Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Mar 28, 2013.

  1. "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    news:CD8307C8.99A86%...
    > On 4/4/13 9:32 AM, in article kjk2ob$6jc$, "Charles E.
    > Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    >> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eek:...
    >>
    >>> You seem to think that an objection to the state paying for the
    >>> procedures is somehow a rejection of transgenders. It's not. It's a
    >>> rejection of the way tax funds are applied.

    >>
    >> Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time any more with a wilfully blind
    >> bigot who can't engage with let alone comprehend the issues.

    >
    > Oh my GOD! I feel SO sorry for your family!!! Living with a narrow-mind
    > such as yourself must be Hell on Earth.
    >
    > BTW: You HAVE "wasted your time" because you ENJOY ranting about yourself.


    How so? Human rights effect even a troll like you.

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Apr 4, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:33:51 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >: >: by going out of his way to misgender her.


    >: > Him. Whatever a person's mental persuasion regarding his/her sexuality,
    >: > his/her sex is what it is for genetic reasons. A "sex change" operation (which
    >: > he hasn't even had) doesn't affect that.


    >: sex != gender.
    >: And sex != sexuality (an obvious one is sex: male,
    >: sexuality: prefers males)


    >: Read closely: "misgender", not "missex".


    >: Oh, it may be that your definitions of gender and sex don't
    >: match the dictionary.


    > "Gender" is a linguistic, not biological, term.


    Gender is *indeed* not a biological term, and therefore not
    tied to the accident of getting XX or XY chromosomes, never
    mind [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].

    Gender is *indeed* not a biological term, and therefore not
    tied to the expression of one's genes[8]: Gender does not
    depend on having a penis or a vagina (nor terstes or ovaries)
    --- never mind [9] which creates real problems for those who
    think such things are/have to be binary.

    > (It explains, more or less,
    > why it's "die Frau" but "das Mädchen" and "das Fräulein".)


    Gender is whether the piece of piping has the threading on the
    outside or is a bit larger in diameter and has the threading
    on the inside.

    And --- using *your* logic there --- that is the only valid
    definition of "gender" and anything else is weasel words.


    > The meaning the
    > word seems to have appropriated in present-day American English reflects only
    > our prudishness and reverence for euphemisms.



    Luckily, you're not the one who defines language:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender
    http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/gender
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/gender_1

    Oh, and even in the olden days:
    http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/gender


    What you are obviously missing --- or willfully ignoring ---
    is that gender --- in the obviously correct meaning here ---
    is a social construct and an identity. Oh, by the way, it's
    not binary. I understand that's terribly frightening for some
    and threatens their world view --- and a few of them are willing
    to commit crimes up to and including murder in their fear.

    Just as some who are secretly very afraid they might be
    homosexuals are very active and often brutal gay bashers.


    "Gender is a linguistic term" and "Aperture is a biological
    term"[10].


    None of that has anything to do if medical conditions (IDC10
    F64) are to be treated when the sufferers are convicted
    murderers, even when the conditions are not life threatening
    --- that is a completely different question. (As to the money
    argument: misgenedering someone in speech does really save
    incredible amounts of money, because you need 33% more letters
    for 'she' than for 'he' and for 'female' than for 'male'.)

    -Wolfgang

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome
    [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
    [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome
    [6] And there are even more, stranger, compositions
    [7] Oh, this one is *real* fun:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)
    [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
    [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
    [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_(botany)
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 4, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Ellwood <> wrote:

    > Many English think that the genders can be muddled: I don't. People point
    > to the fact that some animals also do . It is my opinion that we are (or
    > should be) better than that.


    Better for whom, better by what measure and better according
    to which standard?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 4, 2013
    #43
  4. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Basically, Bob's opinion is, his tax $$$ are better spent on
    > individuals and projects more deserving of assistance, than an
    > ego-centric, psychopathic, convicted, murderer, demanding that the
    > state fork over $700K for sex reassignment surgery and ongoing related
    > therapy.


    That's understood.

    Some people think negroes to be not deserving. Not so long
    ago many didn't think them to be proper humans and held them as
    slaves, and after that, they were (and in some ways still are)
    second class people.


    > As far as human rights afforded to an incarcerated convicted murderer
    > goes, Robert (Michelle) Kosilek has all his necessary medical needs met
    > by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.


    By a certain definition of 'necessary', of course.


    > In many
    > States prison inmates have far better access to medical and dental
    > care, than a large sector of the US population, the working poor, who
    > are tax payers denied access to Federal & State health programs.


    Which means --- obviously --- the prison inmates /are/ more
    deserving. If people thought the working poor were deserving
    proper medical and dental care, at least to the same degree
    as prison inmates, they'd change the laws.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 4, 2013
    #44
  5. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 21:40:26 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:33:51 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    :
    : >: >: by going out of his way to misgender her.
    :
    : >: > Him. Whatever a person's mental persuasion regarding his/her sexuality,
    : >: > his/her sex is what it is for genetic reasons. A "sex change" operation (which
    : >: > he hasn't even had) doesn't affect that.
    :
    : >: sex != gender.
    : >: And sex != sexuality (an obvious one is sex: male,
    : >: sexuality: prefers males)
    :
    : >: Read closely: "misgender", not "missex".
    :
    : >: Oh, it may be that your definitions of gender and sex don't
    : >: match the dictionary.
    :
    : > "Gender" is a linguistic, not biological, term.
    :
    : Gender is *indeed* not a biological term, and therefore not
    : tied to the accident of getting XX or XY chromosomes, never
    : mind [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].
    :
    : Gender is *indeed* not a biological term, and therefore not
    : tied to the expression of one's genes[8]: Gender does not
    : depend on having a penis or a vagina (nor terstes or ovaries)
    : --- never mind [9] which creates real problems for those who
    : think such things are/have to be binary.
    :
    : > (It explains, more or less,
    : > why it's "die Frau" but "das M?dchen" and "das Fr?ulein".)
    :
    : Gender is whether the piece of piping has the threading on the
    : outside or is a bit larger in diameter and has the threading
    : on the inside.
    :
    : And --- using *your* logic there --- that is the only valid
    : definition of "gender" and anything else is weasel words.
    :
    :
    : > The meaning the
    : > word seems to have appropriated in present-day American English reflects only
    : > our prudishness and reverence for euphemisms.
    :
    :
    : Luckily, you're not the one who defines language:
    : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
    : http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender
    : http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/gender
    : http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/gender_1
    :
    : Oh, and even in the olden days:
    : http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/gender
    :
    :
    : What you are obviously missing --- or willfully ignoring ---
    : is that gender --- in the obviously correct meaning here ---
    : is a social construct and an identity. Oh, by the way, it's
    : not binary. I understand that's terribly frightening for some
    : and threatens their world view --- and a few of them are willing
    : to commit crimes up to and including murder in their fear.
    :
    : Just as some who are secretly very afraid they might be
    : homosexuals are very active and often brutal gay bashers.
    :
    :
    : "Gender is a linguistic term" and "Aperture is a biological
    : term"[10].
    :
    :
    : None of that has anything to do if medical conditions (IDC10
    : F64) are to be treated when the sufferers are convicted
    : murderers, even when the conditions are not life threatening
    : --- that is a completely different question. (As to the money
    : argument: misgenedering someone in speech does really save
    : incredible amounts of money, because you need 33% more letters
    : for 'she' than for 'he' and for 'female' than for 'male'.)
    :
    : -Wolfgang
    :
    : [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
    : [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
    : [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome
    : [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
    : [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome
    : [6] And there are even more, stranger, compositions
    : [7] Oh, this one is *real* fun:
    : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)
    : [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
    : [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
    : [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_(botany)

    I'm not out to embarrass anybody. If I'd known you'd degenerate into such
    incomprehensible drivel, I'd have been more careful not to provoke you. I'm up
    for a truce if you are.

    Take two of your big white pills and two of the little yellow ones. Then get a
    good night's sleep. We shall speak of this no more.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 5, 2013
    #45
  6. "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:32:02 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>
    >>> You seem to think that an objection to the state paying for the
    >>> procedures is somehow a rejection of transgenders. It's not. It's a
    >>> rejection of the way tax funds are applied.

    >>
    >>Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time any more with a wilfully blind
    >>bigot who can't engage with let alone comprehend the issues.

    >
    > The problem is you two are talking past each other.
    >
    > Tony is concerned at the state spending what was alleged to be
    > $900,000 on the necessary medical treatment. You are concerned at what
    > you perceive as a prejudice on his part. I think his prejudice is
    > fiscal, not social.
    >
    > If I have read the situation correctly, I am sympathetic to the basic
    > position taken by each of you.


    I've touched on human rights, medical necessity, and social and economic
    issues but if people are going to wilfully ignore those to keep hammering a
    single unsubstantiated claim there's nothing to discuss with them.

    Where do people pull a figure of $900,000 from? I can tell you off the top
    of my head what the likely ranges of expenditures are but I'm waiting for
    one of these Fox News/Daily Mail types to do the basic research themselves.
    Get some real facts not made up facts to justify their bigotry.

    There are also costs for *not* spending the money. I've already mentioned
    estimates run as high as five times. That doesn't count the additional costs
    where denied healthcare may be a causal factor in hate crimes. How much does
    a full murder investigation cost? Those costs can run into the millions.

    You get the same bullshit claims of money being wasted from some people
    regardless of whether it's taxpayer funded or insurance funded. The same
    types who often get caught red handed claiming on house insurance for a set
    of golf clubs left in the boot of their Lexus.

    Why should a prisoner get better healthcare than the working poor? Wrong
    question. Why should the working poor be so heavily screwed over by
    Mugabenomics favouring the top 1%?


    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Apr 5, 2013
    #46
  7. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:40:26 PM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    etic reasons. A "sex change" operation (which




    >
    > None of that has anything to do if medical conditions (IDC10
    >
    > F64) are to be treated when the sufferers are convicted
    >
    > murderers, even when the conditions are not life threatening
    >
    > --- that is a completely different question. (As to the money
    >
    > argument: misgenedering someone in speech does really save
    >
    > incredible amounts of money, because you need 33% more letters
    >
    > for 'she' than for 'he' and for 'female' than for 'male'.)


    People that I know who seem to know about these things sometimes refer to the person as Sie, as in sie had a half of lager. I find it a little annoying but understand that the person they are talking about doesn't relly thinkof themselves in the same way as most of us do regaring our gender.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sie_(pronoun)
    Whisky-dave, Apr 5, 2013
    #47
  8. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, April 5, 2013 2:39:18 PM UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
    > On 4/4/13 11:27 AM, in article kjk9g0$r6l$, "Charles E.
    >
    > Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > > "George Kerby" <> wrote in message

    >
    > > news:CD8307C8.99A86%...

    >
    > >> On 4/4/13 9:32 AM, in article kjk2ob$6jc$, "Charles E.

    >
    > >> Hardwidge" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>> news:eek:...

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>> You seem to think that an objection to the state paying for the

    >
    > >>>> procedures is somehow a rejection of transgenders. It's not. It's a

    >
    > >>>> rejection of the way tax funds are applied.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time any more with a wilfully blind

    >
    > >>> bigot who can't engage with let alone comprehend the issues.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Oh my GOD! I feel SO sorry for your family!!! Living with a narrow-mind

    >
    > >> such as yourself must be Hell on Earth.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> BTW: You HAVE "wasted your time" because you ENJOY ranting about yourself.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > How so? Human rights effect even a troll like you.

    >
    >
    >
    > You damn Brits: "affect".
    >
    >
    >
    > If you have to disrupt the group with your "special needs", at least learn
    >
    > to spell correctly...


    Hardly a spelling problem, I see that as a grammar problem, but can you tell spelling mistakes from grammatical errors ?

    Affect and effect are both spelt correctly and are valid words when used correctly.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 5, 2013
    #48
  9. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/4/2013 3:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-04-04 13:32:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Basically, Bob's opinion is, his tax $$$ are better spent on
    >>> individuals and projects more deserving of assistance, than an
    >>> ego-centric, psychopathic, convicted, murderer, demanding that the
    >>> state fork over $700K for sex reassignment surgery and ongoing related
    >>> therapy.

    >>
    >> That's understood.

    >
    > Good!
    >
    >> Some people think negroes to be not deserving.

    >
    > That is a non sequitur in this thread, and was never a part of this
    > discussion. I can speak for myself, and with few exceptions (one
    > Canadian I can thing of) in this NG that the issue of race, religion,
    > sexuality, and ethnicity is a non-issue and do not hold prejudiced views
    > of people who differ from me in those respects.
    >
    >> Not so long ago many didn't think them to be proper humans and held
    >> them as
    >> slaves, and after that, they were (and in some ways still are)
    >> second class people.

    >
    > Bigoted individuals who's thinking is locked in unjust history and
    > cultural prejudice are to be found in all walks of global society. They
    > are found in all nations, and among many faiths.
    >
    >>> As far as human rights afforded to an incarcerated convicted murderer
    >>> goes, Robert (Michelle) Kosilek has all his necessary medical needs met
    >>> by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.

    >>
    >> By a certain definition of 'necessary', of course.

    >
    > "Necessary" means just that.
    > Diabetics get the daily monitoring, special meals, and care they need.
    > Inmates with heart disease get the care they need.
    > Inmates with various cancers get the care and treatment they need.
    > Inmates with dermatitis, gastric ulcers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, vision
    > problems, dental issues, the flu, bad head colds, and a whole shopping
    > list of life threatening, chronic, and the incidental ailments many
    > folks can suffer in a lifetime, get the treatment and care they need.
    > All of the above are undoubtably "necessary".
    >
    > Note; elective surgery such as cosmetic/plastic surgery and gender
    > reassignment surgery is not a "necessary" treatment to meet the
    > requirements of providing a vague "human right" while incarcerated.
    > Those elective, non-emergency surgeries are certainly an unnecessary
    > expense for the Tax Payer.
    >
    >>> In many
    >>> States prison inmates have far better access to medical and dental
    >>> care, than a large sector of the US population, the working poor, who
    >>> are tax payers denied access to Federal & State health programs.

    >>
    >> Which means --- obviously --- the prison inmates /are/ more
    >> deserving.

    >
    > No! It means that prison inmates are provided a full medical care
    > department within the prison system, from vision care, to dental care,
    > psychiatric care & counseling, substance abuse counseling, medical care,
    > and for some, hospice care. All of this because they are incarcerated
    > and cannot walk through the prison gates to visit their family doctor,
    > if they had one. After all once they leave the prison gates they too
    > might be among the working poor or unemployed with limited access to
    > elective procedures such as gender reassignment, or cosmetic surgery.
    >
    >> If people thought the working poor were deserving
    >> proper medical and dental care, at least to the same degree
    >> as prison inmates, they'd change the laws.

    >
    > You should have a chat with President Obama about that.
    >
    > ...and here is where there are major differences in the various
    > political parties in the USA are revealed. Some feel the State should
    > not provide any taxpayer funded medical care to any part of the
    > population, others like the idea of a means test to provide for the
    > poor, and working poor. Then there are the advocates and opponents of a
    > universal health care plan for the US citizens.
    > We have those who oppose such a plan, believing that they are
    > subsidizing free loaders. The odd thing about that is many of those
    > folks come from states which benefit the most from tax funded health
    > programs.
    >
    > Personally I believe the USA should have a health care program which
    > will provide for all it's citizens, particularly the excluded working
    > poor who would be more than happy to get the level of care provided in
    > the prison systems of the USA.
    >
    > ...and I doubt that any of them would sue the system to have gender
    > reassignment surgery, as the convicted, psychopathic, murderer discussed
    > in this sub-thread has done.
    >
    >



    In a general sense, Duck, you deserve receiving a standing ovation.
    You're opinion is well said and expressed.

    Applause ...... Applause ......


    The health care of the prison system exists because society chose to
    incarcerate, as a system of punishment, those who have violated laws of
    behavior.
    nick c, Apr 5, 2013
    #49
  10. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > nick c <> wrote:
    >> On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> nick c <> wrote:

    >
    >>>> ...... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition of a human
    >>>> right you would immediately correct the situation through vilification.
    >>>> Wise up, it doesn't work.

    >
    >>> So basically *your* definition of human rights is the only
    >>> valid ones and/or human rights don't apply to certain groups,
    >>> say Negros, Indians, Untermenschen, Jews and felons ...

    >
    >> What definition of mine are you referring to?

    >
    > The one you are using, never mind if you are even able to
    > write it down.
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >


    The one I am using!!

    Again, what definition are you referring to. I've interceded in a
    conversation I don't recall "defining" anything, so .....
    nick c, Apr 5, 2013
    #50
  11. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-04-05 16:10:43 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:39:18 -0500, George Kerby
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 4/4/13 11:27 AM, in article kjk9g0$r6l$, "Charles E.
    >>> Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:CD8307C8.99A86%...
    >>>>> On 4/4/13 9:32 AM, in article kjk2ob$6jc$, "Charles E.
    >>>>> Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    >>>>>> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:eek:...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You seem to think that an objection to the state paying for the
    >>>>>>> procedures is somehow a rejection of transgenders. It's not.
    >>>>>>> It's a
    >>>>>>> rejection of the way tax funds are applied.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time any more with a wilfully
    >>>>>> blind
    >>>>>> bigot who can't engage with let alone comprehend the issues.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh my GOD! I feel SO sorry for your family!!! Living with a
    >>>>> narrow-mind
    >>>>> such as yourself must be Hell on Earth.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> BTW: You HAVE "wasted your time" because you ENJOY ranting about
    >>>>> yourself.
    >>>>
    >>>> How so? Human rights effect even a troll like you.
    >>>
    >>> You damn Brits: "affect".
    >>>
    >>> If you have to disrupt the group with your "special needs", at least
    >>> learn
    >>> to spell correctly...

    >>
    >> He's not guilty of incorrect spelling but using the wrong word.

    >
    > Yup! In general usage the following:
    > affect - verb
    > effect - noun
    >



    When a word (or words) appear incorrectly spelled or used, the fault may
    not be with either spelling or use, it may be due to faulty editing of a
    sentence or paragraph. A poster re-reading a composition may decide some
    words are grammatically superfluous and delete them; accidentally
    leaving behind what was once a correctly used word.
    nick c, Apr 6, 2013
    #51
  12. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:18:25 -0700, nick c <> wrote:
    : On 4/4/2013 3:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    : > On 2013-04-04 13:32:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    : > <> said:
    : >
    : >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> Basically, Bob's opinion is, his tax $$$ are better spent on
    : >>> individuals and projects more deserving of assistance, than an
    : >>> ego-centric, psychopathic, convicted, murderer, demanding that the
    : >>> state fork over $700K for sex reassignment surgery and ongoing related
    : >>> therapy.
    : >>
    : >> That's understood.
    : >
    : > Good!
    : >
    : >> Some people think negroes to be not deserving.
    : >
    : > That is a non sequitur in this thread, and was never a part of this
    : > discussion. I can speak for myself, and with few exceptions (one
    : > Canadian I can thing of) in this NG that the issue of race, religion,
    : > sexuality, and ethnicity is a non-issue and do not hold prejudiced views
    : > of people who differ from me in those respects.
    : >
    : >> Not so long ago many didn't think them to be proper humans and held
    : >> them as
    : >> slaves, and after that, they were (and in some ways still are)
    : >> second class people.
    : >
    : > Bigoted individuals who's thinking is locked in unjust history and
    : > cultural prejudice are to be found in all walks of global society. They
    : > are found in all nations, and among many faiths.
    : >
    : >>> As far as human rights afforded to an incarcerated convicted murderer
    : >>> goes, Robert (Michelle) Kosilek has all his necessary medical needs met
    : >>> by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.
    : >>
    : >> By a certain definition of 'necessary', of course.
    : >
    : > "Necessary" means just that.
    : > Diabetics get the daily monitoring, special meals, and care they need.
    : > Inmates with heart disease get the care they need.
    : > Inmates with various cancers get the care and treatment they need.
    : > Inmates with dermatitis, gastric ulcers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, vision
    : > problems, dental issues, the flu, bad head colds, and a whole shopping
    : > list of life threatening, chronic, and the incidental ailments many
    : > folks can suffer in a lifetime, get the treatment and care they need.
    : > All of the above are undoubtably "necessary".
    : >
    : > Note; elective surgery such as cosmetic/plastic surgery and gender
    : > reassignment surgery is not a "necessary" treatment to meet the
    : > requirements of providing a vague "human right" while incarcerated.
    : > Those elective, non-emergency surgeries are certainly an unnecessary
    : > expense for the Tax Payer.
    : >
    : >>> In many
    : >>> States prison inmates have far better access to medical and dental
    : >>> care, than a large sector of the US population, the working poor, who
    : >>> are tax payers denied access to Federal & State health programs.
    : >>
    : >> Which means --- obviously --- the prison inmates /are/ more
    : >> deserving.
    : >
    : > No! It means that prison inmates are provided a full medical care
    : > department within the prison system, from vision care, to dental care,
    : > psychiatric care & counseling, substance abuse counseling, medical care,
    : > and for some, hospice care. All of this because they are incarcerated
    : > and cannot walk through the prison gates to visit their family doctor,
    : > if they had one. After all once they leave the prison gates they too
    : > might be among the working poor or unemployed with limited access to
    : > elective procedures such as gender reassignment, or cosmetic surgery.
    : >
    : >> If people thought the working poor were deserving
    : >> proper medical and dental care, at least to the same degree
    : >> as prison inmates, they'd change the laws.
    : >
    : > You should have a chat with President Obama about that.
    : >
    : > ...and here is where there are major differences in the various
    : > political parties in the USA are revealed. Some feel the State should
    : > not provide any taxpayer funded medical care to any part of the
    : > population, others like the idea of a means test to provide for the
    : > poor, and working poor. Then there are the advocates and opponents of a
    : > universal health care plan for the US citizens.
    : > We have those who oppose such a plan, believing that they are
    : > subsidizing free loaders. The odd thing about that is many of those
    : > folks come from states which benefit the most from tax funded health
    : > programs.
    : >
    : > Personally I believe the USA should have a health care program which
    : > will provide for all it's citizens, particularly the excluded working
    : > poor who would be more than happy to get the level of care provided in
    : > the prison systems of the USA.
    : >
    : > ...and I doubt that any of them would sue the system to have gender
    : > reassignment surgery, as the convicted, psychopathic, murderer discussed
    : > in this sub-thread has done.
    : >
    : >
    :
    :
    : In a general sense, Duck, you deserve receiving a standing ovation.
    : You're opinion is well said and expressed.
    :
    : Applause ...... Applause ......
    :
    :
    : The health care of the prison system exists because society chose to
    : incarcerate, as a system of punishment, those who have violated laws of
    : behavior.

    I too agree with the Duck. And unlike many, I call what we need by its
    old-fashioned name: socialized medicine. I once bitterly opposed socialized
    medicine. But you can't be blind to the obvious, and the capitalist system has
    shown itself totally unwilling and/or unable to provide the people of the U.S.
    with the health care they need at a price they can afford to pay. The evidence
    is clear: Those countries that have socialized medicine (most of the civilized
    world) are inching farther ahead in the health and longevity of their
    populations, while we fall farther and farther behind. Our health care system
    is excellent, possibly the best in the world. But it's becoming less and less
    accessible to anybody but the rich. "Obamacare" is a tiny step in the right
    direction, but the Health Care Pharmacopoly and its Republicans stooges are
    determined to unravel even that.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 6, 2013
    #52
  13. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:21:08 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    : On 2013-04-05 16:10:43 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    :
    : > On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:39:18 -0500, George Kerby
    : > <> wrote:
    : >
    : >>
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> On 4/4/13 11:27 AM, in article kjk9g0$r6l$, "Charles E.
    : >> Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>>
    : >>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    : >>> news:CD8307C8.99A86%...
    : >>>> On 4/4/13 9:32 AM, in article kjk2ob$6jc$, "Charles E.
    : >>>> Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    : >>>>> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    : >>>>> news:eek:...
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>>> You seem to think that an objection to the state paying for the
    : >>>>>> procedures is somehow a rejection of transgenders. It's not. It's a
    : >>>>>> rejection of the way tax funds are applied.
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time any more with a wilfully blind
    : >>>>> bigot who can't engage with let alone comprehend the issues.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Oh my GOD! I feel SO sorry for your family!!! Living with a narrow-mind
    : >>>> such as yourself must be Hell on Earth.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> BTW: You HAVE "wasted your time" because you ENJOY ranting about yourself.
    : >>>
    : >>> How so? Human rights effect even a troll like you.
    : >>
    : >> You damn Brits: "affect".
    : >>
    : >> If you have to disrupt the group with your "special needs", at least learn
    : >> to spell correctly...
    : >
    : > He's not guilty of incorrect spelling but using the wrong word.
    :
    : Yup! In general usage the following:
    : affect - verb
    : effect - noun

    Actually, "effect" can be used as a verb, in the sense of "bring about". Which
    is, of course, not the sense in which Charles undertook to use it. The
    charitable approach to Charles's use of "effect" is to dismiss it as a
    spelling error.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 6, 2013
    #53
  14. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/6/2013 6:47 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:18:25 -0700, nick c <> wrote:
    > : On 4/4/2013 3:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > : > On 2013-04-04 13:32:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > : > <> said:
    > : >
    > : >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > : >>
    > : >>> Basically, Bob's opinion is, his tax $$$ are better spent on
    > : >>> individuals and projects more deserving of assistance, than an
    > : >>> ego-centric, psychopathic, convicted, murderer, demanding that the
    > : >>> state fork over $700K for sex reassignment surgery and ongoing related
    > : >>> therapy.
    > : >>
    > : >> That's understood.
    > : >
    > : > Good!
    > : >
    > : >> Some people think negroes to be not deserving.
    > : >
    > : > That is a non sequitur in this thread, and was never a part of this
    > : > discussion. I can speak for myself, and with few exceptions (one
    > : > Canadian I can thing of) in this NG that the issue of race, religion,
    > : > sexuality, and ethnicity is a non-issue and do not hold prejudiced views
    > : > of people who differ from me in those respects.
    > : >
    > : >> Not so long ago many didn't think them to be proper humans and held
    > : >> them as
    > : >> slaves, and after that, they were (and in some ways still are)
    > : >> second class people.
    > : >
    > : > Bigoted individuals who's thinking is locked in unjust history and
    > : > cultural prejudice are to be found in all walks of global society. They
    > : > are found in all nations, and among many faiths.
    > : >
    > : >>> As far as human rights afforded to an incarcerated convicted murderer
    > : >>> goes, Robert (Michelle) Kosilek has all his necessary medical needs met
    > : >>> by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.
    > : >>
    > : >> By a certain definition of 'necessary', of course.
    > : >
    > : > "Necessary" means just that.
    > : > Diabetics get the daily monitoring, special meals, and care they need.
    > : > Inmates with heart disease get the care they need.
    > : > Inmates with various cancers get the care and treatment they need.
    > : > Inmates with dermatitis, gastric ulcers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, vision
    > : > problems, dental issues, the flu, bad head colds, and a whole shopping
    > : > list of life threatening, chronic, and the incidental ailments many
    > : > folks can suffer in a lifetime, get the treatment and care they need.
    > : > All of the above are undoubtably "necessary".
    > : >
    > : > Note; elective surgery such as cosmetic/plastic surgery and gender
    > : > reassignment surgery is not a "necessary" treatment to meet the
    > : > requirements of providing a vague "human right" while incarcerated.
    > : > Those elective, non-emergency surgeries are certainly an unnecessary
    > : > expense for the Tax Payer.
    > : >
    > : >>> In many
    > : >>> States prison inmates have far better access to medical and dental
    > : >>> care, than a large sector of the US population, the working poor, who
    > : >>> are tax payers denied access to Federal & State health programs.
    > : >>
    > : >> Which means --- obviously --- the prison inmates /are/ more
    > : >> deserving.
    > : >
    > : > No! It means that prison inmates are provided a full medical care
    > : > department within the prison system, from vision care, to dental care,
    > : > psychiatric care & counseling, substance abuse counseling, medical care,
    > : > and for some, hospice care. All of this because they are incarcerated
    > : > and cannot walk through the prison gates to visit their family doctor,
    > : > if they had one. After all once they leave the prison gates they too
    > : > might be among the working poor or unemployed with limited access to
    > : > elective procedures such as gender reassignment, or cosmetic surgery.
    > : >
    > : >> If people thought the working poor were deserving
    > : >> proper medical and dental care, at least to the same degree
    > : >> as prison inmates, they'd change the laws.
    > : >
    > : > You should have a chat with President Obama about that.
    > : >
    > : > ...and here is where there are major differences in the various
    > : > political parties in the USA are revealed. Some feel the State should
    > : > not provide any taxpayer funded medical care to any part of the
    > : > population, others like the idea of a means test to provide for the
    > : > poor, and working poor. Then there are the advocates and opponents of a
    > : > universal health care plan for the US citizens.
    > : > We have those who oppose such a plan, believing that they are
    > : > subsidizing free loaders. The odd thing about that is many of those
    > : > folks come from states which benefit the most from tax funded health
    > : > programs.
    > : >
    > : > Personally I believe the USA should have a health care program which
    > : > will provide for all it's citizens, particularly the excluded working
    > : > poor who would be more than happy to get the level of care provided in
    > : > the prison systems of the USA.
    > : >
    > : > ...and I doubt that any of them would sue the system to have gender
    > : > reassignment surgery, as the convicted, psychopathic, murderer discussed
    > : > in this sub-thread has done.
    > : >
    > : >
    > :
    > :
    > : In a general sense, Duck, you deserve receiving a standing ovation.
    > : You're opinion is well said and expressed.
    > :
    > : Applause ...... Applause ......
    > :
    > :
    > : The health care of the prison system exists because society chose to
    > : incarcerate, as a system of punishment, those who have violated laws of
    > : behavior.
    >
    > I too agree with the Duck. And unlike many, I call what we need by its
    > old-fashioned name: socialized medicine. I once bitterly opposed socialized
    > medicine. But you can't be blind to the obvious, and the capitalist system has
    > shown itself totally unwilling and/or unable to provide the people of the U.S.
    > with the health care they need at a price they can afford to pay. The evidence
    > is clear: Those countries that have socialized medicine (most of the civilized
    > world) are inching farther ahead in the health and longevity of their
    > populations, while we fall farther and farther behind. Our health care system
    > is excellent, possibly the best in the world. But it's becoming less and less
    > accessible to anybody but the rich. "Obamacare" is a tiny step in the right
    > direction, but the Health Care Pharmacopoly and its Republicans stooges are
    > determined to unravel even that.
    >
    > Bob
    >


    Bob, in a general sense I agree with you but I do have exceptions.The
    medical care system that we have had is indeed becoming too costly but
    ObamaCare is NOT the system that should be used to in its place. Already
    there's government talk about raising taxes to pay for implementation of
    the system. That will cause labor unions to ask for increased wages in
    addition to more benefits and the never ending cycle of inflation,
    making the dollar worth less, marches on. Facing that never-ending
    prospect and the debt crisis brings to surface the prospect of having
    sold our grand children into a type of debt bondage. The US is becoming
    so poor, we may not be able to engage in lengthy conflicts that threaten
    the existence of the nation. Already, it is estimated stockpiled oil
    reserves in Louisiana may only last about 60 days in a full scale,
    all-out war.

    The so-called "American way" has come to mean "What's in it for me."
    Continuation of that trend may well justify youthful decisions to go
    AWOL from the military. Why not? Why should their lives be placed on
    hold or possibly eliminated, what would be their gain?

    An argument can be made as to HMO's refusing to treat costly illnesses
    but an equal argument can be made as to why a bureaucrat should have the
    authority to decide such things. It seems to me to rebut an HMO's
    decision would be easier to overturn than a decision made by and unknown
    entity in government, thousands of miles away.

    Then again, Bob, while I do have reservations, I can offer no fixes;
    save one, and that is to deeply revise ObamaCare so that a national
    system could evolve from improvements made as we learn more about the
    subject.

    To continue in the practice of passing laws that have neither been read
    or evaluated is, to my mind, a very poor practice. Successful businesses
    make decisions based upon forecasts. If government is intent in placing
    itself in a business type scenario then much more attention should be
    given to forecasts. Right now, such forecasts don't look good for the
    country.
    nick c, Apr 6, 2013
    #54
  15. Robert Coe

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:41:08 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2013.04.05 10:45 , Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    >> Hardly a spelling problem, I see that as a grammar problem

    >
    > Good usenetiquette: not pointing out spelling and grammar errors.
    >Great usenetiquette: not replying to those who do.


    Allowable exceptions are when the error results in an opportunity for
    a pun or other humorous observation. "Effect" for "affect" allows no
    such opportunity, though.

    Another allowable exception is when the person pointing out an error
    in someone else's post makes an error in his/her post.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Apr 6, 2013
    #55
  16. Robert Coe

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/04/2013 15:41, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.04.05 10:45 , Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    >> Hardly a spelling problem, I see that as a grammar problem

    >
    > Good usenetiquette: not pointing out spelling and grammar errors.
    > Great usenetiquette: not replying to those who do.


    Whilst I take your point, I have been told by my foreign friends, to
    whom English is not their first language, that they appreciate being
    corrected. So it does depend on who you are dealing with. [Deliberate
    grammar variation reflecting current and correct usage.]
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Apr 6, 2013
    #56
  17. Robert Coe

    John Turco Guest

    On 4/6/2013 9:43 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 4/5/13 6:21 PM, in article
    > 2013040516210846882-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2013-04-05 16:10:43 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:39:18 -0500, George Kerby
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 4/4/13 11:27 AM, in article kjk9g0$r6l$, "Charles E.
    >>>> Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:CD8307C8.99A86%...
    >>>>>> On 4/4/13 9:32 AM, in article kjk2ob$6jc$, "Charles E.
    >>>>>> Hardwidge" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:eek:...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You seem to think that an objection to the state paying for the
    >>>>>>>> procedures is somehow a rejection of transgenders. It's not. It's a
    >>>>>>>> rejection of the way tax funds are applied.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time any more with a wilfully blind
    >>>>>>> bigot who can't engage with let alone comprehend the issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh my GOD! I feel SO sorry for your family!!! Living with a narrow-mind
    >>>>>> such as yourself must be Hell on Earth.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> BTW: You HAVE "wasted your time" because you ENJOY ranting about yourself.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How so? Human rights effect even a troll like you.
    >>>>
    >>>> You damn Brits: "affect".
    >>>>
    >>>> If you have to disrupt the group with your "special needs", at least learn
    >>>> to spell correctly...
    >>>
    >>> He's not guilty of incorrect spelling but using the wrong word.

    >>
    >> Yup! In general usage the following:
    >> affect - verb
    >> effect - noun

    >
    > So - he mis-spelled it: he used an "e", not an "a".
    >
    > Nuff' said.
    >
    > ;-)



    You misspelled, "misspelled" (ironically enough).

    John
    John Turco, Apr 6, 2013
    #57
  18. Robert Coe

    DanP Guest

    On Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:43:05 PM UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    > So - he mis-spelled it: he used an "e", not an "a".


    OK, is this all you could find wrong with his post?


    DanP
    DanP, Apr 6, 2013
    #58
  19. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Saturday, April 6, 2013 10:08:32 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:43:05 PM UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    > >

    >
    > > So - he mis-spelled it: he used an "e", not an "a".

    >
    >
    >
    > OK, is this all you could find wrong with his post?


    I've always been told that is should be misspelt rather than misspelled.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 8, 2013
    #59
  20. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-04-04 13:32:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> said:


    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


    >>> Basically, Bob's opinion is, his tax $$$ are better spent on
    >>> individuals and projects more deserving of assistance, than an
    >>> ego-centric, psychopathic, convicted, murderer, demanding that the
    >>> state fork over $700K for sex reassignment surgery and ongoing related
    >>> therapy.


    >> That's understood.


    > Good!


    | Sex change surgery is expensive. The cost for male to female
    | reassignment is $7,000 to $24,000. The cost for female to male
    | reassignment can exceed $50,000.
    http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Pa-St/Sex-Reassignment-Surgery.html

    | As of 2012 Dr. Bower's price for MTF sex reassignment surgery is
    | $23,000 USD. An orchiectomy will cost you $4,300 USD.
    http://www.tssurgeryguide.com/Dr-Bowers-SRS.html

    | TSRoadmap.com offers a detailed financial worksheets and estimates
    | on the all the costs of transition, and estimates that it is typical
    | to spend a total of $40,000 to $50,000 for a mid-range transition,
    | including surgery.
    http://health.costhelper.com/sex-reassignment-surgery.html

    | For patients not covered by health insurance, the typical cost of
    | a sex reassignment surgery can range from about $15,000 for just
    | reconstruction of the genitals to about $25,000 for operations on the
    | genitals and chest to $50,000 or more for procedures that include
    | operations to make facial features more masculine or feminine. Prices
    | typically depend on the techniques used -- different techniques often
    | are recommended based on body type and patient preference.
    http://health.costhelper.com/sex-reassignment-surgery.html

    | Price examples include The Philadelphia Center for Transgender
    | Surgery, where basic male-to-female surgery that includes testicle
    | removal, genital surgery and breast augmentation would cost a little
    | over $30,000 while for basic female-to-male surgery that includes
    | mastectomy, areolar reduction and genital surgery, would cost between
    | $12,000 and $25,000 depending on the type of genital surgery chosen.
    | Because different doctors offer different procedures, it is important
    | to check to see exactly what is offered for a certain price.
    http://health.costhelper.com/sex-reassignment-surgery.html

    Now, there's also ambulant psychological treatment and hormones,
    that's maybe a further $5,000 or $10,000 ...

    $70K is on the expensive side of the whole package, but $700K?
    That's an order of magnitude off! What are you doing with
    the $630k? Buy a 13.8 pound gold implant for each breast?

    The only way I see to get to $700K is to add in all the extra
    psychological help (probably in a psychatric hospital) needed
    because an operation is denied *and* all the costs for judical
    proceedings because an operation is denied.

    So, if Bob wants to save his tax dollars for more deserving
    people, causing costs that are 10 times as high as the treatment
    certainly is *not* the way to do it.


    >> Some people think negroes to be not deserving.


    > That is a non sequitur in this thread,


    Correct. The only connection is that the opinion of someone
    that someone is or is not deserving *may* *be* (not "is", not
    "must be", not "cannot be") wrong --- at least in the eyes of
    a different (part of) society.

    [...]
    > Bigoted individuals who's thinking is locked in unjust history and
    > cultural prejudice are to be found in all walks of global society. They
    > are found in all nations, and among many faiths.


    Yep. And "locked in unjust history" shows very much that many
    things do become clear(er) --- at least to a larger part of
    a society --- when looking back!

    On the other hand there have very often been small fragments
    of the same society in the same former times that had the
    right idea.

    On the gripping hand there have at all times been small
    fragments whose opinion, even when looking back, turn out to
    be completely wrong.

    So thinking different from "the rightthinking masses" does in
    no way guarantee one is right --- nor does it mean one is
    necessarily wrong.


    However the society I live in has decided that gender disorder
    --- if someone suffers --- needs treatment, including surgery,
    and therefore that *is* covered by statutory health insurance.
    Which is quite a bit more than a 'small fragment' of people,
    and they *are* looking back on the US, seeing them --- not
    only in this regard --- to be "locked in unjust history".

    Pardon me for coming from a different perspective.


    >>> As far as human rights afforded to an incarcerated convicted murderer
    >>> goes, Robert (Michelle) Kosilek has all his necessary medical needs met
    >>> by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.


    >> By a certain definition of 'necessary', of course.


    > "Necessary" means just that.


    Really?
    As in
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/necessary
    ? So basically it's necessary for death row inmates to be
    alife and probably conscious at their execution (it's cheating
    if they die too early), but it's not necessary for them to be
    pain free or in reasonable health ...


    > Diabetics get the daily monitoring, special meals, and care they need.
    > Inmates with heart disease get the care they need.
    > Inmates with various cancers get the care and treatment they need.
    > Inmates with dermatitis, gastric ulcers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, vision
    > problems, dental issues, the flu, bad head colds, and a whole shopping
    > list of life threatening, chronic, and the incidental ailments many
    > folks can suffer in a lifetime, get the treatment and care they need.


    What is the definition of "they need"?
    Who decides? By which strandards?


    Let's take dental issues --- they're rather easy to understand,
    often have various possible treatments the lay person knows of,
    and can be thought of as partially self inflicted (bad food,
    bad dental hygiene).

    Say someone has an aching tooth. Caries is diagnosed.
    The tooth can be saved. Now, do you get
    - a filling with amalgam ('silver' fillings): in fact it's >50%
    mercury, easy to use, works for decades, cheap, unfavourable
    grey colour, linked to certain health problems
    - a filling with gold: works for 15 years, chemically inert,
    looks good to many people, can be expensive
    - a filling with composite (glass and resin, for example): can
    be made mostly invisible, can shrink (which means bacteria can
    enter the rim and cause more caries), durable around 8 years.
    - a ceramics inlay: expensive (more expensive than gold, in
    fact, it has to be specially made to fit and be glued in),
    can be made mostly invisible, durable (about 12 years)
    - the tooth pulled and be done with it. That's really much
    cheaper and needs much less skill than actually repairing
    the damage.
    Well?


    I also note that you only listed physical illnesses. How
    comes? Mental illnesses aren't real enough? Or just
    inventions of bored, manipulative inmates?


    > Note; elective surgery such as cosmetic/plastic surgery and gender
    > reassignment surgery is not a "necessary" treatment to meet the
    > requirements of providing a vague "human right" while incarcerated.


    Amongst the fields of plastic surgery are things as
    - burn treatment (skin grafting for burned skin for example)
    - treating cleft lip/cleft palate
    - rebuilding a lost nose
    - hand surgery, from carpal tunnel to re-attaching an
    amputated hand in microsurgery
    - breast reconstruction after e.g. an amputation (and if you
    think that's not necessary, well, *some* women can cope
    with it, *many* can't)
    - breast reduction (gigantic breasts cause chronic shoulder,
    back, neck pain and can even hamper breathing)

    So you basically say victims of bad burns don't need to be
    treated properly for some vague "human right" because that's
    plastic surgery ...

    .... so you probably meant just 'cosmetic surgery'. In which
    case I refer you once more to burn victims. They can be
    hideously disfigured --- but that does not need to be treated.
    Whereas a bad cold (which is no fun) heals out by itself,
    but is treatable according to you.

    .... so you *probably* meant "frivolous, unnecessary" treatment.
    So you basically say that gender reassignment surgery is
    unnecessary and in similar to as, say, a face lifting for a
    perfectly normal face. Is that correct?


    > Those elective, non-emergency surgeries are certainly an unnecessary
    > expense for the Tax Payer.


    Yep, let them run around with horror faces due to burns and
    lost noses, hands that are not really usable any more ...


    While being transgendered is being different and not being
    ill as such, some people are suffering from being in the wrong
    body and can't pursue their happiness and live healthy (which
    includes mental health!) and productively.

    A single month in a psychiatric hospital is *more* expensive
    than a gender reassignment surgery. Denying surgery (in cases
    where people really suffer from being in the wrong body[1] and
    where non-surgical solutions don't solve the problem) almost
    always causes serious mental and often psychosomatic illnesses.

    Unless you also deny them proper psychological help, you're
    penny wise and pound foolish. If you do deny them proper
    psychological help, you're uncivilized[2] --- and lose even
    more due to the fact that their ability to work and earn money
    falters or is gone. Never mind that transgendered people have a
    high suicide risk --- their life isn't worth much anyway, right?


    >>> In many
    >>> States prison inmates have far better access to medical and dental
    >>> care, than a large sector of the US population, the working poor, who
    >>> are tax payers denied access to Federal & State health programs.


    >> Which means --- obviously --- the prison inmates /are/ more
    >> deserving.


    > No! It means that prison inmates are provided a full medical care
    > department within the prison system, from vision care, to dental care,
    > psychiatric care & counseling, substance abuse counseling, medical
    > care, and for some, hospice care. All of this because they are
    > incarcerated and cannot walk through the prison gates to visit their
    > family doctor, if they had one.


    The working poor cannot visit their family doctor either,
    if they don't have insurance for that --- and I understand
    they don't have it --- as they simply cannot pay the doctor.

    Which means inmates (who get care) are still more deserving
    than the working poor (who don't).


    > After all once they leave the prison
    > gates they too might be among the working poor or unemployed with
    > limited access to elective procedures such as gender reassignment, or
    > cosmetic surgery.


    The limited access for the working poor (and the unemployed,
    AFAIK) is a zero access in reality, AIUI, unless they're fairly
    rich to begin with.


    >> If people thought the working poor were deserving
    >> proper medical and dental care, at least to the same degree
    >> as prison inmates, they'd change the laws.


    > You should have a chat with President Obama about that.


    It's *your* country and *your* laws and *your* president.
    So why in hell should it be *my* damn job to tell you and your
    fellow citizen how to live? I doubt you'd thank me if I managed
    a successful invasion and ruled you all as *I* think it right.
    Though such things do look good on a resume ...

    On the other hand, freedom of speech here and over there where
    you are allow me to speak my mind, and all'y'all to not listen
    to me.


    > ...and here is where there are major differences in the various
    > political parties in the USA are revealed. Some feel the State should
    > not provide any taxpayer funded medical care to any part of the
    > population,


    .... which is IMHO uncivilized, uncharitable and unchristian,
    but what do *I* know how to interpret "love thy neighbour"?
    Mad muslim hate preachers don't have an exclusive right to
    twisting a religion towards hate and egomania ...


    > others like the idea of a means test to provide for the
    > poor, and working poor. Then there are the advocates and opponents of a
    > universal health care plan for the US citizens.
    > We have those who oppose such a plan, believing that they are
    > subsidizing free loaders. The odd thing about that is many of those
    > folks come from states which benefit the most from tax funded health
    > programs.


    If you got something, you deserved it for your good works;
    if you don't have something, you don't deserved it in first
    places for your sins. So if you're born (or moved) to a
    state that has little tax funded health and are poor and in
    need of medical help, you obviously have been bad and don't
    deserve help. Protestant work ethics.


    > Personally I believe the USA should have a health care program which
    > will provide for all it's citizens, particularly the excluded working
    > poor who would be more than happy to get the level of care provided in
    > the prison systems of the USA.


    This may require another civil war ...


    > ...and I doubt that any of them would sue the system to have gender
    > reassignment surgery, as the convicted, psychopathic, murderer
    > discussed in this sub-thread has done.


    You doubt it?
    Are there really that many more prison inmates than working
    poor in the US?

    In that case, well, you really do have other problems.
    Looking at the percentage of incarcerated people the US
    really is mostly made out of criminals, barely held in check
    by the death penalty --- and never mind the organized crime
    and their influence.


    -Wolfgang

    [1] You want to check that the person isn't suffering from,
    say, schizophrenic disorder which can cause trangender
    behaviour.
    [2] and worse. Not that you'd be unique ... others let
    transgendered people die or even rape and murder them.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 10, 2013
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    30
    Views:
    7,157
    Alpha
    Apr 25, 2005
  2. David Taylor

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    David Taylor, Mar 26, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    145
    David Taylor
    Mar 26, 2013
  3. RichA

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    RichA, Mar 26, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    168
    Rikishi42
    Mar 27, 2013
  4. Rikishi42

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    Rikishi42, Mar 27, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    155
    PeterN
    Mar 28, 2013
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 30, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    125
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 3, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page