Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 87
  1. #1 Nice Little Prison Factoid I Found Out Today 
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,649
    Every year we receive some kind of training and today I had my yearly blood born pathogen training dealing with the different diseases inmates come in with or contract while here. Found out that inmates with hepatitis or HIV are getting treatments that cost about $80K per inmate. They pay nothing. However, if you're not a prison scumbag, you have to find a way to pay for this either through cash or insurance which would be a fortune. If this makes sense to someone, can you please explain it to me?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,832
    How DARE you deny prison scum medical treatment!!!! How DARE you!!!!
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    13,094
    Hepatitis is both highly contagious and treatable. It makes sense in a closed population to treat it to prevent transmission to others, including yourself, and to keep the overall health risks as low as possible.


    HIV is different, I guess, as far as treatability goes. Treating it doesn't prevent transmission to others. I guess the only arguments would be humanitarian ones, and something tells me you are not really in the mood for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,649
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    Hepatitis is both highly contagious and treatable. It makes sense in a closed population to treat it to prevent transmission to others, including yourself, and to keep the overall health risks as low as possible.


    HIV is different, I guess, as far as treatability goes. Treating it doesn't prevent transmission to others. I guess the only arguments would be humanitarian ones, and something tells me you are not really in the mood for that.
    Go for it.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I guess the only arguments would be humanitarian ones, and something tells me you are not really in the mood for that.
    You can use the humanitarian argument, but then it would apply to everyone, not just convicts. And we know that not everyone has access to free treatment to AIDS and Hep B.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    13,094
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Go for it.


    I'm not going to bother. I will say this: one lawsuit from an HIV+ inmate who doesn't get his treatment could cost a lot more than treating the inmates who are HIV+. I'm not saying that it should be that way, just stating why it probably is that the DOC is covering those costs at this point in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,649
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I'm not going to bother. I will say this: one lawsuit from an HIV+ inmate who doesn't get his treatment could cost a lot more than treating the inmates who are HIV+. I'm not saying that it should be that way, just stating why it probably is that the DOC is covering those costs at this point in time.
    The thing is, they should pay something other than $5 for a doctor/nurse call and $1 for meds. They are not entitled to anything other than 3 hots and a cot and medical care. Take money from their account. Make them pay. They're certainly not paying for their crime, make them pay for something.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,800
    To sort of continue Noonie's argument, HIV+ inmates are at least less likely to transmit HIV to you ("you" being the guys who have to keep these characters where they belong) if they manage to bleed upon you while you also have an open wound (which can pretty much happen with even a relatively minor scuffle with an inmate). In a weird, ironic way, treating their HIV is sort of protecting you, as bizarre as that seems. It also helps prevent them from transmitting that HIV to other inmates who may finish their time some day. I think that you would agree that it would be a burglar doing five years relatively quietly should not get infected with HIV by some child molester doing five consecutive life terms, if for no other reason than that the burglar will finish his time and be released upon the public at some point.

    Hepatitis has already been covered. That's some nasty shit and unless you want to do your job in a hazmat suit, treating these scumbags is the best thing for everyone until they drop dead.


    Personally, I think inmates should get the minimum health care that will keep them alive unless and until they can pay their own way. Broken arm working on the chain gang? OK, the county/state/feds (as appropriate) needs to take care of that. Someone wants an adadictomy procedure? Piss on you; drum up your own $50,000 for the surgery, and that is after you have paid all restitution to the affected families, all fines, and completely reimbursed the relevant government for your incarceration. THEN you can engage in elective surgery at your own cost. You get cancer or your liver fails or whatever while you're in the pokey for kidnapping an eight-year-old? Sucks to be you; you should have considered the pain of dying from untreated cancer before you snatched a kid, shithead.

    Public health concerns like hepatitis, though, just can't be ignored. We just can't have prisons full of hep-C carriers who may some day be loosed upon the public. That's just irresponsible.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,649
    If you think the state's motivation is the safety of the custody staff then you're fooling yourselves. The state could give 2 craps about us. If they did they wouldn't keep eliminating positions leaving us vulnerable.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Not providing medical treatment for hepatitis victims = epidemic. In a closed community, as has been pointed out to you already, said epidemic would potentially kill hundreds. Including staff.

    http://www.hepb.org/hepb/abc.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •