Because that’s all some of these people have – is raw nerves.
I never said that I supported Michelle Kosilek. I never said that I was happy that this lawsuit was filed. I never asked for such to be filed. But it’s there and we cannot ignore it.
What one particular voice wants to ignore is that if the state decides that GCS is medically not necessary, then you can bet that every insurer in that state and in any state where that precedent can be used (which is likely to be many because of the nature of the federal court system) will use that decision as a basis for claiming that transgender health care should be excluded from coverage.
Yes, yes, some companies negotiate to cover that now. But open heart surgery isn’t a negotiated item. It’s required, because it can be medically necessary. The reason that we have this entire patchwork mess was because back in the 1980s, certain other shrill voices managed to convince the Reagan administration that GCS was not a medically necessary procedure, and even to call it “experimental” despite the fact that it had been in use successfully to treat GID since the 1930s.
For the federal courts to agree that it is a medically necessary procedure provides reference and precedent when reviewing the status of Medicaid coverage of GCS, which just so happens to be under review this year. And if Medicaid says it is medically necessary, most insurers rapidly fall in line and agree with the federal government. This has happened on all other manner of health care before – a federal decision which prompted the health insurance industry to stop treating something as optional. So your assumption that this decision can’t be relevant elsewhere flies in the face of things I’ve been directly told by people with legal training.
I’ve not cheered on Michelle Kosilek. I’m not carrying any torch for her, despite your misguided attempts to paint me in that light.
As for your fear of answering those who questioned, you answer them honestly. Every single prisoner under the care of the state is entitled to medically necessary care. Even Charles Manson. That doesn’t mean anyone “supports” these people. That’s an absurd attempt to twist this into an emotional argument so you can maintain your faux moral outrage about this case.
You claim that I am supporting this when I never said any such thing. What I am saying and will continue to say is this decision is pure black and white due process. If the doctor’s diagnosis is medically necessary, then the state has no choice, no matter how much you, I, or your neighbor may dislike it.
Unless, of course, Jennifer, you want to amend the constitution to permit cruel and unusual punishment? Because that’s the alternative here. Deny medically necessary treatment, an act which is already deemed cruel and unusual punishment by prior US court cases, and which therefore violates the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
You can’t have it both ways, Jennifer. I wish this case had never come before the courts. But it did. It’s here. And either the law has to be blind or we’re not a nation of laws.
It seems you no longer want to be governed by law but instead by moral outrage. Such a pity.