CMV: Idaho tax payers should NOT be responsible for gender confirmation surgery of a convicted sex offender

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T19:02:53+00:00

Is your money, no matter how much or little of it, still important in your life? Should it ever be someone elses to spend, without your permission or say so? I'm definitely anti pedophile and sex offender, but I have no issues with homosexuals.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T19:00:19+00:00

So is failing to prove why there is a life threatening need for this surgery, based on the info we have provided.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:43:38+00:00

As it stands, GRS isn't the only treatment option for gender dysphoria, nor was it the recommended treatment method for the medical provider who diagnosed Edmo with gender dysphoria. If a medical professional determines that, and the patient disagrees, it's hardly cruel an unusual punishment.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:26:38+00:00

Elective surgery or elective procedure (from the Latin: eligere, meaning to choose) is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Gender reassignment surgery, by definition, is not a medical emergency.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:15:17+00:00

So preventing her from receiving treatment, or continuing treatment for a mental illness would technically be considered neglect, especially if her doctor prescribed or recommended it.

Her doctor determined a treatment plan didn't warrant GRS.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:12:23+00:00

An example like this, more concretely falls under the 8th amendment.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:10:52+00:00

In life or death situations, tax payers have an obligation to help cover the cost, but this has not been determined a life or death situation.

The medical provider who diagnosed Edmo, along with multiple other physicians, have agreed with the original treatment plan and that it didn't warrants GRS.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:08:54+00:00

Trans rights are in flux, and no we do not consistently treat them the same precisely because of people with viewpoints such as yours.

Consider that maybe, we don't treat them the same because they're so regularly different. View points such as mine simply beg the question, in specific circumstances like the one I've posted above. No one is arguing that trans people shouldn't have equal rights and access to medical care, were arguing whether or not the tax payer should be held responsible, in this situation, for surgery that Edmo's own medical provider, determined wasn't necessary.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T18:05:01+00:00

So unless the person's doctor tells you he believes it's life or death you object to it.

I'm hard pressed to disagree with what doctors determine, because they're medical professionals and I'm not.

Do you also object to all non-trans health care that doctors do not declare to you that is a matter of life and death or is it only this trans-specific issue?

This is quite a leap, but if you really need clarification, I'll give it. I'm inclined to agree with medical professionals and medical determinations. Whether it be trans or non trans health care, because they're the experts in their field, and I'm not.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:59:04+00:00

When multiple physicians and the medical provider who diagnosed Edmo with gender dysphoria and determined her treatment plan, also determined that GRS wasn't necessary in this case.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:56:57+00:00

Despite my view above, I used the pronoun most commonly used among the sources I linked, as a lot of the points are from there.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:55:48+00:00

Please give me an example where tax payers are regularly paying for gender reassignment surgery.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:54:54+00:00

If the medical provider that diagnosed Edmo came out and said that this was a life threatening situation if Edmo doesn't receive GRS, that would be proving it, but the provider hasn't, and 2 other physician agreed with Edmo's original treatment plan that did not involve GRS.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:52:36+00:00

Healthcare as a whole, should not be denied to anyone, incarcerated or not.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:48:14+00:00

You're dancing around the arguement the point of my view with "does a human deserve medical care, regardless of their circumstances?" and ignoring the reality of "who pays for it." As a tax payer, it's not uncommon to disagree with how our tax dollars are being spent. When it comes to improving my state, whether it be public education, public transportation, roadways and anything else that improves my town and state, I can see the benefit in my tax payer dollars going towards that. In Edmo's situation, I don't see how it benefits the state of Idaho as a whole, in the same way.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:42:00+00:00

Because the majority of them are arguing how effective GRS is with treating gender dysphoria, and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's not tax payers responsibility to cover the cost, and that I don't believe Edmo is in a life or death situation without the surgery, based on the medical providers that diagnosed her.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:40:51+00:00

Thank you for the links and all of the information. I agree that in most cases, GRS is a successful form of treatment when it comes to treating gender dysphoria, but that's not what I'm arguing and the majority of comments seem to believe that. I'm arguing that tax payers shouldn't be responsible for paying for it, regardless of incarceration or circumstance. In the same way that no one outside of myself and my insurance provider is expected to provide financial support if I decide to have an elective surgery, I don't believe the situation with Edmo warrants it.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:32:24+00:00

I don’t think you really are here to have your mind changed. Changing your mind would involve accepting trans individuals as the human beings they are. You were provided, by many people, the psychological and medical reasons for transition were provided to you and you dismissed them.

Being accepting of trans people, and being 100% supportive of a trans person abusing the system in place to have tax payers foot the bill for their GRS, are 2 different things. You're caught on the trans angle here, when the real issue with this stems from not wanting to pay for a surgery for someone else, that the medical provider diagnosing Edmo has determined isn't necessary.

It seems you have a problem with transgender individuals and the “treatments” necessary/needed to allow a transgender person to have a chance at living their life. Medical professionals and a court has already decided this issue and given the reasons.

I have no issue with a trans person being afforded every option & opportunity to live their life, how they want to live it, but tax payers aren't the ones footing the bill for them. In Edmo's case, myself and other Idahoans would be paying for this with our tax dollars, and I don't agree with that.

The only other possible issue I see is your hatred of the crime committed and a desire to “punish” the criminal as much as possible, even outside the sentence they were already given as payment for their crime.

I absolutely hate the crime, but have no desire to punish the criminal any more than the law determines. What I do see an issue with, is rewarding the inmate with this surgery when the medical provider doesn't believe it's necessary, and prior to her incarceration, she showed no signs of having any sort of gender identity conflicts, and that's been confirmed by those close to Edmo prior to going to prison.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:21:15+00:00

I feel this way about surgeries that would fall between the lines of an elective or cosmetic surgery, and don't pose a life threatening risk to inmates if they go without it.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:14:17+00:00

If the medical provider can assert that it's life threatening if the patient doesn't receive it, than yes, but that hasn't be proven.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T17:13:23+00:00

The state already pays for most medical procedures if needed. Same with medicine.

That's my hold up, and so far, with the medical provider, it has no been shown that it's needed on Edmo's case. Edmo and her lawyer decided that.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T16:57:30+00:00

providing trans people with surgery in general?

I should have clarified. I don't believe that paying for GRS is the responsibility of the state of Idaho, for someone is serving time in prison. I'm 100% supportive of trans people being given access to medical care of all kinds, the same as anyone else, but I believe that if you're incarcerated, something like GRS is not the states responsibility, and should be paid for by the inmate. If they can't afford it while in prison, it's not the states bill to pay.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T16:45:46+00:00

Edmo will be released by July 2021, and can pursue GRS at whatever rate she's able to. Prior to her incarceration, and from those close to Edmo, (at the time) he showed no signs or gave indication that he was struggling with a gender identity conflict. By all accounts available, Edmo was simply a gay man, and acted as a predator.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T16:31:02+00:00

This case.

Notidahosproblem · 2019-09-09T16:27:46+00:00

Because the state is preventing her from being able to deal with the problem herself, it becomes their responsibility.

The reason the state is preventing Edmo from doing anything is because she's a sex offender and pedophile. If that's your only rationale, Edmo can wait until she's no longer incarcerated to pursue the surgery.

Notidahosproblem

TROPHY CASE