Any lawyers out there wanna help me sue for the government to give me my share of his surgery funds back?  

I have the right to say what my taxes are used for and this isn't it.  I didn't get to have a say. I  deserve the right to get help if I need it.  I haven't killed anyone and I could use a hand.  I work hard (three jobs) and get nothing in return.  Took me over a year for the mortgage company to "modify" my loan and they tacked on $20,000 in order for me to do it....what is that?  Because I pay my bills I get screwed.  Because I work hard I get screwed.  Maybe I'll commit a crime that requires four years and get a college education for free while I'm getting three squares and a bed for four years...wt h e double hockey sticks.  HE doesn't deserve anything from me.

It's elective surgery!   Medically speaking he won't die if he doesn't have it, it's not like he has cancer or something. Many transgenders live and dress as the opposite sex and for a variety of reasons never have the surgery to complete the process.   What makes the psychiatrists think he won't still be suicidal after the surgery?

In response to Robin39's comment:

In response to Robin39's comment:

exactly.   HE does not deserve this FREE surgery...again, he can get all the jail house psychiatry he wants from a jail house psychiatrist!  

If he's that suicidal they can transfer him to Bridgewater State Hospital  (if they haven't already)    which is really a maximum security prison,  he will be monitored closely and his meds and treatment will be gone over with a fine tooth comb by a team of clinicians including a psychiatrist, in an attempt to stabilize him.

Oh, even better!  Mass taxpayers are officially on the hook for this freak's legal fees!

$1 million PLUS!

Don't know about you, by my a55 is sore.

spelling correction: monitored,      Bring back edit and spell check!

9/27  correction made.

Dan Rea WBZ talk radio will be talking about this tonight, probably around the 9pm time slot.

Massachusetts Citizens Paying For A Criminals Sex Change. Michelle Kosilek, formerly known as Robert Kosilek, has been in jail since pleading guilty to murdering his wife in May 1990. Over the years, he has been undergoing hormone treatments and psychotherapy. Recently ruled, state money will be used to cover the cost of sex-reassignment surgery for Kosilek and he will be reimbursed for years of bills and legal fees. Do you think this is proper use of taxpayers dollars? Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson joins NightSide to discuss his stance on this sensitive topic. Listen in and tell him what you think!

If you want a sex change operation, but can't afford it, murder your wife.  And don't worry about legal fees, they're free too.

About paying court fees:

The statute allowing people to sue government for violation of constitutional rights has a linked provision granting attorney fees to attorneys who represent the person. Why? Because the people whose constitutional rights are violated the most are poor people who cannot afford an attorney. Very few attorneys can afford to do pro bono work, and its usually rich corporate lawyers trying to make their firm look good.

If you scream about fees based solely on this case, you're simultaneously arguing against a statute allowing fees to an attorney who successfully represents a poor black kid beaten within inches of his life because a racist cop was bored. (It happens more than you'd like to think).

Look I initially had the same reaction as those screaming. But again, at the end of the day, it comes down to the psychology is valid or not. If it is, then failing to treat it is no different than failing to treat schizophrenia or failing to treat a broken leg. The 8th Amd. violation hangs on the psychology.

If you ignore the psychology so you can keep shouting, you are a fool. That's really all there is to it.

In response to jem5's comment:

One of the rights prisoners do not lose is the constitutional right against violation of the 8th Amedment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A federal statute allows persons to sue government actors for violation of their constitutional rights. A seperate federal statute lets the attorneys who represent them get paid. Though there is a lot of case law limiting the ability to sue in many instances and in many ways.

Remember, Mass DOC is saying the operation will get him killed.

Moving him to a Women's prison, which ain't gonna happen, will get him killed quicker.

I'd also like to see the media stop referring to him, as she, or her

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

I understand.

Like I said: I had the "WTF?!?!" reaction at first, but I thought about it and concluded that unless the psychology can credibly be knocked down, I can't see a difference between that and not treating a schizophrenic who otherwise would spend all day cowering in the corner of his sell in mortal terror of the demon toilet trying to kill him.

The docs said there is no treatment - no medication/therapy that is - for this, other than a surgery.

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.

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."

There is a petition that started 5 days ago to include sex reassignment surgery in the Affordable Care Act.  Here is a slice.

This all culminates in one damaging, entrapping status for transgender individuals: unable to move forward with their transition, stuck in a dangerous middle zone of harassment and discrimination, including within the government.

Forcing insurance companies to cover sexual reassignment surgery under the Affordable care act would alleviate much of this, it won't solve everything, but it will make things much better for many, many transgender individuals.

So can we assume that it does not?

The best thing Massachusetts has done in quite some time! They will appeal us having to pay for HIS surgery.   Once again I say, let him save up for it and pay with his own money.  Loser that HE is.....

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061165315&format=comments#CommentsArea

The latest.

Look at the bright side.  Turn his pole into a hole and he'll be F'd to death in a week.

A money saver

The imbecile juge who decided to allow this fiasco to take place at the expense of the taxpayers has since decided to "step down".  Good, and don't let the door hit you in the rear-end on the way out either.  This absurd decison made by him will have far flung consequences for the criminal justice system long after his name is forgotten.  The very thought of a convicted murderer petitioning the court, demanding a sex change operation and prevailing is so ludicrous as to warrent a new vocabulary in order to properly describe what 99% of the citizens think of this idea.  What he does deserve is a jail cell, three meals a day and a job to help offset the cost of incarcerating him.  Of course, he found two of Boston's most prominent law firms to represent him in his quest to become a "woman".  The whole syster is broken, badly broken.