jump to navigation

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care May 24, 2011

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

Mandates.

California will have to release over 30,000 inmates from its prison system to comply with a Supreme Court ruling earlier today.  The court cited chronic violations of inmates’ rights in its 5-4 decision.  The reductions will improve the delivery of health care services to the remaining inmates, claims the majority:

The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.

The court said in a 5-4 decision that the reduction is “required by the Constitution” to correct longstanding violations of inmates’ rights. The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system’s designed capacity.

There are more than 142,000 inmates in the state’s 33 adult prisons, meaning roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released.

Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal jurists in the decision, while the four conservatives were aghast at the implications.  Calling the ruling “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history,” Antonin Scalia’s dissent predicted a higher number of releases, 46,000.  Those may end up going to county jurisdictions rather than state prisons, or perhaps sent to other states with more room in their penal system, but that will cost California money the state simply doesn’t have.

The immediate effect of the order will almost certainly be a large-scale release.  That will increase pressure on an already-overburdened parole system and send career criminals back to ply their trade in communities throughout the state — and the country.  The increased costs on communities won’t help the state improve medical care to prisoners; it’s more likely to sap the state’s treasury.

This poses other questions as well.  What is California supposed to do with convicts now?  If they can’t add to the current level of inmates, then they’re going to have to release even more on a one-for-one basis, putting revolving doors on the prisons again.  The same will be true in other states, which had joined California in opposing the order, which now have to operate under a new Supreme Court mandate on prison populations.

The state could build more prisons, which would solve the problem.  Unfortunately, California spent its money on practically everything but new prisons over the last few decades.  The average age of their prisons was 55 years in 2009′s report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.  California has a responsibility to invest in its prison infrastructure, as well as a responsibility to provide for the safety and basic health needs of its inmates.  But the Supreme Court has its own responsibility to keep criminals from victimizing their communities, too.  This looks like a big failure all the way around.

AFL-CIO chief says ObamaCare “shoved down the Republicans’ throats” September 9, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

by Ed Morrissey

I’ll give AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka decent marks for accuracy, if not imagery, in this clip from a speech given in the bright afterglow of the passage of ObamaCare in April of this year. He hails Nancy Pelosi for her work in getting ObamaCare passed, although the real work actually occurred in the Senate. Pelosi, after all, had a 77-seat majority with no filibuster rule, so she didn’t really shove this down the throats of Republicans as much as she shoved ObamaCare down the throats of recalcitrant Blue Dog Democrats who wanted to win another election in their lifetime. But Trumka is dead-on about what that process actually produced:

“Without Nancy Pelosi, health care [sic] wouldn’t have happened, because all the guys that were sitting around the table wanted to fold their cards and go for these little itty-bitty rights. She’s the one who had the backbone to say no. We stuck together, and we got a historic victory, and she drove it down the Republicans’ throats and out their backsides.”

Classy! And what comes out of one’s backside is … what, exactly, Mr. Trumka? Don’t bother to answer; sixty percent of American voters already know the answer, which is why they want ObamaCare repealed.

Note: I put the [sic] in the quote because Trumka, like so many other ObamaCare supporters, seem to believe that health care only came into being on March 23rd of this year.  Health care has been happening in this country for centuries without government intervention — and there will be less of it happening under ObamaCare, or at least fewer people providing it.

Muslims and Amish May Opt Out Of Obamacare free of any Penalties April 6, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , 4comments

by randyedye

EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

-In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”

Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274

There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. More…

This means that if you are Christian and abortion is against your religion tough luck.

If you are Jewish tough luck as well.

We wonder why these certain groups get a free ride. We also wonder why the largest religious block in North and South America the Christians are discriminated against like this. Very odd indeed.

There is a lot of food for thought here and a lot of ways to object to this healthcare bill isn’t there.

Better Late Than Never: Top Senate Dem Admits Un-American Health Bill Was to Address “Mal-Distribution of Income” April 1, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

by Kyle Olson

Now Max Baucus tells us: the health care overhaul America was just forced to endure was the government’s attempt to fix the “mal-distribution of income.”  It’s an admission that sadly comes after the bill has passed and been signed by President Obama.  But it’s better late than never.

While the acknowledgment likely wouldn’t have stopped the legislation because chances are it was common knowledge behind closed doors, at least the admission has now become public.  And it proves the point the whole exercise had nothing to do with Americans’ health and more to do with the Marxist concept of “redistributing” wealth.

According to FoxNews.com, Baucus said:

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Excuse me Senator, but who the hell are you to decide who is “too wealthy?”  Given this claptrap, you’d be a perfect candidate for a Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez administration – after all, Castro did just call ObamaCare a “miracle.”  Or would Castro and Chavez fit right into the leadership in Washington, DC these days?

Regardless, all doubts that the Democrats’ takeover of health care was little more than a power grab in the name of “social justice” have been confirmed.  And it should be all the more reason to push for a repeal of this fundamentally un-American takeover.

Democratic Health Care Plan Means $520 Billion Cuts in Medicare & $200 Billion in Taxes on Individuals & Small Businesses March 19, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , 2comments

by Jim Hoft

The latest Democratic plan to take over the nation’s health care means $520 billion in Medicare cuts.
Republican.Senate.gov reported:
NEW HEALTH BILL: EVEN MORE MEDICARE CUTS

More Than $520 Billion Cut From Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Hospice, Home Health Programs, Medicare Advantage, And Much More…

MORE THAN $150 BILLION IN CUTS TO HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, AND HOSPICE

“Ensuring Medicare Sustainability… -156.6 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle E—Ensuring Medicare Sustainability; 3401 Revision Of Certain Market Basket Updates And Incorporation Of Services Productivity Improvements Into Market Basket Updates That Do Not Already Incorporate Such Improvements (Effect Of Productivity Adjustment For Home Health Included In Estimate For Section 3131)… 2010-2019… -156.6 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.14)

MORE THAN $200 BILLION IN CUTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE

“Medicare Advantage Payments… -131.9 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Part C; Medicare Advantage Payments… 2010-2019… -131.9 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Pelosi, 3/18/10, P. 13)

“Medicare Advantage Interactions… -70.4 [Billion Dollars].” “Interactions; Medicare Advantage Interactions… 2010-2019… -70.4 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Pelosi, 3/18/10, P. 18)

NEARLY $40 BILLION IN CUTS TO HOME HEALTH CARE

“Home Health Care… -39.7 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle B—Improving Medicare For Patients And Providers; Part III – Improving Payment Accuracy; 3131 Payment Adjustments For Home Health Care (Includes Effect Of Section 3401)… 2010-2019… -39.7 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.13)

MORE THAN $20 BILLION IN REDUCED “MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS THAT SERVE A LARGE NUMBER OF LOW-INCOME PATIENTS”

“Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments… -22.1 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle B—Improving Medicare For Patients And Providers; Part III—Improving Payment Accuracy; 3133 Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments… 2010-2019… -22.1 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.13)

More… The Democrat’s bill means more than $200 billion in taxes on individuals and small businesses.