Good news Obamabots.....now you get to pay for convicts healthcare (crimes, Michigan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No YOU make no sense. Go back to the top of this and read it. YOU are paying for convicts in other states now. Does that make you happy? Do you realize that there are states in this country? I guess not.
Just wait, in a few years we'll see surveys about how blue states are paying for red states inmates and they will wine about it then just like they whine now about the federal government buying services from red states proclaiming its welfare..
Everybody does. Hip hip hooray say the liberals. Soon the rest will figure it out like we told you fools from the jump. Why would any business pay for healthcare when they can dump it onto the feds..............or taxpayers I should say??
"WASHINGTON – The Obama administration often touts that people with pre-existing conditions and countless others can now get covered under ObamaCare. But there's another group that's starting to benefit from the law -- prison inmates. Cash-strapped state and local prisons increasingly are using the Affordable Care Act to pay for their inmates' medical costs, taking advantage of a little-known provision that lets them shift some of those expenses to the federal government.
Ohio, Illinois and Iowa are among the states trying to offload the rising costs of health care – which include mental health programs – by enrolling inmates into a new expanded Medicaid program when they get sick.
But it doesn't stop there. The states also are working to enroll them even before they're released from prison, so they have coverage when they get out."
No YOU make no sense. Go back to the top of this and read it. YOU are paying for convicts in other states now. Does that make you happy? Do you realize that there are states in this country? I guess not.
So? Taxpayers are still paying for inmates, not much has changed. Why didn't it bother you before when tax payers were paying for the healthcare of inmates?
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-06-2014 at 04:05 PM..
Reason: off topic
Its really the only point because an incarcerated inmate medical costs are what they are, and it doesnt matter who is paying the bill.
My concern would be the ramifications this might have on the actual number of individuals who are in jail. The USA already has record numbers incarcerated, I dont want to see anymore.
The reason our government was established the way it was, is to allow communities to have a voice in the costs for services they demanded on putting into place. With the outsourcing of more and more of these expenses, the benefits to townships deteriorate, and state rights and obligations diminsh.
This is a bit off-topic, but to continue your point:
The real problem is that the people that decide who goes to prison and for how long (judges and prosecutors) have their interest aligned with sending everyone away to prison for as long as possible. They work for the county (or judicial district) that writes the checks, but the checks don't come out of their bank account. It comes out of the state's bank account. There is no motivation for them to keep the incarceration rate down.
The county that elects the judges and prosecutors doesn't pay for the prison space they use. Consequently the voters never push back on them for over-incarceration. On the other hand, to win re-election they have to be "hard on crime", they will never win re-election because they saved the state money.
Things would be a lot different if we made the counties pay for the prison beds they used. "Want to send a drug user to prison? Fine, but your voters are going to have to eat the entire $40K bill."
Notice how different that is in jails vs. prisons. Everyone in the criminal justice system works to keep the jail rolls down. When the county jail gets full, judges and DA's start OR (own recognizants) people instead of setting high bail amounts. They almost never do that in state prisons. Prison overcrowding is simply not a big concern of theirs, where jail overcrowding is.
We need to make the counties pay for the cost of the people they incarcerate. Instead we give them a blank check and there's no motivation for the people who make decisions to save on costs by exploring alternatives to incarceration or invest in crime prevention.
These fools just don't get it. So if the feds are paying for inmates now do our local state and county taxes go down? Hell no. Just more money tossed into the kitty. It is beyond ridiculous. Why the feds pay for state convicts somebody needs to explain to me in the first place. They can't and cheer on more taxes and money to waste.
Obamacare covering these costs is likely to degrade the quality of medical care for the general population, wherever we live, and raise everyone's costs as well. We don't have enough "young, healthy" people to "sacrifice" economically (force into the system under penalty), to pay for this additional population of prison inmates.
Under state and county, budgets serve to place some constraints on these expenses. Raised to a national level under ACA, with federal funds flowing freely, there's little motivation to curb the expenses.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,353 posts, read 54,533,615 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Because the state and county used to consider healthcare costs in their prison costs and thus reduce the number of individuals in prison for stupid crap.
If someone elses is paying the costs, the concern over whats spent no longer is there.
So now the costs of building/maintaining/staffing jails/prisons will not be considered when imprisoning people for stupid crap because healthcare was the only important consideration? Have anything to support that? Like what percentage of incarceration costs incurred by states healthcare represented?
So? Taxpayers are still paying for inmates, not much has changed. Why didn't it bother you before when tax payers were paying for the healthcare of inmates?
I seriously have no idea what you are talking about,
You can't understand the difference of who is paying. You don't care either it seems. No TOS violations from me.............it seems that is all you care about anyway.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-06-2014 at 04:07 PM..
Reason: response to deletion
So now the costs of building/maintaining/staffing jails/prisons will not be considered when imprisoning people for stupid crap because healthcare was the only important consideration? Have anything to support that? Like what percentage of incarceration costs incurred by states healthcare represented?
Evidence to support that.................well look at the school system. Nobody cares if a child is educated but they care about the money per child the fed provides. This is where it is going here and if you can't see it then you aren't looking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
