HazySaiyan
Banned
'Tablet privileges'
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
California Funds First Prisoner Sex-Reassignment Surgery and Move to Women's Prison
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
- Status
'Tablet privileges'
excelsiorlef
Member
Actually unlike Gender Dysphoria surgery to treat BDD is not recommended: https://bdd.iocdf.org/expert-opinions/cosmetic-treatments-and-bdd/
Cosmetic surgery for BDD can actually make it worse.
Neither here nor there in regards to this topic but I felt it important to mention.
I'm a resident of California and I do not know what you are talking about. We don't have universal healthcare, and MediCal doesn't cover transition surgery. Not even the minimum healthcare premium from an insurance company gets you reassignment surgery
Why are we giving it to someone who is convicted of kidnap and murder when honest hard working people don't get that kind of coverage? We don't even give our veterans that kind of coverage (not yet anyway).
Not paying for this person's transition surgery is not taking anything way from anyone. In fact I would sooner argue that paying for this murderers surgery is taking away from every honest law abiding citizens who does not get to have their surgery funded by our healthcare system
and I'm sorry to speak lower of someone like this, but when you are a murderer I do think less of you as a human being. I wouldn't think so negatively about this if it wasn't for the fact that this murderer is getting better treatment than most people who do not commit murder. Lets be honest, if you saw a go fund me for this murderer's surgery would you volunteer to donate a single penny towards it? I know I wouldn't, so I cannot in good conscience be okay with making California residents pay for it
excelsiorlef
Member
https://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/...opens-doors-to-care-for-transgender-patients/
Despite the fact that this really isn't how taxes even work, the residents of California are putting in less than a penny each for this.
Denying this surgery wasn't going to magically give it to someone else. Not how any of this works.
You're tireless. I like that.
Well yes actually, paying for this murder's surgery is money away from honest citizen's healthcare coverage. And no, MediCal does not cover transition surgery, they are required by law to evaluate requests, but guess what? they almost never actually pay for it because there isn't enough money....
excelsiorlef
Member
No it's money out of the health budget for the California Department of Corrections.
It's money away from everyone.. goodness, I always argue to conservatives that our overcrowded prison system takes money away from other programs, because it does. We put more money into our prisons than we do our schools and hospitals. Don't even try to tell me that this isn't money taken away from honest hard working peoples' healthcare coverage
GhostTrick
Banned
That's wicked. Of all the person, for a murderer, lol. There are dozens of people who'd need that money for their transition surgery outside of jail.
To be fair, I think it's less about concrete amount of money and more about a symbol. The fact that she's a prisoner isnt the problem. Being a murderer is though.
To be fair, I think it's less about concrete amount of money and more about a symbol. The fact that she's a prisoner isnt the problem. Being a murderer is though.
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Medical-Fact-Sheet.pdf
"Medi-Cal should cover hormone treatment, gender reassignment surgery, and other necessary procedures. Medi-Cal is required by law to evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis. They must approve those requests that they find to be medically necessary so long as the procedure is not considered to be ”experimental." Medi-Cal's definition of experimental does not include gender reassignment surgery. "
The keyword here is "must", they are required by law to approve those requests since SRS is not experimental.
It doesn't matter if she's a murderer, a child molester, the Orlando shooter, ISIS, or Adolf Hitler, denying her healthcare that she needs is unconstitutional as it fits the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. It is the state's responsibility to ensure that their prisoners remain alive and relativity healthy, even those who are on death row.
Exactly, we don't even provide our veterans with this kind of coverage, even though we should.
Once again, they are required by law to evaluate requests, but virtually every surgeon's rates are above what MediCal offers to cover
excelsiorlef
Member
Your prison health care system was so piss poor ten years ago it was deemed unconstitutional and had to be taken over by a federal judge... consider that.
The 20k for this surgery would not have gone anywhere else but back into the health care budget for the California Department of Corrections.
GhostTrick
Banned
You're right on that point. That budget was already decided for this department. This wasnt money that would've gone outside of jail. What I regret though is that the first person to benefit it is a murderer. Now, of course things aren't that simple and it's not like they had the choice between many people, but I feel like it's kinda sad that the first person to benefit an important progress is a murderer.
excelsiorlef
Member
And denying this woman surgery would not have meant any other trans person would have gotten it instead...
We don't decide who gets care on the basis of severity of the crime.
It is what is. The precident is now set for future trans folk in prison.
It could go to MediCal actually, and cover the transition surgery for people who did not commit murder. You're seriously going to imply it is unconstitutional to not provide inmates with better healthcare than students or veterans? bull...
GhostTrick
Banned
Yes' it's what I said in the post after, of course it's bot that easy and it doesn't mean that amount of money would've been used for another person in the need of transition surgery.
We don't decide but it doesn't change the fact that it's rather sad. It's what it is indeed: A murderer being the first to set the precedent. It still ticks me off and I hope you can see why. It doesn't mean I'm against this transition surgery being funded for prisoners.
It is, that's what the supreme court decided and they are the final word when it comes to interrupting the Constitution. Prisoners forfeit their freedom and are under the responsibility of the state, the state are required to ensure that those prisoners are alive and healthy, even those who are in death row, because they lack the means and opportunities to provide for themselves. As such, they are legally in the right to have food, water, shelter, and basic healthcare. Students and Veterans, those who aren't disable, technically have more means and opportunities than any prisoner.
It sucks, but that's how the current system in the U.S. is, if anyone wants that to change, then focus on advocating for universal healthcare because denying those below you is not going to solve a single thing.
excelsiorlef
Member
That's not how it works. The money would stay in the health budget.
What level of health care are you in favor of for prisoners? Where do you draw the line.
Our system doesn't consider it inhumane to not pay for the transition surgery of students, veterans, and every other law abiding citizen, yet it considers it inhumane to not pay the transition surgery of a murderer.
If you have no problems with this system, then I don't know what else to say...
Well, if we provided universal healthcare to every honest law abiding citizen, including students and vets, and we included transition surgery as part of this coverage, then I would have no problem with expanding that right unto prison inmates convicted of murder. It's not the coverage that I have a problem with, its the fact that we are prioritizing the coverage of murderers first. We set a higher healthcare standard for this murderer above everyone else, it's not right
excelsiorlef
Member
Who here has argued that it system shouldn't also provide for everyone else?
No one. It's horrific that it doesn't.
Here's the catch. Not providing for this prisoner and the next one isn't going to do anything to change the fact that the system is broken. It'll just break it further.
I'm still unclear where your line is. What about lithium for prisoners with bipolar disorder or virtually any treatment that would cost folk non in prison money.
Vincent Grayson
Member
You're right, but nothing about what you're saying justifies taking away the thing we're already doing right (providing healthcare to prisoners) until we're able to do the right thing for our citizens as a whole.
Of course it's fucking ridiculous that our prisoners get better healthcare than "normal" citizens. But the solution isn't "make prison worse".
Those people are "free" people and as such the government is legally not responsible for them in that remark, unless they are disabled, and even then some states don't cover that. Our system does need change, we desperately need universal healthcare of some kind, but going after prisoner's healthcare is not going to do anything.
It is money away from our other healthcare programs. Just as money put into our oversized military and over populated prisons is money away from our schools and hospitals. I'm sorry, but murderers should not get better coverage than law abiding citizens. You want to raise the healthcare standards for prisoners? raise the healthcare standards for everyone else first, then we can pay for this murderer's surgery
excelsiorlef
Member
What level of health care is acceptable to you for prisoners?
It is not money from your other programs. Not giving her the surgery would have just kept the 20k in the California Department of Corrections healthcare budget.
Here's the thing, the healthcare standards for prisoners isn't raised, it's set. It's set because it is the responsibility of the state that prisoners are healthy, that means giving them basic healthcare. I'm pretty sure they won't get tooth implants and only have their teeth removed because that's not necessary, for example. They are given the basic to make sure they are healthy. We cannot remove their right to this, as it is considered cruel and unusual by the 8th, whether we like it or not.
Now, on the topic of transgender care, SRS is the only proven treatment by medical specialists that treats Gender Dysphoria, a very serious biological/mental condition that is dangerous for the individual. In California, regardless what you say about Medi Cal, the courts have ruled SRS and the general treatment for Gender Dysphoria is considered necessary. As such, in the most basic care, the prison must comply to treat her condition.
The system already exists, prisoners have access to healthcare more so than law abiding citizens, you cannot change that by removing the prisoners care, no matter how angry you are, nor should we because we're targeting the wrong people. What we need to do is punch up and ask for the same basic care that they have. We deserve that right as citizens of this nation as well, no one will argue otherwise.
Again, I would argue that paying for this murderer's surgery is taking away from a law abiding citizen who cannot get their surgery covered. If it is inhumane to not pay for this murderer's surgery, then it is inhumane to not pay for everyone else's surgery
If we don't have enough money to pay for honest people's transition surgery. Then one solution out to be we take every penny we spend to pay for murderer's surgery, and put that money towards paying for law abiding citizen's surgery instead. We'll raise our inmate's coverage after we raise the coverage for law abiding citizens. Don't put the people who committed murder first, put the people who did not commit murder first
If you've already achieved that standard for law abiding citizens, then have at it
That which is equal to law abiding citizens. Murderers should not come first, law abiding citizens should
but again MediCal doesn't actually pay for anyone's transition surgery on its own because the rates are too high
This is the state that voted to keep the death penalty three times by the way. We rule that a murderer's life is both worthless and greater than everyone else's
Maybe someone should advocate on behalf of free citizens in need of healthcare as strongly as those who advocated in favor of the humane treatment of prisoners.
I wonder if there's anyone out there who would do that. Maybe someone in public office who could get policies enacted.
I wonder if there's anyone out there who would do that. Maybe someone in public office who could get policies enacted.
Again, this isn't about MediCal, and yes they do, I'll even call a few trans centers tomorrow to confirm.
That being said, regardless of it, the state's court has also decided that SRS and hormonal treatment for transgender individuates is considered medically necessary.
Also, she wasn't sentence to death, she was sentence to life in prison. Even so, we have to take care of inmates who are sentence to death and ensure they are healthy. I don't care what the people voted for, how people feel, the law requires to treat them at least with some human dignity whether people like it or not. They are a human first, murderer second, and as such they should be treated as such
You're actually doing a great job by giving sources, much more than most vapid responses in this thread. My comment was more on the fact that thinking of these kind of surgeries as being "cosmetic" instead of clinically needed being fundamentally wrong on most accounts. Even in some cases where it's just a nosejob, it can still be clinically needed, as unintuitive as that seems for some people.
Except for BDD, that nosejob is seen as NOT clinically needed since it has a good chance of not helping and even making things worse.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said in some cases it is clinically needed, not that it was needed in every case. Stop thinking in absolutes, as a physician we act on these things in a case to case basis.
Word for word, you said exactly how I feel.
You know how a budget works? Unless California gives prisons blank checks then yes, funds have to be appropriated. So yes the 20k used for this surgery is 20k less of the budget. This wouldnt be a problem if prisoners were being took care of adequately to begin with.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
If someone wants to say whether they agree or not with what their government spends money on, they're allowed. That's good enough motivation. This isn't really an argument.
Following along your logic track for a moment, do you then believe the justice system is infallible and no innocent people are sitting in jail right now?
HazySaiyan
Banned
Show me an example of another prisoner in California not getting medical care because this person has had SRS.
Agreed this thread is a fucking dumpster fire.This thread
Personally, if I was in prison for whatever reason, I would hope that people would still realize that I'm a person with medical needs. And that since I'm in prison, I can't find a way to pay them at all. Should it be available to those of us not in prison? Sure. But someone in prison can't get it any other way.
When you imprison someone, as a civilised society you have a duty to care for that prisoner.
Their punishment is the deprivation and restriction of their liberty. Beyond that defined sentence, adding on punishments as barbaric as withholding medical treatment is both cruel and unusual.
If a prisoner breaks their leg, society has a duty to set the bone and heal the wound. This situation is no different beyond the lack of acceptance of the existence of Trans* individuals, and the refusal to see treatment for their condition as being as necessary as treatment for any other serious medical issue.
Healthcare should be a right for all, but the state of America's fucked up healthcare "system" is no excuse for allowing the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Their punishment is the deprivation and restriction of their liberty. Beyond that defined sentence, adding on punishments as barbaric as withholding medical treatment is both cruel and unusual.
If a prisoner breaks their leg, society has a duty to set the bone and heal the wound. This situation is no different beyond the lack of acceptance of the existence of Trans* individuals, and the refusal to see treatment for their condition as being as necessary as treatment for any other serious medical issue.
Healthcare should be a right for all, but the state of America's fucked up healthcare "system" is no excuse for allowing the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
I agree.
I believe gender is a gray scale with lots of variations. Whether or not you have male or female genitalia does not change your gender identify and albeit as an outsider that may be partially ignorant - my intuition is that fixating on surgery to express that gender as some sort of fundamental requirement creates a very odd precedent for trans people. There is nothing wrong with someone that identifies as male or female but has the other organs. Conversely, there is nothing wrong with someone that identifies as male or female but has the other organs and has surgery to replace them. However, it is not the same as heart replacement because it is not as critical, and I don't understand the series of assumptions that not providing this surgery means that that criminal will commit suicide.
This is just my opinion. Reading this thread and seeing the association with any similar position as anti-trans really reminds me of the bubbles that we're seeing with polarized politics. I say this as someone that would much prefer Hillary to be president...I've been to home owner's association meetings with more communication and the last time I went some guy wanted his annual fees waived because he "made his front yard look real good so everyone's property values are increased."
Thats not how this works at all. This is stupid to even ask.
And I've already posted example of prisoners being withheld medical treatment, in California.
Butterfly Witch
Member
While someone's genitalia does not define their gender, someone's genitalia can create massive gender dysphoria which causes depression, anxiety, thoughts of self harm, self loathing and eventually suicide. For someone with gender dysphoria, being denied SRS is literally torture.
Considering the information above, and the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, keeping a trans criminal/prisoner away from HRT and/or SRS is quite literally illegal.
Lol holy shit dude, a sex change is not life threatening.
Comparing a prison inmate as a ward of the state to a child and their parent is a bit of a stretch. 1st the child is a.... Child! They literally need someone to look after them. 2nd they haven't broken the law ( in this case murdered someone) and 3rd the child is generally paid for by the earning the parents make, not tax payer dollars.
I have no problem with someone getting a surgery or whatever else the hell the else people want to do themselves, but not with tax dollars. It's a complete and tot waste of money. For a prisoner. Who is serving a life sentence. Smh.
Edit: not individually responded to all of you. I think it's a waste of tax money and it's fine if you don't agree, but I see it as special treatment for a prisoner. It's not life and death situation no matter how you try and spin the importance of identity or whatever else. This person sacrificed rights of those kinds when he/she murdered another human being.
Like, if you're not getting that part of it, you are truly lost.
HazySaiyan
Banned
How is it stupid to ask? You said that $20k for the surgery is $20k less in the budget, so you're implying that there is less medical care being offered. You're implying that somebody must be going without to facilitate this.
And you'll have to forgive me for not seeing those examples, this is a large thread. I still don't see how those examples can be in anyway be down to this prisoner needing SRS.
Why does something have to be life threatening for prisoners to get treatment for it? Its a medical condition, that has a diagnosis, that the prisoner has. Why would we not give her treatment?
So, just like I asked the other person, following this logic, there are no wrongly convicted people sitting in jail right now, according to your view?
Butterfly Witch
Member
What do you think happens to children who have no parents or people who cannot be their own legal guardians and have no relatives willing to take their guardianship? The State takes ownership of guardianship and becomes financially responsible. Prisoners are literally the same way. That's why they're fed, clothed and have their medical needs taken care of.
Also, SRS is very much life threatening to a transgender person, in the same respect that keeping someone who is bipolar or has PTSD from their medication.
You're literally arguing in favor of keeping a trans prisoner from getting the required healthcare so they don't suffer from gender dysphoria and mental torture. You do know that the 8th Amendment exists right?
Its stupid to ask because thats not how a budget work. Funds are allocated at the beginning of the FY and used through out the year. California is June to July so we are smack dab in the middle of the year, meaning there should be at least half the budget(not really) I.E funds shouldnt have run out yet, so no this surgery in of itself has not denied anybody from getting coverage.
The problem is, as I've already pointed out is that patients with far more serious complications are often neglected by this same system that is allowing her to have her expensive non-life threatening surgery take place.
- Status