Re: Judge approves surgrery for murderer
posted at 9/20/2012 4:29 PM EDT
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
Now I cannot understand why there would be a problem requiring him to contribute whatever he makes with this book. If he has money, there is no reason the taxpayer should be on the hook until he runs out.
Yes, and there's the rub right there: the payment. He hasn't made a dime from the book as it stands, though. He's probably broke, but I agree if he has *any* money to his name, it should be used toward the surgery.
Health insurance companies, depending on the coverage for which you pay, can deny coverage for this surgery; it's not a given it would be covered. If it's not a part of the plan for which you pay a premium, you may either have to pay a huge deductable, or pay out of pocket. Health insurance and a medical diagnosis are not the same thing. You get what you pay for. There are gender-reassignment hopefuls who are in low-income brackets who have low-level health plan insurance who would be denied this surgery, as well as someone on Medicaid, even if a physician diagnosed it a necessity.
"Is this treatment considered "Medically Necessary?"
"When a company decides to cover medical needs for its transsexual employees, it's not uncommon for the insurance company to still refuse coverage. Typical plans are worded so that the insurance company makes the determination, even though the plan is employer designed. It is often necessary to appeal to the insurance company to approve coverage that the employer intended to cover."
So we must assume that a murderer is being given the same health insurance coverage as state employees: top of the line.
Incidentally, the Globe did another editorial on this today, stating that the state is being offered a deal to drop the case. Naturally, the Globe endorses dropping the case. It requires opting out of an appeal, that's the catch.
Here's the editorial text:
"After losing a legal battle over whether Massachusetts must provide sex-change surgery to a transgender prison inmate, the state should take the opportunity to minimize its monetary exposure.
Earlier this month, federal district Judge Mark Wolf ordered the state to provide the surgery to Michelle Kosilek, an inmate serving a life sentence for murder. However bizarre the case seems on its face, Wolf argued persuasively that it met the relevant legal and medical standards for requiring the operation. And now that Wolf has ruled that Kosilek is entitled to legal fees, the state is on the hook for much more than the cost of the operation.
Fortunately, Kosilek’s attorneys have given the state an incentive to end the legal battle. They’ve offered to waive their fees if the state opts not to appeal. This is a sensible way to make the outcome of the case more palatable to the public. The state should take the deal."