CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Taxpayers on hook for vicious cons'
sex-changes -- what?!?
Hard core criminals in our state prisons. You pay for
their food, clothing and general medical care. Now, you may end up
paying for their sex change surgery. I-Team reporter Joe Bergantino
investigates what critics are calling a massive waste of taxpayer
dollars....
The I-Team has learned there are twelve prisoners in our correction
system who have either been diagnosed with or are being diagnosed for
gender identity disorder. Four prisoners are receiving hormone
treatments. So far, their medical care and lawsuits have cost you tens
of thousands of dollars. Sex changes for all of them would cost you at
least a quarter of a million dollars....
Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation: "What
bothers me about that? What doesn’t bother me about that? I can’t
even imagine seriously considering this. Never mind doing
this. Never mind paying for it."
So why is state funding for prisoner sex changes -- something insurance
companies won’t pay for -- even a possibility?
Blame it on the federal court. That’s where Michelle, once Robert,
Kosilek took her case....
Later this week, the state will tell the federal court that sex surgery
for Michelle Kosilek would result in a security nightmare. When that
happens, expect Kosilek to pursue her lawsuit. Then a federal judge will
eventually decide whether you will pay the bill for Kosilek’s operation
and beyond that, sex surgeries for other convicts serving times for
horrendous crimes.
WBZ-TV4
May 25, 2005 11:00 pm
Sex Changes Behind Bars
By Joe Bergantino - CBS4 I-Team
A coalition of religious and community groups will launch a
drive today to put universal healthcare on the 2006 state ballot, in a proposal
that would raise the cigarette tax to buy coverage for more people and would
require all but the smallest Massachusetts businesses to cover their workers....
Under [Uxbridge Democrat state Sen. Richard] Moore's similar proposal, the state
would add 50 cents to the $1.51 per pack cigarette tax, a move that might raise
as much as $150 million a year. Much of that money would be used to expand
MassHealth, the Bay State's Medicaid program....
Nevertheless, the leaders of the healthcare campaign say there is a moral and
religious imperative to make sure that every citizen is covered. Eddly Benoit, a
church elder at Dorchester's Temple Salem Seventh Day Adventist Church, said
that up to a fourth of the members of that congregation lack health insurance.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Mass. group set to push for universal healthcare
A new report that advocates privatizing the Massachusetts
Turnpike deserves further study, a transportation spokesman for Governor Mitt
Romney said yesterday....
The release of the study yesterday by the
Pioneer Institute,
a Boston think tank, triggered more political salvos between the authority and
the Commonwealth, which wants to merge the Turnpike Authority with the
Massachusetts Highway Department....
The new study asserts that a private company could raise and lower tolls without
political fallout and operate more efficiently. The study cites privatized roads
in Chicago, Texas, and Indiana, and admits other efforts have failed.
The author of the private, unsolicited study, Ted Bunker, writes that
privatizing the turnpike, including the Big Dig, could provide as much as $5
billion to the state.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 26, 2005
New report touts privatizing Mass. Turnpike
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
The world has finally gone truly and completely mad!
We taxpayers are now ordered by the federal court to
pay for elective sex-change operations of "convicts serving time" --
many sentenced to life behind bars -- "for horrendous crimes"!
If you didn't catch the CBSNews4 at 11:00 last night
and sit stunned by Joe Bergantino's I-Team report, I've included a
transcript of it today. I swear I could hear taxpayers' groans and
screams reverberating throughout the state despite even the raging
nor'easter outside. I'm still dumbfounded. What more can be added?
The tax-and-spenders keep lecturing us that "taxes
are the price we pay for a civilized society." I'm sorry but we're far
beyond the tipping point. The corollary has now kicked in, the level of
taxation is literally destroying what remains of our society.
"At least quarter of a million" of our bucks, so
vicious murderers behind bars can change from hes to shes. I don't dare
ask, even rhetorically, what can possibly come next.
State Sen. Richard "Moore Taxes" Moore [D-Uxbridge]
is at it again, proposing another tax increase. You'll recall
that he just proposed a 20 percent "temporary" hike in the sales tax.
(CLT Update, May 13 -
Anyone buying another "temporary" tax hike?) Now he wants to add yet
another 50¢ to the $1.51 per-pack cigarette
tax, already one of, if not the, highest in the nation. This is
reported as "a move that might raise as much as $150 million a year" and
would be used "to expand MassHealth, the Bay State's Medicaid program."
How much more big government can a diminishing band
of beleaguered smokers honestly be expected to finance single-handedly?
"Might" is the operative word, and the next question
should be, "for how long?" What will the Legislature do differently than
it always does, once a new or expanded "entitlement program" is firmly
rooted but inevitably becomes unsustainable? We all know the answer to
that rhetorical question.
Now that "Universal Health Care" has become a
"religious imperative to make sure that every citizen is covered," how
quickly will the ACLU race to its rabid defense of "the separation of
church and state"? Surely we can count on its consistent advocacy, even
against this Utopian liberal crusade. Don't hold your breath.
The next time a liberal demands higher taxes, more
money to care for "the most vulnerable among us" and "the children,"
point them to an available $5 Billion bonanza. Tell them to take the
MassPike out of the hands of hackarama and privatize it, then come talk
about how to best spend the proceeds.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
WBZ TV-4
May 25, 2005 - 11:00 pm
Sex Changes Behind Bars
By Joe Bergantino - CBS4 I-Team
(WBZ-TV) Hard core criminals in our state prisons. You pay for their
food, clothing and general medical care. Now, you may end up paying for
their sex change surgery. I-Team reporter Joe Bergantino investigates
what critics are calling a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Kenneth Catheena Hunt, serving a life sentence for first degree murder.
Sandy Jo Battista, child rapist, behind bars twenty-one years.
Michelle Kosilek, in prison for life for strangling his wife.
All three are violent criminals.
All three believe they are women trapped in men’s bodies.
And all three want you to pay for their sex change operations.
The I-Team has learned there are twelve prisoners in our correction
system who have either been diagnosed with or are being diagnosed for
gender identity disorder. Four prisoners are receiving hormone
treatments. So far, their medical care and lawsuits have cost you tens
of thousands of dollars. Sex changes for all of them would cost you at
least a quarter of a million dollars.
Taxpayer advocate Barbara Anderson.
Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation: "What
bothers me about that? What doesn’t bother me about that? I can’t
even imagine seriously considering this. Never mind doing
this. Never mind paying for it."
So why is state funding for prisoner sex changes -- something insurance
companies won’t pay for -- even a possibility?
Blame it on the federal court. That’s where Michelle, once Robert,
Kosilek took her case.
Before Kosilek sued, the state’s policy was this: Individuals receiving
hormone treatment before imprisonment could continue it behind bars but
no sex change operations allowed.
But two years ago, Judge Mark Wolf handed down this decision saying
Kosilek has a "rare, medically recognized, major mental illness" and
that the state must follow doctors prescribed treatment.
Correction Commissioner Kathleen Dennehy.
Kathleen Dennehy, DOC Commissioner: "The courts are telling us that
medical professionals make medical recommendations and correctional
administrators assess the safety and security concerns."
Now, a doctor hired by the state is recommending that Kosilek, who has
twice attempted suicide, undergo a sex change operation as treatment for
her disorder.
If the state refuses to do it, Kosilek will ask the federal court to
order the surgery, at your expense.
Senator Scott Brown: "I think it’s unconscionable that the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and the citizens of the Commonwealth would have to pay
for any type of elective sex change operations for any prisoners."
But is sex change surgery elective?
Most doctors and psychotherapists, include Diane Ellaborn, say in some
cases it’s medically necessary.
Joe Bergantino: "What are the consequences for these men if the state
says forget about it, you’re on your own, live with it, get over it?"
Diane Ellaborn: "I think the psychological consequences are severe. I
think people have severe depression, severe anxiety. These could be
highly suicidal prisoners usually and also prisoners that are at very
high risk for self mutilation."
Denise Leclair, who once was a man, heads up the International
Foundation for Gender Education.
Denise Leclair: "We should rely on what doctors say the proper course of
treatment is, not subject people’s medical treatment to popular vote.
That seems grossly unfair."
Because of our investigation, Senator Scott Brown has filed legislation
prohibiting the state from paying for prisoner sex changes.
Senator Scott Brown: "When you go to prison, you lose some rights. You
also lose your rights to get a sex change operation."
Later this week, the state will tell the federal court that sex surgery
for Michelle Kosilek would result in a security nightmare. When that
happens, expect Kosilek to pursue her lawsuit. Then a federal judge will
eventually decide whether you will pay the bill for Kosilek’s operation
and beyond that, sex surgeries for other convicts serving times for
horrendous crimes.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Mass. group set to push for universal healthcare
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff
A coalition of religious and community groups will launch a drive today
to put universal healthcare on the 2006 state ballot, in a proposal that
would raise the cigarette tax to buy coverage for more people and would
require all but the smallest Massachusetts businesses to cover their
workers.
The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization argues that its approach
would go further to reduce the ranks of the state's 500,000 uninsured
than the alternatives under consideration on Beacon Hill that are backed
by Governor Mitt Romney and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. The
Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, which includes 65 religious
congregations and community groups in Eastern Massachusetts, says its
plan would cover everybody by expanding the state's insurance program
for the needy and by forcing businesses to provide coverage.
Romney and Travaglini want to make private insurance more affordable by
allowing insurance companies to offer lower-cost policies with
scaled-back benefits. Neither of their plans includes a tax increase or
an ironclad employer mandate, an approach that the business community
strongly opposes.
"We think the Senate president is off to a great start, but we want to
do two-thirds more than what the Senate president wants," said Rabbi
Jonah Pesner of Temple Israel, one of the leaders of the effort. "We're
happy to work this out with the Legislature in the next two months. But
we're prepared to go to the ballot initiative, and we're prepared to
raise the thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot if necessary."
The group would have to collect approximately 40,000 certified
signatures to put the proposal before the voters. Even if backers
achieve victory at the ballot box, they may not get what they want: In
recent years, the Legislature has ignored two measures that voters
approved, scuttling a campaign finance measure and indefinitely delaying
an income tax reduction.
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor is committed to
expanding healthcare coverage, but rejects the strategy backed by the
religious leaders.
"Both the governor and the Senate president have made it clear that tax
increases and employer mandates are off the table," Fehrnstrom said.
Travaglini and his aides could not be reached for comment. While
avoiding a direct employer mandate, the Senate president's plan would
force companies that employ 50 or more people and don't provide
healthcare coverage to reimburse the state when their employees seek
treatment from the public free-care pool.
A fourth healthcare proposal is also in the mix, though it would travel
a different path. Last July, lawmakers approved a proposed
constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to come up with a
plan for universal healthcare coverage. Under that proposal, the
Legislature would have to "enact and implement such laws as will ensure
that no Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable" health
insurance coverage.
Legislators would need to approve the measure again in a Constitutional
Convention this year or in 2006, to put the proposal on the November
2006 ballot.
By contrast, the ballot initiative being proposed today by the Greater
Boston Interfaith Organization does not seek to amend the state
Constitution, and it is far more specific. Though they might maneuver to
block it, legislators would not have to approve the measure for it to
become law.
The plan hews closely to a bill authored by Senator Richard T. Moore,
the Uxbridge Democrat who cochairs the Legislature's healthcare finance
panel. That plan stakes out ground held by many healthcare advocates,
who say that covering everybody in Massachusetts is impossible without
spending more money and requiring employers to provide health coverage.
But so far, Moore's proposal has gained little traction on Beacon Hill
because of political opposition to new taxes or mandates on businesses.
Ari Lipman, a spokesman for the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization,
said the ballot initiative would not contain all of Moore's proposals,
but it almost certainly would include an expansion of MassHealth, the
state coverage program for the poor; subsidies for small business and
the self-employed to help them pay for coverage; and surcharges on
businesses that can provide insurance to their workers but do not.
Under Moore's similar proposal, the state would add 50 cents to the
$1.51 per pack cigarette tax, a move that might raise as much as $150
million a year. Much of that money would be used to expand MassHealth,
the Bay State's Medicaid program.
To push businesses to provide coverage, Moore would levy what he calls a
"health access assessment" on employers who do not offer health plans to
their workers. The payment would be calculated as a percentage of
payroll, and firms paying total salaries of $50,000 or less would be
exempt.
Moore's proposal also would provide state subsidies to small business
and certain low-income individuals to help them purchase insurance. The
state would automatically enroll in private plans people whose employers
don't provide insurance.
Lipman said the group has already enlisted the support of many small
business people who would like to provide healthcare coverage to their
workers but can't afford it.
But the state's leading business groups have been united in opposition
to any mandate on employers. Brian Gilmore of Associated Industries of
Massachusetts said an employer mandate "would raise the profile of
Massachusetts as a difficult place to do business," and might cost the
state jobs.
"Everybody's for healthcare, but the fly in the ointment is how to
provide for it, pay for it, and make it affordable," Gilmore said.
In 1988, the Legislature approved a measure that levied a surcharge of
$1,680 per worker on businesses that failed to provide coverage,
excluding firms with fewer than six workers. But that plan, promoted by
Governor Michael S. Dukakis, was scuttled by his successor, William F.
Weld. Today, only Hawaii has an employer mandate.
Nevertheless, the leaders of the healthcare campaign say there is a
moral and religious imperative to make sure that every citizen is
covered. Eddly Benoit, a church elder at Dorchester's Temple Salem
Seventh Day Adventist Church, said that up to a fourth of the members of
that congregation lack health insurance.
"One of the things that we preach from the pulpit and is taught to us in
the Bible is that our body is the temple of Christ, and because our body
is the temple of Christ we have to treat it appropriately," Benoit said.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 26, 2005
New report touts privatizing Mass. Turnpike
Romney, Amorello still deeply divided
By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff
A new report that advocates privatizing the Massachusetts Turnpike
deserves further study, a transportation spokesman for Governor Mitt
Romney said yesterday.
But a deeper examination of privatization won't begin without the
cooperation of Massachusetts Turnpike chairman Matthew J. Amorello, whom
Romney has been trying to oust and who balked at the idea.
Mariellen Burns, spokeswoman for the Turnpike Authority, said that
privatizing the turnpike would force managers to keep tolls in place and
that the initiative goes against Amorello's promises to remove tolls
west of Route 128 by 2017.
"Entering into this type of ... lease with a private entity with very
strong profit motive would guarantee the entire road's permanent status
as a toll road," she said.
Jon Carlisle, spokesman for the Executive Office of Transportation,
said: "It's an idea that deserves to be explored. But it's clear that it
won't get far with the entrenched protectors of the status quo that are
presently managing the turnpike.
"I think the kind of information we would need to form a final analysis
... requires the kind of cooperation and forthrightness that has so far
not been forthcoming from the Turnpike Authority," Carlisle said.
The release of the study yesterday by the
Pioneer
Institute, a Boston think tank, triggered more political salvos
between the authority and the Commonwealth, which wants to merge the
Turnpike Authority with the Massachusetts Highway Department.
The merger would cut overlapping services and save at least $20 million
annually and $190 million in one-time savings by having the Commonwealth
back the authority's bonds, state officials said.
In March, the governor asked the state's highest court whether he can
oust Amorello from the Turnpike Authority chairmanship, a ruling that
the court has yet to decide, according to a court spokeswoman.
Despite repeated requests, Amorello has refused to step down, saying he
plans to stay in the $205,000-a-year job until the Big Dig's completion
this fall.
State Transportation Secretary John Cogliano is scheduled to become the
authority's chairman after July 2007, when Amorello's contract expires.
The new study asserts that a private company could raise and lower tolls
without political fallout and operate more efficiently. The study cites
privatized roads in Chicago, Texas, and Indiana, and admits other
efforts have failed.
The author of the private, unsolicited study, Ted Bunker, writes that
privatizing the turnpike, including the Big Dig, could provide as much
as $5 billion to the state. He also said a long-term lease of the Mass.
Pike "would probably require regular toll increases over the length of
the lease." The study does not advocate adding tolls.
Bunker cites the recent privatization of the Chicago Skyway, a 7.8-mile
road linking Chicago to the Indiana Toll Road, where private operators
paid the city $1.83 billion for the right to run the refurbished road
under a 99-year lease. Detailed rules govern future toll increases, cap
those increases, and link them to inflation.
Bunker said the private companies running the road -- a Spanish toll
road builder and operator and an Australian investment bank -- based
their bids on the future cost savings of adding new electronic toll
collection systems.
The road runs at about 30 percent capacity, while nearby interstates run
at or above capacity. As a result, even if tolls are raised on the
Skyway, Bunker said, the companies say it won't impact their ability to
attract more commuters and generate more revenue.
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|