I read a disturbing article in the October issue of Reader's Digest. It was titled "Crime pays . . . if you need top-notch medical care."

Inmates, even those on death row, are having elective surgeries, organ transplants, sex-change operations, breast reductions and many other surgical procedures at the taxpayers' expense.

It has been estimated that 44 million people (1 million in Pennsylvania alone) are without health care simply because they cannot afford it, yet their tax dollars are paying for health care for criminals.

It came to this in 1976 when the Supreme Court ruled that denying health care to inmates could amount to the "cruel and unusual" punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

It was cruel and unusual punishment that an inmate raped and brutally beat an 8-year-old girl, leaving her for dead. This inmate was eligible for hormone treatments to help change his gender - at the taxpayers' expense - because a doctor labeled his condition "gender identity disorder."

Inmates make it onto organ donor lists when those without health care might never make the list. Two years ago in California, a twice-convicted felon serving time for armed robbery got a new heart, at an initial cost to the state of $900,000. At that time, there were 3,900 people on the national waiting list for a new heart, and hundreds of them eventually died waiting.

Fair? I think not. Inmates have "guaranteed" health coverage from the government - in other words, your tax dollars and mine.

I am not saying that inmates are not entitled to health care. However, when it comes to elective surgeries, sex change, breast reductions or non-life-threatening illnesses, we need to step back and take a better look at how the system works.

Maybe a violent criminal on death row who needs a heart should be dropped down the long waiting list.

I certainly do not want to be paying for health insurance for an inmate when I myself cannot have health insurance for my family.

Surely criminals shouldn't be given better coverage than law-abiding people. This Supreme Court ruling from 1976 certainly needs a second look by all taxpayers and those who do not have health insurance.

The bottom line is that premium health care shouldn't be the reward for any criminal act. It's time to contact lawmakers about this issue.