Home › Opinion › Opinion
Why give special healthcare to criminals, the least deserving?
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionWhen it comes to healthcare in California, crime pays. In the state of California, according to a federal judge, the healthcare in our California prisons is substandard. After what appears to be a very poor impact study, this federal judge wants California to build a 1,500-bed prison hospital in Camarillo. These inmates would consist of level 3 and level 4. Level 4 is the most serious of offenders, by example, murderers. Charles Manson could be our neighbor.
As a practicing medical doctor, I am blind to insurance and treat patients regardless of insurance type if they are in the need of medical care. Should an inmate on death row, waiting for lethal injection, be treated and/or prevented from natural causes, only to meet his execution date? At what cost and how far have we gone to provide healthcare at no cost to prisoners in California? We ignore our uninsured, don't immunize our own children and don't provide healthcare and/or accommodations for the homeless. Hospitals operate, in many cases, at a loss on the uninsured and costs shift to the insured and cash patient. I realize this is America, but healthcare is never free. Someone has to pay the bill.
In the case of the proposed prison hospital, there will be 1,500 beds, six times the size of St. John's Regional Medical Center and almost eight times the size of Community Memorial Hospital. Healthcare professionals are at a premium in California. Local hospitals will be unable to compete with salaries, benefits and sign-on bonuses for those joining employment at the facility. This phenomenon will decrease the local work force for the rest of our community.
I discussed the impact that this would have with the administrators at St. John's Regional Medical Center and Community Memorial Hospital. Both of them agree and are concerned that they will be unable to adequately staff and/or compete with the federal prison staff now and in the future. Without caregivers, this would impact our healthcare delivery system in our county.
One could speculate that more healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) would move into our county. This is wishful thinking due to the fact that there is a severe shortage of healthcare professionals available and that it is expensive to live and to buy a home in our area.
The Camarillo State Hospital had its own set of issues, but at least it didn't house murderers, rapists, child molesters and hardened criminals. The solution seems clear, there are other areas that should be explored and properly investigated.
Traffic, water, sewage, sacrificing the California Youth Authority facility and the use of billions of state dollars and bond issues to accomplish this newfound prison system. The present prison system undoubtedly needs to be improved in regard to healthcare. Instead of spending billions of dollars building a prison hospital, wouldn't it be better spent upgrading the present healthcare system in the state of California for inmates?
Don't punish Ventura County for a crime it didn't commit and reward prisoners for the crimes against society. For inmates, crime appears to pay. The heavy cost of housing and caring for inmates is excessive at the present time. How much does society have to pay for acts of violence against victims and our community? Healthcare delivery exists at many different levels to include deductibles and exclusions. Why give a special healthcare system to the least deserving?
Crime does not pay; don't allow the people to pay again for acts against society.
— Gary J. Proffett , M.D., of Oxnard is the medical director of SeaView IPA in Oxnard.
Posted by MECapron on June 27, 2008 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Dr. Proffett,
Good points.
Short answer - Because we rapidly expanded prison population way beyond our prison's humane design capacity and voter's were not told the full costs of that policy.
Real answer - Reduce "hard" prison population at least as fast as we could build new facilities, instead of building the new facilities. Ergo, apply brains (electonic brains) to the issue.
The technology is off-the-shelf in Wii (accelerometers), GPS, cellphones, and existing bracelets. We could pay a few $million for a college student contest to build prototype devices and have a few criminal mental health professionals suggest the features needed in the super-bracelet (drug deal detection, proximity to a forbidden person or location, automatic taser, ...) The professionals also select for non-violent criminals (although the bracelets might also inject a temporary paralysis drug should the prisoner become violent).
Beta testing on a few hundred prisoners could start in early 2009. The super-bracelets could double our "prison" capacity by 2012, that is much faster than new prisons or hospitals can be built. That saves Calfornia a few $billion per year in desperate times.
Mark Capron, PE
Posted by cslaurie on June 27, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My concern is who will decide what level of care they receive. Are we going to have to pay for gender changes? Who gets to say no, the court appointed receiver?
"Kosilek was Robert Kosilek when he was convicted in the killing of his wife. In 1993, while in prison, he legally changed his name to Michelle.
Since then, Kosilek has been fighting for the state Department of Correction to pay for sex-change surgery, which can cost from $10,000 to $20,000. After two lawsuits and two trials, the decision now rests with a federal judge.
The case is also being closely watched by attorneys and advocates across the country who say Kosilek is an example of the poor treatment transgender inmates receive in prison."
Posted by ironwoman on June 27, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My opinion is they don't deserve anything better than what my grandparents get. It is ashame that our State is ran by Federal Judges, Appeals and liberal organizations.
I don't care if these inmates have mental illnesses either. Obviously something is wrong with them to commit such violent crimes. They don't deserve this "gold star" treatment.
My Parents do, MY children do and the Taxpayers do. Not criminals.
I say charge them to be in this hospital just like the average tax paying citizen.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on June 27, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dr Proffett makes some very valid points, especially when the issue of where all these Health profession employees will come from.
I do think that the Doctor veers into some shaky grounds though.
First, it's not all about "special" needs, a lot of this is about basic needs.
Ok, an inmante scheduled for execution...should he get chemotherapy for cancer? Should someone set his broken leg, or stitch up wounds after a stabbing? Tough thoughts, but only a relative few are on Death Row.
Dr Proffett is wrong to postulate that people are in prison for "violent crime". He infers that that's all there are there.
Should someone in prison for relatively benign crimes like embezzlement, tax evasion, running a house of ill reputer, or fraud not get health care? I don't mean to diminish the impact "white collar" crime has, but it isn't murder, rape, or other physical mayhem we're talking about here.
Dr Proffett also seems to forget that our prison population has been greatly impacted by the closure of the State Hospital system that the old Cam State was a part of. Many of the mentally ill now exist as mentally ill prisoners, caught up in the system because of a lack of care or institutions within which to contain them. Thank Ronnie Raygun for that.
Deciding who gets care by by virtue of their worth to society begins a slippery slope I think.
At what point does it stop?
Violent criminals? Criminally insane? White collar criminals? The mentally ill?? The developementally dis-advantaged? Republicans? Gays? Smokers? Stupid people who don't pick up after their dog goes potty?
Ok...absurd, but the point is, if access to basic and essential health care is to be constrained by virtue of someone's worth or value to whatever section of society gets to decide those things...all of that is possible.
To date, that's not how the Health Care system in this country operates; in or out of prison.
Dr. Proffett (an unfortunate choice of names, just begging for a joke) makes some good points, but I think also raises some ethically questionable issues.
...oh, and Doctor, remember that Ventura County is a "Law and Order" county...we like locking people up here, just not paying for it, or having it in our "viewsheds", or apparently in our County.
Posted by NavalAviator on June 27, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Doc you had better read that Oath you took years ago. You are also to be blind as to a patients' status.
Posted by iamnathan on June 27, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RE: Post by MECapron:
Are you suggesting that we devise a system of smart braclets that can track, monitor and restrain or sedate less violent prisioners, that can be released from prison, which should cost less than building more prisons?
This is probably a good idea, however the article is about "mandated health care" for the prison population.
I believe that the expansion of health care, if truly needed and mandated, should be attached to, or near existing prisons, not in Camarillo!
Put it where escapees cannot be a danger to a population that has no present prison, and is right next to a freeway that makes it easy for them to flee.
Wake up you moronic politicians !!!
Posted by norcalmom on June 27, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
You say
"I don't mean to diminish the impact "white collar" crime has, but it isn't murder, rape, or other physical mayhem we're talking about here."
Actually, we are talking about murder, rape and other physical mayhem! The proposed offenders to be housed in this facility are level 3 & 4 offenders (out of a possible 4). Their level is determined on the length of their sentence, which is determined by their crime and/or additional time tacked on due to behavior while incarcerated.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 7 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.