Outrage In Keys Over Transexuals' Rights Comments

[Lee54]

Can the Government please explain why the DHSS paid for this person to have the operations to mutilate a perfectly normal body while at the same time say they dont have the funds to pay for more needed medical treatments.

 

either read the first post atleast or switch your comp off lee .. lazy twat thread isnt about some person who has had an operation..

 

Rise Sir John Houghton, your spot on.

[mouse30]

Whilst I do feel that the comments were extreme and outdated in this day and age, I do not agree that gender reassignment treatment should be funded by the NHS when people with life threatening illnesses such as cancer cannot get the treatment and medicines that they need.

 

I think the same should also apply for other forms of cosmetic surgery such as gastric bands, the individual should fund the treatment, not the public.

[oldmanxfella]

Whilst I do feel that the comments were extreme and outdated in this day and age, I do not agree that gender reassignment treatment should be funded by the NHS when people with life threatening illnesses such as cancer cannot get the treatment and medicines that they need.

 

I think the same should also apply for other forms of cosmetic surgery such as gastric bands, the individual should fund the treatment, not the public.

 

READ the thread. The comments were not made about funding NHS treatment, they were made about the legal right to recognise the new identity under manx law.

[QLD-Bloke]

Chromosomes are essentially packages of genes - you have 46 chromosomes as 23 pairs. One of these pairs is a deteminant of gender - women are XX men are XY - and simple microscopy can determine which you are. This then was the basis of the improved testing method. Note that you can be XXY or XXX as cell division to form gametes is not perfect...

So what's 2x²+3y = z all about then?

 

I'm a biologist not a mathematician!

[jimbms]

Chromosomes are essentially packages of genes - you have 46 chromosomes as 23 pairs. One of these pairs is a deteminant of gender - women are XX men are XY - and simple microscopy can determine which you are. This then was the basis of the improved testing method. Note that you can be XXY or XXX as cell division to form gametes is not perfect...

Not that simple try looking at chromosome cross jointing and multi defective gene masking.

[cheesemonster2005]

Motor bikes, thats a tricky one. All depends on circumstances, were they a twat on the bike. Popping wheelies up and down the prom and being a general dick on the bike or were they caught up in a crash.

 

Right, so you suggest medical treatment should be allocated by committee based on their opinion and judgement of the individual?

 

Let's hope you never actually get to have any sort of responsibility for anything ever.

 

Well it should, you smoke and you get lung cancer from that. Then you pay for any treatment your self, you decided to smoke therefore you can pay for any treatment your self.

 

This point is the same for a sex change, if your born a man and want to be a woman pay for it your self.

 

 

As for Missions comment, they dont need medical treatment......there past that point already. Hell, not even God can save them now.

 

Also Mission, you shouldnt post pics of your self in a Borat Mankini, thats how these pics get around.

 

If you smoke and get lung cancer from that then you have already paid for your treatment, your neighbours treatment and probably your whole street's treatment with the 80% taxes that you paid on every packet of cigarette that you ever bought. Maybe smokers who don't get cancer should sue the government for a rebate for all the taxes they paid?

[cheesemonster2005]

Well yes, if your a heavy drinker ( someone who drinks 4/5 times a week, and were talking 6+ pints at a go ) then you should be made to wait, again anothe life style choice.

 

Hows the treating doctor supposed to know the lifestyle choice someone made that would make them ill? Don't you see how this is almost impossible to define? So the best thing to do is not define it at all.

 

It goes on and on, mental illness caused by stress because of lifestyle/career choices. No treatment?

 

You really need a dose of what life would be like without the nhs or try to deal with a discriminatory NHS in the way you suggest.

 

As for my other points, well this thread is about transexuals........so my other points still stand.

 

But if you removed any differentiation between the sexes, there would be no transsexuals.

 

Your born a man or woman, simple.

 

How can you be a man living in a womans body, what you have moobs so that makes you a woman?

Why dont they just say, I'm gay. Its a kop out from coming out of the closet.

 

I think that you may well be Houghton. You are more or less as simple as him. Or maybe you are a ghost from 1970s Isle of Man haunting people with your backwards beliefs simply because you don't understand something or can't relate to it yourself.

[keyboarder]

Well Knoxville is unable to defend his views now so you're wasting your breath. One of the downsides of heavy handed moderation.

[bishbashbosh]

As he did not, as far as I know, use any derogatory terms in doing so, he has every right to state his opinion.

He does not, however, have the right to declare that "I represent my constituents and the majority of them will agree with what I said." That is making a very large assumption since it is clearly impossible to know whether or not a majority support his views on a issue on which they were not consulted.

That is pure arrogance.

 

Ok, but what if the MHK said that the Island should not accept anti-discrimination laws in respect of ethnic minorities because the idea of black or asian people having equal rights offends him and may give off the idea to other foreigners to flock to the Island. Would we accept a openly racist person in government?

 

Hypothetical, of course but, if that was the situation - an openly racist person in government after having been elected - we would have no choice but to 'accept' the situation. That is potential the downside of any democracy. Having said that, however, it is also possible to get rid of such a person at the next election by the same means. That is one of the benefits of the democratic system.

 

In Tynwald, yes. In Government, no.

[cheesemonster2005]

Well Knoxville is unable to defend his views now so you're wasting your breath. One of the downsides of heavy handed moderation.

 

Didn't know that. I'm not going to ask why he was disappeared but the less ignorant people making comments about things that they know nothing about the better.

[keyboarder]

Well Knoxville is unable to defend his views now so you're wasting your breath. One of the downsides of heavy handed moderation.

 

Didn't know that. I'm not going to ask why he was disappeared but the less ignorant people making comments about things that they know nothing about the better.

 

Oh I don't know. It's just possible he may have been able to see the error of his misguided ways so to speak. We'll probably never know now.......... ; ))

[bishbashbosh]

I assume these people pay for the surgery / drugs / aftercare out of their own pockets?

 

Waiting lists and length of time to see a specialist on the NHS are horrendous, and that is before they decide if you need surgery. I don't think taxpayers money should be used because some bloke is sick of his nob, or some woman fancies having an appendage.

 

What a complete load of rollocks.

[WTF]

Motor bikes, thats a tricky one. All depends on circumstances, were they a twat on the bike. Popping wheelies up and down the prom and being a general dick on the bike or were they caught up in a crash.

 

Right, so you suggest medical treatment should be allocated by committee based on their opinion and judgement of the individual?

 

Let's hope you never actually get to have any sort of responsibility for anything ever.

 

Well it should, you smoke and you get lung cancer from that. Then you pay for any treatment your self, you decided to smoke therefore you can pay for any treatment your self.

 

This point is the same for a sex change, if your born a man and want to be a woman pay for it your self.

 

 

As for Missions comment, they dont need medical treatment......there past that point already. Hell, not even God can save them now.

 

Also Mission, you shouldnt post pics of your self in a Borat Mankini, thats how these pics get around.

 

If you smoke and get lung cancer from that then you have already paid for your treatment, your neighbours treatment and probably your whole street's treatment with the 80% taxes that you paid on every packet of cigarette that you ever bought. Maybe smokers who don't get cancer should sue the government for a rebate for all the taxes they paid?

 

dream on, how much do you think transplant surgery costs? and then there is the constant need to take expensive anti rejection drugs. even on 300 fags a week at todays prices and at your 80% duty figure thats only 3k a year in round numbers. a quick google estimated the cost between 150 and 300 thousand dollars US!! so at todays exchange rates thats 100 - 200 thousand quid!! so 33 years at 300 a week gets you the low estimate, and 66 years the high. but when you consider the cash duty on a pack of fags from 30 years ago?? 20p??? and the rise in between, it would take a lot longer to get the 100k than the 33 years of the maths now answer. how the cost of chemo and radiation therapy compares without the need for a transplant, i didn't bother looking up. but very few folks will actually pay more into the NHS than they actually take out if they had major surgery for cancer.

[Albert Tatlock]

dream on, how much do you think transplant surgery costs? and then there is the constant need to take expensive anti rejection drugs. even on 300 fags a week at todays prices and at your 80% duty figure thats only 3k a year in round numbers. a quick google estimated the cost between 150 and 300 thousand dollars US!! so at todays exchange rates thats 100 - 200 thousand quid!! so 33 years at 300 a week gets you the low estimate, and 66 years the high. but when you consider the cash duty on a pack of fags from 30 years ago?? 20p??? and the rise in between, it would take a lot longer to get the 100k than the 33 years of the maths now answer. how the cost of chemo and radiation therapy compares without the need for a transplant, i didn't bother looking up. but very few folks will actually pay more into the NHS than they actually take out if they had major surgery for cancer.

Rubbish, your costs are at least twice the 'NHS reference' costs. Comparison with the US is useless, that is why they envy our NHS so much.

 

Most smokers are affected by heart conditions, strokes and cancer. Very few (smokers and non-smokers alike) get heart AND lung transplants that cost £80K, heart transplants alone around £70K. A triple heart-bypass costs around £15K, treatment for cancer (chemo etc.) averages £35K.

 

The duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes is £3.20, so over 40 years a smoker will pay an additional £48K into the system, over 50 years £58K. You also have to consider smokers live 10 years less on average, so that is an average of 10 X £5K they don't get back in state pension i.e. another £50K they 'contribute'. So in total the average smoker 'pays' £100K into the system in addition to normal taxes more than a non-smoker. And, not so many smokers even get the chance to 'recoup' much of that extra money they have paid in.

 

But of course heart conditions, strokes and cancer affect non-smokers too (they don't die of nothing) - and they require treatments and surgery too, never mind treatments for additional conditions, drugs, and long term care (homes/at home etc.). Non smokers are also, for example, in that additional 10 years, more likely to require hip/knee replacements at around £8K.

 

If a quarter of the working population smoke, then on the island that equates to 10,000 people. 10,000 X £100K over their lifetime on top of what non-smokers pay in is an additional £1 Billion in revenue. That's a new hospital every 20 years, or a free triple heart bypass for 66,000 people.

[Sebrof]

dream on, how much do you think transplant surgery costs? and then there is the constant need to take expensive anti rejection drugs. even on 300 fags a week at todays prices and at your 80% duty figure thats only 3k a year in round numbers. a quick google estimated the cost between 150 and 300 thousand dollars US!! so at todays exchange rates thats 100 - 200 thousand quid!! so 33 years at 300 a week gets you the low estimate, and 66 years the high. but when you consider the cash duty on a pack of fags from 30 years ago?? 20p??? and the rise in between, it would take a lot longer to get the 100k than the 33 years of the maths now answer. how the cost of chemo and radiation therapy compares without the need for a transplant, i didn't bother looking up. but very few folks will actually pay more into the NHS than they actually take out if they had major surgery for cancer.

Rubbish, your costs are at least twice the 'NHS reference' costs. Comparison with the US is useless, that is why they envy our NHS so much.

 

Most smokers are affected by heart conditions, strokes and cancer. Very few (smokers and non-smokers alike) get heart AND lung transplants that cost £80K, heart transplants alone around £70K. A triple heart-bypass costs around £15K, treatment for cancer (chemo etc.) averages £35K.

 

The duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes is £3.20, so over 40 years a smoker will pay an additional £48K into the system, over 50 years £58K. You also have to consider smokers live 10 years less on average, so that is an average of 10 X £5K they don't get back in state pension i.e. another £50K they 'contribute'. So in total the average smoker 'pays' £100K into the system in addition to normal taxes more than a non-smoker. And, not so many smokers even get the chance to 'recoup' much of that extra money they have paid in.

 

But of course heart conditions, strokes and cancer affect non-smokers too (they don't die of nothing) - and they require treatments and surgery too, never mind treatments for additional conditions, drugs, and long term care (homes/at home etc.). Non smokers are also, for example, in that additional 10 years, more likely to require hip/knee replacements at around £8K.

 

If a quarter of the working population smoke, then on the island that equates to 10,000 people. 10,000 X £100K over their lifetime on top of what non-smokers pay in is an additional £1 Billion in revenue. That's a new hospital every 20 years, or a free triple heart bypass for 66,000 people.

 

I think Albert's figures are nearer reality. However, smokers impose other costs on the community.

 

Second-hand smoke incurs a significant cost.

 

When somebody dies before their working life is over (whether from their own smoke or somebody else's), the loss of earnings is significant, and devastating for dependents.

 

My dry-cleaning costs have dropped over the years - back in the 60s, getting rid of the smell of smoke was the main reason to have clothes cleaned.

 

Good pubs spent a fortune replacing carpets and chair covers, and repainting their ceilings. Bad pubs didn't bother, of course. The same applied to railway carriages, aircraft cabins, and hotel rooms.

 

S