Question:
Why are People So Against Universal Health Care but have NO Problem Buying Luxuries for Convicts in Prison??
emily_pyles
2008-03-09 11:28:22 UTC
I want to know how people can oppose even basic health coverage for hardworking taxpaying citizens & yet be totally willing to not only pay for convicts living expenses (food, housing, clothing, security) & health care, but also luxuries like free in-cell cable TV, free computer labs with free high-speed internet, prison canteens to buy chips, soda, candy & other junk & many other extravagances at taxpayers expense?

I don't understand it! Can someone PLEASE explain it to me??

How is it that criminals who steal, molest, cheat, rob, rape & kill, can sit in their cells all day watching free cable TV or working out on exercise or recreation equipment, with the taxpayers foot the bills for their food, shelter, clothing & health care while those same hardworking taxpayers have to struggle, working 2 or 3 or more jobs to make ends meet & still can't afford health care & no one wants to help THEM??
Seventeen answers:
2008-03-09 12:20:20 UTC
I agree with you 100%!



I think it is APPALLING and INCREDIBLE just how much taxpayer money is TOTALLY WASTED by this GREEDY, MONEY-GRUBBING government on criminals, needless wars, and general pork-barrel spending like gold toilet seats, unnecessary pointless government investigations (Monicagate ring a bell?).



Meanwhile schools are overcrowded and underfunded, the roads (at least around here) are full of potholes, police, fire and other vital services have had to slash their budgets, and MILLIONS of hardworking taxpaying Americans are uninsured, broke and facing foreclosure despite working 2 or more jobs still cannot make ends meet!



America SUCKS which is one of the reasons why I am making plans to emigrate OUT of this CESSPOOL. First to Canada, and once I get Canadian citizenship and renounce my US citizenship, then to no or low tax nations like Belize, Cayman Islands, or elsewhere, and spend the rest of my life dividing my time between these countries, Canada, Europe, India, the Orient, and the US (just for short visits)
LimeDazzle
2008-03-09 11:40:01 UTC
To begin with, there aren't many people opposed to Universal Health care. Most, and infact many people are all for it, it is just hard to pick a plan that suites everyone.



And as for buying luxuries for convicts, that's not fair to say people have "no problem" with it. They are forced to do through paying their taxes. Every American must do their taxes, and when they do a prtion of it goes to inmates. So people DO HAVE a probblem with this. Sit down and ask any taxpayer what they think about this and they will tell you they do not feel right about this.



And criminals do not sit around and watch tv and eat junk food all day. You are making it sound too easy. The justice system and prisons and jails are putting these inmates to work every day. Usually making them do things that give back and benefit society. Let alone the the agony they have to go through of being in prison.



Also, if it were pay for prisons, or have criminals run awry on the streets, what do you think I would want?



Im not all for criminals, in any means. Im just trying to clarify that people really do not have a choice in this matter.



And you said people who can't afford healthcare, no one wants to help them. That is untrue. There are plently of people out their lobbying for those people in congress every day.



Also, big companies like Wal-mart make these people's lives a little easier by offering cheaper meds. For example, if you do not have healthcare or insurance, Wal-Mart will give you a 4$ prescription.



So you see, there are many people helping each other.
I Love Him Always!
2008-03-09 11:41:52 UTC
Most Americans don't approve of giving "luxuries" to convicts. But whatever convicts do get in prison is not a federal judgement as universal healthcare would be. Both universal healthcare and caring for inmates would be paid through our taxes. Some jails are funded through the city's revenue like tickets, court fees, etc. But universal health care has the main detriment effect of having people's wages and salaries garnished if they don't participate. That's a big no, no! Prisons and jails are under the provisions of the city, county or state, not the United States of America unless it's federal prison. So the federal gov't has no say so in these matters and many citizens do not know what amount of money is spend on convicts. I don't think all convicts get "luxuries". Some may have cellphones, but they are snuck in, and t.v's are usually bought by inmates or family members. When I worked in the jail, the jail spend $40.00 day on each inmate and they only got the basic necessities. So if you have a grievance with what's being spent on inmates, take it up with your state senator, U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative. Neither Presidential candidate can change the state laws in regards to prison reform, unless they go to court with the states.
GoGoBear
2008-03-09 11:38:38 UTC
Word to the wise...



"I mean if America spends even HALF the money it wastes, coddling convicts in prison, we could EASILY pay for most if not all the costs of instituting a Universal Health System WITHOUT having to increase taxes!"



...when you make ridiculous statements such as this it takes away the creditability of your position / argument.



Note: I don't necessarily disagree with your general position, though you fail to make it either rationally or eloquently. My point is that gross incorrect and over the top statements made as fact paint you as someone to be dismissed versus listened to...



That said...



I doubt if you will find very many people who are opposed to any form of universal health care but in favor of the coddling of criminals. Seriously.



What it appears that you are really asking is how these state of affairs can co-exist...not "how people" can think this is the way it should be.



I believe most people would be in favor of some form of universal health care.



I believe most people feel that incarceration should be as uncomfortable as possible without being inhumane or torturous.



So your real question is why does this state of affairs not exist.



I would say because the people have elected representatives who do not agree that either position of of paramount importance.
2008-03-09 11:35:17 UTC
You need to reanalyze this. Typically, it's the same people who DO want universal health care that are FOR buying luxuries for convicts in prison. Liberals who are into wealth redistribution are for both. To me, it's a disgrace that most criminals aren't doing hard labor day and night.
2008-03-09 11:32:13 UTC
To be fair, most conservatives would take away the convicts' luxuries too. They would be against anything that would cost them money. However, it is ironic that we acknowledge that even convicts deserve 'humane treatment' (including healthcare) but somehow that humaneness does not extend to the poor. What's more upsetting is that people are allowed to die in this country due to lack of healthcare but the government has no problem spending 'our' money on pork, earmarks, wars, and billion dollar bridges to nowhere.
2008-03-09 11:38:12 UTC
I do not know one Conservative who is OK with giving luxuries to convicted felons ! Give them a cell, a change of cloths, and feed them three times a day, that is all they deserve.



We appose Universal, (Socialized) Health Care because it is proved not to work. It creates a huge Bureaucracy, and limited services, while costing the Tax Payer Billions !

~OM~
2008-03-09 11:35:10 UTC
you have been brainwashed into thinking convicts live in luxury. the food is rationed and is barely edible. convicts are humiliated every waking moment and for the most part prisons don't even have t.v.'s anymore. the medical care is provided by quacks that wouldn't even be allowed to practice in india..



if you libs want to live like convicts it's fine with me.







edit. i think you are referring to "jails". the majority of people in jail are innocent until proved guilty and deserve a degree of respect.
Chi Guy
2008-03-09 11:30:45 UTC
I personally think 30% of the convicts shouldn't be in prison. They should legalize marijuana but make it illegal to use it in public.



As to your question. Prison gaurds will tell you that giving inmates some basic destractions is a good tool for discipline and it has reduced inner priosn crimes emmensly. By giving inmates something that can be taken away they are better behaved.



I'm not advocating for prison luxuries nor against UHC. Just sharing info.



star4U
2008-03-09 11:39:55 UTC
They have no problem spending more tax revenue on the health care system we have here in the USA even though they get crappier health care and have to buy their own insurance on top of those taxes.



The first step in any meaningful discussion about US health care has to address a couple of things: why do we pay more taxes per capita for what we have, and yet most of us get nothing unless we buy private insurance of pay for it on our own? What set of metrics do you use to measure the quality of health care for those who have insurance or can afford private care, and how do those compare to metrics in other countries.
eldude
2008-03-09 11:30:58 UTC
This question makes some vague, inaccurate assumptions. Basically, this is not reality. It is a hypothetical situation that involves 'most' people agreeing on something.

I don't agree with anybody getting anything, not even health care for free. Believe me, if someone was going to donate surgery to me, I would be skeptical.
d s
2008-03-09 11:32:57 UTC
I agree I think alot of funds could be used in differant places I beleave that the gov could save a whole lot of money if they just went through and counted where every nickel and dime went
2008-03-09 11:30:57 UTC
They don't have all that. But they do have very cheap health care and dental care.
JAndrew
2008-03-09 11:32:39 UTC
White Collar Criminals give a lot of money to the GOP.



We can't have those ENRON guys missing out on their tennis lessons can we?
2008-03-09 11:34:58 UTC
...and in effect, imprison health care providers by way of enslaving them.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5123
2008-03-09 11:36:36 UTC
I really doubt that they are the same people.
Nemesis
2008-03-09 15:20:38 UTC
What on earth has one thing to do with the other?

Why I don't support UHC is mainly because it does NOT work--anywhere it is tried. Canadian doc who studies world health care--and now lives in the States because of that:

"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”



And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.



This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.



Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html



Hillarycare exists in Taxachusetts with a mere 6.5 million folks, but:

"Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers."

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745

Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM

Read the article and see CA could not even get UHC off the ground for cost reasons.



Medicare is touted by the uninformed as a good way to go:

In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.

"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.



Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."

http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=vs_mar05_top&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=11037



Fortunately, we don't need UHC--we need to have a free market which we do NOT have at this time:

When 75% of the people who declare bankruptcy over medical bills ARE INSURED, then insurance is CLEARLY not the answer.

"Aldrich’s situation is "asinine" but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered.

...

Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/



Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPeenotestimony.html



Furthermore:

"the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of “shedding lives” as some term it when “undesirable” customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, “Health insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,” 15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.



A 2006 article, “U.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation”

(hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer “controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting." In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. “’The results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004—peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003—soaring well above inflation and wages increases.’" Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion."

--Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128



"Insurance Companies Robbing Patients

Robbing patients to pay CEOs leads to unprecedented medical insurance corporation greed.

Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:52 AM

By: Michael Arnold Glueck & Robert J. Cihak, The Medicine Men"

http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/medical_insurance/2008/01/03/61543.html



Sensible solution:

QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.

That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).

http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com

Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...