Cait, on 22 August 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:
And taxpayers should pay for all this?
See if anyone wants this to be paid for by taxpayers, then I'd better be seeing those people push for single payer and let everyone be covered for whatever will make them happy. I'm never going to be OK with taxpayers paying for one lone prisoner at Leavenworth, while thousands of people who never broke the law aren't covered. And, that is my bottom line. Anyone who crusades for this guy had better also be crusading for single payer for everyone. [and yes, Specs I know you do, so "kudo's".
Well, I have single payer as a Canadian
At least for the basics though - such as seeing a family Doctor or a visit to the emergency room. A lot of things prisoners would get covered here I don't get covered for either I imagine.
I actually broke an ankle recently. Hospitalization, surgery and follow-up appointments with the surgeon (including diagnostic x-rays) are all covered.
However, I had to pay for my crutches, my "air" cast, the prescription pain medications and physiotherapy. As well as any over-the-counter medications recommended by the Doctor and/or desired by myself.
My doctor prescribed over-the-counter daily-low-dose aspirin. Not for the pain, but as a preventative for blood clots. I wonder at what percentage of risk that becomes the standard recommendation?
It does rub wrongly that inmates get these 'perks' that regular people don't get when the former broke the law and the latter didn't. And being 'better than' them isn't any consolation.
Ironically, after they break our laws we put these people under our care and protection. I figure that is the easiest way to view it is - these people are adult wards of the state.
I've done respite fostering and I know a lot of people involved in foster care and I've heard some complain about foster kids getting more than their own (or other) kids. Referring to things medical and non-medical. Is it true? Regarding medical - other than kids of privileged families - Yes.
You don't see parents running to give their kids to the state to get medical treatments covered - but a story does crop up every now and then. I imagine it is the same with adult prisoners - now and then odd story of someone committing a crime because they want to go to jail for the 'perks' - but the vast majority with severe medical issues do not - likely because prison sounds pretty awful
What are the alternatives? Either arbitrary guidelines which harm people to various degrees (some more than others), and/or overruling doctors' recommendations?
Or, like you said, single-payer health system. Though, as I demonstrated, even single-payer doesn't automatically mean everything (visits, prescriptions of medications/equipment/other treatment/etc.) is covered - depends on what legislation is crafted up for it. So the complaint that they get "more" medical treatment would likely still stand unless you had a very very comprehensive single-payer-system.
I imagine good prisoner management would also be harmed by withholding recommended medical treatments.
Edited by sierraleone, 22 August 2013 - 09:48 PM.