Thanks for that masterly cite, Random! I was afraid I’d have to dig around in my files to find the specifics, even though I did get a review of that particular case at a conference just last week!
What are the odds the politicians will enact euthanasia legislation for such incapacitated inmates? :rolleyes:
Generally, the elderly ex-inmates go on Medicare, and the younger ones end up on Welfare Medical Assistance.
Both of those are paid for, at least in part, by Federal money. When they were in prison, all their expenses were paid from State tax funds.
So kicking them out of prison saves money in the State budget, by pushing much of the cost of their care onto Federal taxpayers.
No problem!
As a bonus, I learned something. Even though I knew the basic answer to this, I was not aware of the new practice that some states have of charging solvent inmates a small co-pay for medical care. I found that interesting. As Wisconsin is one of those states, I’d be interested in your thoughts on how that’s been working out (but I’ll understand if you aren’t comfortable commenting on the issue).
Zero.
And to the extent that’s considered to be my opinion on the merits of your questionable-for-GQ political comment, I’ll bring this back to appropriate GQ territory by stating that, as a matter of legal certainty, any state legislation mandating euthanasia for sick prisoners not otherwise subject to the death penalty would be immediately invalidated as unconstitutional.
Here in Anderson, we have Virldeen Redmond, famous for have more arrests for drunk driving than anyone else on the planet (four hundred and some.) One of our local judges made a point of getting old Virldeen off the roads, and he put him in prison. His health crumbled in the joint. Rather than spending a lot of money caring for a fragile old man, the Dept. o’ Corr. let him go. He’s not driving these days, and he’s more or less staying out of trouble.
Indiana’s prisons are overstuffed, and for every new pot dealer that comes in the front door, they boot a murderer out the back door.
And Lord, he can’t go back there.
(Watch while nobody gets the joke.)
Just one thought:
If I’m reading things correctly, much of the healthcare costs for these people are linked to security. If you take them to a regular hospital for a procedure, you don’t send them by public transportation or a regular ambulance; you have to send guards as well, and the room is guarded while the inmate is in the hospital.
Once this guy isn’t an inmate any more, “guards” is one concept of his medical care that gets slashed right out.
Doesn’t this raise the possibility that someone without health insurance, requiring expensive hospital treatment, would benefit from deliberately getting arrested?
Good point.
Joke received and understood, although I can’t remember who recorded the song.
Not as much as you might think. If you’re not in prison, and are indigent, you’ll
qualify for Medicaid (or medicare, depending on your age and other circumstances). Someone on the outside may not have a Constitutional right to free healthcare, but that doesn’t mean it’s not available.
Also, in many if not most states, even non-governmentally owned hospitals are required to treat in many circumstances, even if they know they aren’t going to get paid.
I’ll admit that some of this free healthcare may not be easy or convenient to find/schedule/obtain, especially for someone who has a chaotic life, or is prone to making poor life decisions (“fuck it, I’m not going to get up early and wait in line at County Hospital – gimme another beer”), but it’s out there.
My guess is that the main reason prisoners may get better healthcare on the inside is that inmates are forced into a more structured life, where the medical office is close by, in the same institution, where a small group of medical professionals will coordinate care. Also, prison is a place where life is so boring that a visit to the doc is a treat.
I remember reading a law review article suggesting that state governors make much more aggressive use of pardons and commutations for elderly or infirm prisoners who pose no danger to anyone after serving already-lengthy sentences. Not much political upside to that approach, though, so the prisons will probably continue to bulge at the seams.
Two sentencing stories (probably apocryphal):
-
A judge tells a young murderer, “Your parole officer hasn’t been born yet.”
-
A judge sentences an elderly, white-collar defendant who ripped off millions of dollars, to 20 years in prison. The defendant moans, “Your Honor, I’ll never live long enough to serve that entire sentence.” The judge nods understandingly and says, “Well, just do your best.”
“Indiana wants me” by R. Dean Taylor
This co-pay was something foisted on us by our legislature. It initially started at $2.50 per patient-generated visit (routine follow-ups and true emergencies didn’t require a co-pay). Given that the average inmate makes less than 12 cents an hour in his prison job, it did cut down on frivolous appointments a bit.
Then the legislature raised it to $7.50 per patient-generated visit. We thought the patient complaints about this were bad before, now they went thru the roof. It continues to be a bone of contention, but we do have an elaborate screening mechanism to try to ensure that medically necessary care can get thru without a co-pay.
I’m of two minds about this. Our schedules are quite full trying to assess new inmates (we’ll have over 8,000 new inmate admits to our system this year, and they all come thru my institution first). Also taking care of the really sick ones. I don’t need lots of patients making appointments to see me to complain that their particular work assignment doesn’t suit him, or that his mattress is too thin, or that he needs special skin products (which he doesn’t, 99% of the time), or that mean old Dr. Trembelchor wouldn’t give him his oxycodone for his back pain, won’t I please do that?
On the other hand, we’ve had a few inmates not make an appointment for real problems because they don’t want to pay, and then get sick as hell, costing the state big bux, where a bit of early intervention could have solved it real cheap.
Being that this is the only “happy” post in this thread, I must refer to this fellow as
The Bud Man of Alcazaba.
Please pardon me (early), por favor.
Seems like a fairly risky plan. While I have no doubt of the competence of Qadgop and Lissa’s husband, this thread keeps reminding me of my father.
He’s permenately disabled with Sjogren’s syndrome, and ended up self-medicating the pain via vodka, which led in turn to three drunk driving arrests. (Nobody was injured, thank goodness.) By the time he was sent to jail for a few months, he had already been successfully through rehab for the drinking.
He was in extreme pain for a good sized chunk of his sentence. Obviously I wasn’t there for the actual conversations, but he told me and my grandmother during our visits about his attempts to go to the doctors for pain medication, the eye goop that he uses several times a day that keeps him from going blind, the medication to keep his mouth wet, etc. Generally speaking, he was refused any sort of treatment or medication, and most of the time they wouldn’t even see him.
If he went to jail, I’m not surprised. Jails have notoriously variable medical resources, depending on the county that they’re in, who’s overseeing the medical care, amount of funds available for care, etc. If the county jail will let an inmate have their meds brought in by family from the inmate’s own doctor (a big if), this is probably the best route to go. Assuming family is available and willing.
In a statewide prison system, there’s supposed to be more consistency and oversight. But I’ve seen pretty spotty medical care in prisons, too.
The key is for the inmate to keep complaining about their legitimate medical needs. Of course, what the inmate perceives as a legitimate need and what the doctor perceives can be wildly varying. And I’ve seen plenty of examples of doctors being in error in dismissing a medical need.
But frankly more often than not, it is the inmate who is in error about what is a medical necessity and what is not.
He was here (it’s privatized). I’m not sure if it counts as a jail or a prison - actually, I had no idea that there was a difference.
Oh, do not get me started on privatized prisons or privatized prison health care! Both places try to keep or increase a profit margin via denial of service (IMHO).
Jails are secure holding facilities run on the county level, for the most part. They may contain people who are not convicted of a crime, but are being held awaiting trial. Hence these folks need to be allowed to vote during elections. People serving misdemeanors and felonies of less than a year sentence are often placed in jails to do their time. They generally have less rehab programs, education, or access to exercise or recreation than most prisons. Not always tho.
Prisons generally are run by the state or the feds, or are contracted out to private corporations by the state or the feds. Generally it takes a felony conviction to get sent to prison, and those in prison have been convicted of something, and are not just awaiting trial (altho they do go to court a lot for new offenses, or further appeals of their varied offenses).