And who is paying for it?

[Lewkowski]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/P...#photo-7763200

"State officials had appealed Tigar’s ruling but said Norsworthy’s impending release means the case is effectively over. Turner said Norsworthy will be transferred to a halfway house in San Francisco, perhaps this week, and will have her sex-reassignment surgery covered by Medi-Cal."

The fuck is wrong with this country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medi-Cal

Look if you want to screw with your body anyway you want - fine go right ahead. But why in the hell would tax payers have to pay for it?

[LittleFuzzy]

Because the state assumed all responsibility for medical care, including things like mental health, when they put someone in prison and took away their ability to manage care on their own.

[Aimless]

Because not even the state is as transphobic as Lewk

[Lewkowski]

Because the state assumed all responsibility for medical care, including things like mental health, when they put someone in prison and took away their ability to manage care on their own.

LOL it is not a mental healthy issue. What's next boob jobs are a mental health issue too?

[RandBlade]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2969352.html

[Hazir]

LOL it is not a mental healthy issue. What's next boob jobs are a mental health issue too?

The two are not even remotely related.

I wonder by the way how much this surgery is going to cost the state, probably it's gonna cost the tax-payers an excessive amount

[Lewkowski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2969352.html

Wow. I'm just floored by the idiocy of liberals.

[Lewkowski]

The two are not even remotely related.

I wonder by the way how much this surgery is going to cost the state, probably it's gonna cost the tax-payers an excessive amount

Considering these type of surgeries weren't available hundreds of years ago and they are by definition ELECTIVE they are absolutely related. And government shouldn't be paying for elective surgeries in prison. If he wants to go through with a surgery to change his gender that's fine.

Funny thing though I thought the tran community was all about 'self identification' ie if he wants to be called a she then everyone needs to call her a she. And yet now they are saying that in order to be a woman they have to go through this surgery? Yeah... I guess its too much for the crazies to be consistent with their madness.

[LittleFuzzy]

LOL it is not a mental healthy issue.

The health professionals, after years of consideration, ultimately determined that it was. Unsurprisingly, the courts find their determination to have more weight than your uneducated opinion.

Considering these type of surgeries weren't available hundreds of years ago

Most surgeries weren't available hundreds of years ago, including almost all life-saving surgeries. What does that prove?

and they are by definition ELECTIVE

Whose definition? Not the medical professionals.

[Lewkowski]

Don't be ignorant. 'Health professionals' are people with opinions and views just like everyone else. Could you possibly think that folks who are *PAID* to counsel transgenders, *PAID* to do surgeries for transgenders could possibly be unbiased? This is their gravy train. If you've ever worked in management you would realize how rampant FMLA abuse is. And lets not get started on disability claim fraud that doctors willfully comply with.

Furthermore we are talking about 'psychological harm' when we open the floodgates for shit like that we get EVERYTHING paid for by the tax payer.

"Oh so and so is intimidated by the walls of the prison. Based on my expert medical opinion this inmate simply cannot remain inside this prison he must be transferred to one that doesn't have walls."

"My patient is claustrophobic. She simply can't stay in a typical jail cell."

"My patient has enochlophobia he simply can't attend lunch in the mess hall because of the deep psychological harm it does for him to be in crowds."

"My patient has body image issues and simply must have the boob job."

Fuzzy where do you draw the line? Where do you say enough is enough? When a medical profession states something absolutely fucking outrageous based on their 'expert diagnosis' do you say. "Yeah you just have an agenda."

Prison is a PUNISHMENT - you go there for breaking the rules of society. On a basic principal of fairness why would the state pay for a prisoner to get elective surgery when it wouldn't pay for a law abiding citizen to get it? Again I don't have a problem if the prisoner pays for it, if the prisoner's family pays for it or if the prisoner starts a go fund me account. Knock yourself out if you want to put YOUR money to use for prisoners to have elective surgeries and hack off their wieners. But don't demand other people pay for it.

Regarding most surgeries is that people survived just fine without gender reassignment surgery for hundreds of years. This is a modern issue - biology didn't change in those hundreds of years just a small group of people have strange preferences. And that's fine - I'm all for freedom but don't expect people to pay for murderers to get boob jobs. These surgeries are NOT necessary for the health of the inmate.

[earthJoker]

And who is paying for it?

The Germans.

That's the only appropriate answer to this question, ever.

[Steely Glint]

Lewkowski should go back under his bridge.

[Aimless]

This is an unusually high level of dumbfuckery even from Lewkowski. The ignorance is great in this one.

[Aimless]

It's just bizarre to see someone who basically gets boners at the thought of retarded black kids being shot by angry white men call transgender persons weird freaks.

[Lewkowski]

This is an unusually high level of dumbfuckery even from Lewkowski. The ignorance is great in this one.

So you actually support elective surgery on the tax payers dime for prisoners? Where do you draw the line? If some doctor said, "No this person NEEDS botox injections, she has a deep fear of aging and due to her psychological health needs she must have the botox injections!" Yes? No? Or do you just want to rant without meaningful discussion?

[RandBlade]

I draw a line at what doctors prescribe as necessary. If a doctor prescribes it as necessary then it by definition is not elective - elective surgeries are ones the patient does not need.

[Aimless]

Lewk, do you even know what the word "elective" means in the context of medicine or the rationale behind offering this particular procedure?

And is it senility that's caused you to forget that you're speaking to one of the hundreds of millions of people in the western world who believe in some form of publicly funded healthcare system?

Have you also forgotten that I, unlike you, do not get boners at the thought of prisoners being raped and tortured before they're shot and slowly left to die?

Finally, have you actually thought through the retarded examples you keep bringing up? If so, have you tried running them through another brain, ie. one that works?

I feel like, if you're going to mock liberals for being dumb, then the least you can do is to try to be less dumb than something that is really dumb. You argue with the fervor and arrogance of someone who knows everything, which is kinda odd because it seems fairly clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Lewkowski]

I draw a line at what doctors prescribe as necessary. If a doctor prescribes it as necessary then it by definition is not elective - elective surgeries are ones the patient does not need.

So regardless of actual evidence to the contrary the doctor's word is law? So if a doctor signs paperwork stating the person has a physical disability due to a back injury and the company later investigates an films the guy doing back flips and competing in triathlons... you're a-OK with pushing forward the long term disability claim because the doctor said so?

Or how about the examples I used. Fear of crowds, fear of closed in spaces- should prisons change all of that per doctor's recommendation? Considering the amount of medical fraud why in the hell would you trust a probable biased source to make that decision? Of course the doctor is going to say it is necessary - the doctor has EVERY incentive to do so.

Again - if the doctor says "Yes she needs a boob job otherwise she'll go into depression" you are OK with the state paying for it? Really? Just on the doctor's word?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, do you even know what the word "elective" means in the context of medicine or the rationale behind offering this particular procedure?

And is it senility that's caused you to forget that you're speaking to one of the hundreds of millions of people in the western world who believe in some form of publicly funded healthcare system?

Have you also forgotten that I, unlike you, do not get boners at the thought of prisoners being raped and tortured before they're shot and slowly left to die?

Finally, have you actually thought through the retarded examples you keep bringing up? If so, have you tried running them through another brain, ue. one that works?

I feel like, if you're going to mock liberals for being dumb then the least you can do is to try to be less dumb than something that is really dumb. You argue with the fervor and arrogance of someone who knows everything, which is kinda odd because it seems fairly clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Still waiting for an actual pinpointing of your beliefs. Where do you draw the line on what is 'medically required.'

I used a couple of extreme examples - sure, but that is where the rubber meets the road. Should a prisoner be given a larger cell because they claim claustrophobia? Should a female prisoner get a boob job if the doctor said it was necessary? At least have the guts to state what your position actually is as opposed to being blindly supportive of every transgender issue that comes up.

[Aimless]

What is the treatment for claustrophobia?

What is the rationale behind offering a "boob-job"? What alternative treatment is available?

[RandBlade]

So regardless of actual evidence to the contrary the doctor's word is law?

Glad you used the word evidence. What evidence to the contrary? It is the doctor's job to determine on medical grounds what the evidence is. Nobody else's, just the doctor.

If you dispute a doctors decision get a second opinion, but if the second opinion is the same then that is the decision.

So if a doctor signs paperwork stating the person has a physical disability due to a back injury and the company later investigates an films the guy doing back flips and competing in triathlons... you're a-OK with pushing forward the long term disability claim because the doctor said so?

You are aware that it is possible to exercise with a back problem? In that circumstance I'd probably want a second opinion and if the first doctor was fraudulent or committing malpractice then that should be investigated.

Or how about the examples I used. Fear of crowds, fear of closed in spaces- should prisons change all of that per doctor's recommendation? Considering the amount of medical fraud why in the hell would you trust a probable biased source to make that decision? Of course the doctor is going to say it is necessary - the doctor has EVERY incentive to do so.

Firstly if a doctor is corrupt then that should be prosecuted, however there is no endemic problem of that as much as you're making shit up. Secondly if the doctor makes an instruction then yes it should be followed, that is the purpose of having doctors.

Again - if the doctor says "Yes she needs a boob job otherwise she'll go into depression" you are OK with the state paying for it? Really? Just on the doctor's word?

The doctor's word is the medical necessity, how else do you define what is medically necessary other than what the doctor determines. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

[Aimless]

But I agree with the general reasoning though. We should replace doctors, scientists, engineers, chemists, biologists, statisticians with extremely dumb priests who regularly hit themselves in the head with baseball bats. They are the only ones who can be trusted, except from the bunghole out of which you seem to be pulling these arguments.

[Lewkowski]

What is the treatment for claustrophobia?

What is the rationale behind offering a "boob-job"? What alternative treatment is available?

Putting prisoner in a larger cell I imagine.

Boob job - meh could be lots of bull shit liberals will think up. Could go with the claim of gerascophobia and say that saggy tits makes her feel old and she's scared of that. Alternatively you could go with the argument that the person's appearance is critical to her well being and that's why she needs the boob job. We aren't far from it - for the transgender folks the gender reassignment surgery is probably only the first step. Next they'll be demanding makeup (oh wait there have already been cases of this, though the court typically doesn't side with the complainers) as part of their needs!

[Lewkowski]

But I agree with the general reasoning though. We should replace doctors, scientists, engineers, chemists, biologists, statisticians with extremely dumb priests who regularly hit themselves in the head with baseball bats. They are the only ones who can be trusted, except from the bunghole out of which you seem to be pulling these arguments.

Only I've never suggested that. What *you* think should happen is that we should listen to this guy because he's a scientist!

http://www.sharewik.com/portfolio-it...-the-word-out/

Oh but wait he's funded by Coca-cola so obviously he's a shill and should be ignored. (Actually I agree his science is stupid, sugary drinks absolutely are part of the rise in obesity). And why do people think this? Because his science is being funded by someone with an agenda. Well guess what - doctors are also being funded by people with an agenda. Why do you think it is so easy to file for FMLA? Why do you think it is so easy to get doctors saying "medically required" on every little thing. Does a 2nd doctor not chosen by the inmate get a 2nd look? Do they need the backing of studies to look at real biological consequences for doing something or not doing something to inmate? Nah just need the one doctor's A-OK! Completely stupid.

[RandBlade]

You are aware of the concept of a second opinion?

Of course a second doctor not chosen by the in-mate can look. In fact normally the doctors in a prison were chosen by the prisons authorities and not the patients. Now that you've learnt about the concept of a second opinion I'm guessing you can stop talking about fictional contradictory unnamed evidence.

[Lewkowski]

Glad you used the word evidence. What evidence to the contrary? It is the doctor's job to determine on medical grounds what the evidence is. Nobody else's, just the doctor.

If you dispute a doctors decision get a second opinion, but if the second opinion is the same then that is the decision.
You are aware that it is possible to exercise with a back problem? In that circumstance I'd probably want a second opinion and if the first doctor was fraudulent or committing malpractice then that should be investigated.
Firstly if a doctor is corrupt then that should be prosecuted, however there is no endemic problem of that as much as you're making shit up. Secondly if the doctor makes an instruction then yes it should be followed, that is the purpose of having doctors.
The doctor's word is the medical necessity, how else do you define what is medically necessary other than what the doctor determines. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Was there a 2nd opinion? Because I could absolutely find you a doctor who would disagree with the analysis. But this is a MENTAL issue. They aren't doing a CT/MRI to determine he 'needs' this. There is absolutely no evidence that this will 'fix' him. Its not a broken leg where there is plenty of evidence. Just like the claustrophobia and boob job examples - both are mental issues that you can't substainally prove. Its all based on what the inmate is saying - and if the inmate says something that gets them what they want why the hell wouldn't they lie?

Yes the doctor should be investigated. Sadly that rarely happens. Only in out and out blatant medicare fraud (ie saying a visit or procedure happened when it never did) doctors are rarely prosecuted in criminal law. That's why a doctor's word should never be enough. There needs to be proof - ie real proof not someone saying they feel something.

You're not completely ignorant Rand - you know people work on incentives. If no one punishes doctors for filling FMLA paperwork for 'headaches' or 'back pain' without substantial physical proof outside of the patient's word why wouldn't they? They CHARGE for filing FMLA paperwork. It makes them $$. And if the patient is denied they just go right next door and the next person does it.

Doctor's word isn't instant evidence. And no doubt this is the inmates personal physician. As a whole I'd absolutely err on the side of NOT PAYING FOR TREATMENT OF MURDERS than error on the side of wasting tax payer money on scum.

So once again - if the doctor said it was necessary for a prisoner to have a boob job - you're OK with giving them a boob job? Really? /Boggle

[Lewkowski]

I sure hope this comes up in one of the Democratic Primary debates. It would be an awesome win/win.

If Hillary stands up and says that the taxpayers should pay for inmates transgender surgeries she'll be slammed in the general election.

If Hillary stands up and says that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for inmates transgender surgeries her liberal base will grow enraged leading to a tougher nomination fight.

Definition of win/win.

[LittleFuzzy]

Don't be ignorant. 'Health professionals' are people with opinions and views just like everyone else. Could you possibly think that folks who are *PAID* to counsel transgenders, *PAID* to do surgeries for transgenders could possibly be unbiased? This is their gravy train. If you've ever worked in management you would realize how rampant FMLA abuse is.

And instead we're supposed to take the word of someone whose education and expertise on mental health matters is less than that of someone who only took a high-school level psych class and who is equally biased by both his professional and his politics leaving him opposed to paying for anything he might be able to weasel out of? Your real problem, Lewk, is that I and most of the denizens of this forum are actually NOT ignorant, the way you wish we all were.

Furthermore we are talking about 'psychological harm' when we open the floodgates for shit like that we get EVERYTHING paid for by the tax payer.

No we don't, just those whose healthcare is already payed for by the tax-payer. You're already paying for mental health treatments like SSRI, anti-psychotics, medical treatment for all kinds of brain dysfunctions and disorders, etc. You've just classified this treatment as elective because you're an ignorant twit who arbitrarily declares some diagnoses to not be real.

Prison is a PUNISHMENT

That's what you insist in another expression of your willful persistent ignorance.

- you go there for breaking the rules of society. On a basic principal of fairness why would the state pay for a prisoner to get elective surgery when it wouldn't pay for a law abiding citizen to get it?[/quote]

A) it's not elective. B, even if it were, the state would bear more responsibility (whatever the level of responsibility is) because it HAS assumed complete guardianship over the prisoner and taking responsibility for all their health and wellness factors falls under that. Don't like it, then let go of some of that iron control you think is necessary for "punishment."

Regarding most surgeries is that people survived just fine without gender reassignment surgery for hundreds of years.

Did they? How do you know that? What well of historical psych evaluations are you drawing on to determine just who had intense body dysphoria and what the consequences of it were? Oh but I forgot, you think things like depression and suicide are elective and not a matter for healthcare either, don't you?

This is a modern issue - biology didn't change in those hundreds of years just a small group of people have strange preferences. And that's fine - I'm all for freedom but don't expect people to pay for murderers to get boob jobs. These surgeries are NOT necessary for the health of the inmate.

This is an issue that existed back then too, just no one had a diagnosis or treatment for it because our knowledge into psyche and the workings of the brain, not to mention our medical treatments period, were so primitive or nonexistent.

[Being]

The article doesn't explain why the operation is necessary. Without that information all of you are just expressing your personal bias.

[agamemnus]

Just one thing, if I may. These surgeries cost extreme amounts, and let's suppose you believe that for the mental health of the prisoner, they should be allowed (and free) in prisons.

Following that line of thought, why not extend this to all prisoners by designing prisons which serve the mental health of the prisoners inside? (and which will dramatically lower recidivism rates???) It is completely insane and an outrage that taxpayers pay for this and yet we allow violent gangs to form in prison.