really warrant a prison sentence.)

 

[excelsiorlef]

And I guess this is related to the above, but Cali had to release a whole bunch of people as well.

(I would argue that many of those crimes were minor enough that they didn't really warrant a prison sentence.)

Not really related to your post but it made me think of the last line in the quoted part of the OP.

To avoid this issue earlier California preferred to just parole an inmate one day before her day in court about the subject lol.

 

[Matty77]

To people who remotely have a problem with this story, answer me this: do you think a convicted (not necessarily truly guilty, mind, but convicted) murderer should have access to these treatments? And if not, why not?

- Pills for bipolar disorder
- Antidepressants
- Dialysis for kidney troubles
- Chemo for cancer
- Physical therapy for chronic back pain management
- Asthma pumps
- Insulin pumps
- Hearing aids for the hearing impaired
- Blood pressure pills

Note that not all of these things are immediate physically-life-saving treatments. Some of them are just QOL-enhancing medication/treatments, some of them are life-saving but only in the long-term and not immediate "must do right now or else they'll die" treatments. All of these would be at the taxpayer's expense. All of these, in the US, would have to be paid for by regular law-abiding citizens. Some of them would be covered by insurance, but probably not everything under every plan.

In fact, I bet most, if not all, of these things, are freely available to inmates in American prisons. Is there any outrage because of that? "Outrage: your tax money is used to pay for a convicted murderer's blood pressure medication!", said no headline ever...

So tell me, what should be granted to inmates among this list, what shouldn't, and explain your reasoning. Thanks.

Don't forget ,as I stated and More Badass linked to an article about it, they even give all those treatments you list to death row inmates up until commencement of their sentence, I see no one complaining about that.

While I still disagree and think they are assholes I can at least respect more those who would deny all medical care than those that don't until something like this comes up then a line must be drawn. The ones advocating no medical treatment maybe callous and inhumane but at least their being honest.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Do we have to constantly bring up that Medi-Cal, the state's own medicaid services, provides treatment for gender dysphoria, including SRS? SRS is included at the state's most basic levels of healthcare. If you believe that prisoners should at least get the most basic of healthcare, then this is completely fine. In fact, the California Supreme Court ruled that Medi-Cal must cover ”medically-necessary treatment," and SRS was included in that list. In other words, in the state of California, it is deemed necessary. So enough with the cosmetic line.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The idea that a person that gets thrown into prison ceases to be a person and thus doesn't deserve the right of a person is scary to me.

Decent people shouldn't think like that, it's just wrong.

 

[FLAguy954]

Why would tax payers pay for this muderer?

Fucking seriously. This is all I asked myself after reading the OP.

 

[Beefy]

Fucking seriously. This is all I asked myself after reading the OP.

All humans, even prisoners deserve standard human rights.

 

[HazySaiyan]

Fucking seriously. This is all I asked myself after reading the OP.

1) Prisoners are still people and have rights.

2) If the state is going to incarcerate somebody then they are responsible for that person's health and welfare. GRS is a necessary medical procedure, ergo the state pays for it. What if a prisoner requires chemotherapy? Would you protest at the state paying for that? What about anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia? What about antibiotics for an infection?

 

[JasonUresti]

What would some of you say to the victim's family? How would you sell this to them as a good thing? What has the state done for them for failing to protect their murdered father? What should the state do?

This isn't an aggressive post, just curiosity. I have no issues with the surgery being covered.

 

[Beefy]

What would some of you say to the victim's family? How would you sell this to them as a good thing? What has the state done for them for failing to protect their murdered father? What should the state do?

This isn't an aggressive post, just curiosity. I have no issues with the surgery being covered.

Do you want the murderer to be suffering her whole life due to not being able to get SRS? She is locked up for what she did , so is serving her sentence. It's not her fault she can get a op for free and other trans people can't.

 

[HazySaiyan]

What would some of you say to the victim's family? How would you sell this to them as a good thing? What has the state done for them for failing to protect their murdered father? What should the state do?

This isn't an aggressive post, just curiosity. I have no issues with the surgery being covered.

This person committed a serious crime and is now incarcerated for it (deservingly so), but that has no bearing on whether or not she requires a medical procedure. We don't allow victims and their families to decide the fate of criminals because we as a society have deemed the rule of law, respect for human rights and checks & balances as being fundamentally important.

 

[excelsiorlef]

What would some of you say to the victim's family? How would you sell this to them as a good thing? What has the state done for them for failing to protect their murdered father? What should the state do?

This isn't an aggressive post, just curiosity. I have no issues with the surgery being covered.

Honestly?

Nothing....

That's a conversation not worth having for me or for the family.

Prisoners must and will get healthcare but I'm not going to go and try to sell compassion for their father's killer to the victim's family. They have, and rightfully so, no say in what medical care is given to her, so trying to sell them on it is relatively pointless.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I wonder how the conversation continues with a trans male to female hitting two innocents with an axe in Australia overnight then demands hormone pills from police/tax payers to continue their 5 year journey from male to female.

Warning graphic video of it at the link:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76

More info at the jump.

 

[Butterfly Witch]

I wonder how the conversation continues with a trans male to female hitting two innocents with an axe in Australia overnight then demands hormone pills from police/tax payers to continue their 5 year journey from male to female.

Warning graphic video of it at the link:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76

More info at the jump.

Are you implying that criminals shouldn't have access to healthcare?

 

[Beefy]

I wonder how the conversation continues with a trans male to female hitting two innocents with an axe in Australia overnight then demands hormone pills from police/tax payers to continue their 5 year journey from male to female.

Warning graphic video of it at the link:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76

More info at the jump.

I still think the same, even murders have rights.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I wonder how the conversation continues with a trans male to female hitting two innocents with an axe in Australia overnight then demands hormone pills from police/tax payers to continue their 5 year journey from male to female.

Warning graphic video of it at the link:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76

More info at the jump.

*Trans woman not whatever garbled phrase you decided to use there.

If this was a a story of someone on lithium, they'd still get their lithium in prison....

Let me ask you something do you object to trans prisoners getting trans related care or do you object to prisoners getting any health care?

 

[FyreWulff]

I wonder how the conversation continues with a trans male to female hitting two innocents with an axe in Australia overnight then demands hormone pills from police/tax payers to continue their 5 year journey from male to female.

Warning graphic video of it at the link:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76

More info at the jump.

Yes, they should continue to get the treatment. It's very dangerous to stop it.

You wouldn't stop mental health meds on someone going in that needs them. You wouldn't stop B12 infusions for someone with Chrons. You're still trying to pass off basic healthcare as a 'reward'.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Are you implying that criminals shouldn't have access to healthcare?

A criminal, immediately after throwing fellow human rights out the window, demands something for themselves that isn't directly life threatening doesn't strike me as a "we better get right on it stat" response, no.

I just wanted to add a local relevant event to this thread TBH.

Yes, they should continue to get the treatment. It's very dangerous to stop it.

You wouldn't stop mental health meds on someone going in that needs them. You wouldn't stop B12 infusions for someone with Chrons. You're still trying to pass off basic healthcare as a 'reward'.

Define very dangerous? Is it heart attack pills being stopped dangerous?

 

[HazySaiyan]

I wonder how the conversation continues with a trans male to female hitting two innocents with an axe in Australia overnight then demands hormone pills from police/tax payers to continue their 5 year journey from male to female.

Warning graphic video of it at the link:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76

More info at the jump.

Of course they should still get treatment once they're in prison.

EDIT: God I hate the 'well they didn't think of the victim's human rights!' No they didn't, that's why they're in prison. You don't stop being a person just because you're in prison, and heaven forfend we hold ourselves to a higher standard than criminals eh?

 

[excelsiorlef]

A criminal, immediately after throwing fellow human rights out the window, demands something for themselves that isn't directly life threatening doesn't strike me as a "we better get right on it stat" response, no.

I just wanted to add a local relevant event to this thread TBH.

The answer to someone trampling on human rights isn't to trample on human rights....

That isn't punishment it's vengeance...