Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   One of the hidden success stories of Obamacare is how good it's been for ex-cons   (forbes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, U.S. Department of Justice, obamacare, Medicaid, history, Colorado Department of Corrections, supreme court ruled  
•       •       •

966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:10 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-12 11:34:30 AM  
So people with criminal histories shouldn't have health care?
 
2014-03-12 11:38:04 AM  
We as a society, one of the most imprisoning societies in the world, have to decide whether our prisoners are paying their debt to society in the clinker or not.  The punishment for the crime is prison time, but then if it is followed by a lifetime ban on gainful employment, participation in society and whatnot, then what was the prison time for?  I'm not saying we shouldn't punish criminals, but I wonder if we over-do it after prison.

Read another way, "people with criminal records often end up poor and/or broke."  That seems to be by design.
 
2014-03-12 11:47:26 AM  
Well, that's just not right. Those people aren't humans, so they should be going to the vet instead of a regular doctor.
 
2014-03-12 12:02:24 PM  
compared to what they have already cost the local, state and federal governments a little bit of healthcare is nothing.


quit majoring in minors.
 
2014-03-12 12:06:15 PM  

factoryconnection: We as a society, one of the most imprisoning societies in the world, have to decide whether our prisoners are paying their debt to society in the clinker or not.  The punishment for the crime is prison time, but then if it is followed by a lifetime ban on gainful employment, participation in society and whatnot, then what was the prison time for?  I'm not saying we shouldn't punish criminals, but I wonder if we over-do it after prison.

Read another way, "people with criminal records often end up poor and/or broke."  That seems to be by design.


that all depends on the crime.  if some dude gets tossed in prison for touching kids, I'm not going to hire him to run a daycare when he's released.
 
2014-03-12 12:09:42 PM  
So?
 
2014-03-12 12:10:52 PM  

ManateeGag: factoryconnection: We as a society, one of the most imprisoning societies in the world, have to decide whether our prisoners are paying their debt to society in the clinker or not.  The punishment for the crime is prison time, but then if it is followed by a lifetime ban on gainful employment, participation in society and whatnot, then what was the prison time for?  I'm not saying we shouldn't punish criminals, but I wonder if we over-do it after prison.

Read another way, "people with criminal records often end up poor and/or broke."  That seems to be by design.

that all depends on the crime.  if some dude gets tossed in prison for touching kids, I'm not going to hire him to run a daycare when he's released.


but at the same time it's not really helpful to make it illegal for the same person to live within 1/2 mile of any daycare, church or school; which all but makes it impossible for them to live in any city.
 
2014-03-12 12:25:09 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Read another way, "people with criminal records often end up poor and/or broke." That seems to be by design.

that all depends on the crime. if some dude gets tossed in prison for touching kids, I'm not going to hire him to run a daycare when he's released.

but at the same time it's not really helpful to make it illegal for the same person to live within 1/2 mile of any daycare, church or school; which all but makes it impossible for them to live in any city.


And preventing them from working just about anywhere doesn't really encourage them to re-integrate into society, which should be the ultimate goal. I understand that a pedophile is not going to work in a school or a daycare, but when you prevent people from having a place to live, getting a job, and brand them for life - all that happens is they are encouraged to go underground with other criminals and continue their criminal ways.

Of course, if we used prisons to actually rehabilitate people, there would probably be less of an issue as well. But you can't just toss people into the world with no money, no job, no support and nowhere to live and expect them to assimilate back into society properly.
 
2014-03-12 12:33:02 PM  
If they want healthcare, send them BACK to prison!
 
2014-03-12 12:35:27 PM  
Of course you wouldn't hire a child molester to work at a daycare center, but would you hire him as your accountant? If he was a good accountant?
 
2014-03-12 12:57:48 PM  

vernonFL: Of course you wouldn't hire a child molester to work at a daycare center, but would you hire him as your accountant? If he was a good accountant?


Probably. But I wouldn't hire someone who embezzled money as my accountant, but he could be a phenomenal  teacher, though that would probably come up on a background check and could keep him from getting that job even though the crime is unrelated to the work he'd be doing.

Let's be honest: people don't really want to associate with criminals and ex-cons, but if they paid their debt to society and actually want to live a normal life, they should be allowed to (with reasonable considerations, such as not allowing a child molester to work with children or an embezzler to work in a bank or accounting.)

Again, though, we seriously need to start treating prisons more like rehabilitation, so these people CAN function normally when they get out because it's to all of our benefit. They're going to be living amongst us anyway, so we should hope they don't re-offend and can function as a productive member of society.
 
2014-03-12 01:05:09 PM  

serpent_sky: Let's be honest: people don't really want to associate with criminals and ex-cons, but if they paid their debt to society and actually want to live a normal life, they should be allowed to (with reasonable considerations, such as not allowing a child molester to work with children or an embezzler to work in a bank or accounting.)


Actually one of my customers hires a ton of ex-cons for manufacturing jobs. You don't need a lot of talent to run a stamp press and if they mess up and get picked up again there is always another one to take his place. Plus there are tax credits and it looks good when you're bidding for government jobs.

The pay is fine too. Well above minimum wage and the hours are 6-4

A
 
2014-03-12 01:15:17 PM  
Prisons are basically de facto mental health facilities at this point: locking up people with mental health problems society doesn't want to deal with anymore. I don't think making sure they have access to on-going psychiatric care is going to be the end of our society.

Also, the metric is pretty broad "criminal justice system involvement." Does that include everyone who got picked up for a gram of pot?
 
2014-03-12 01:17:36 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Well, that's just not right. Those people aren't humans, so they should be going to the vet instead of a regular doctor.


Sadly when I was uninsured, we used to get antibiotics down at the animal feed store. Sad that it was the same medicine a doctor would have had to prescribe and sad that it was cheaper to keep a pig healthy than a human.
 
2014-03-12 01:19:06 PM  
www.brendan-nyhan.com

Approves of this tactic! It works!
 
2014-03-12 01:19:58 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Sadly when I was uninsured, we used to get antibiotics down at the animal feed store. Sad that it was the same medicine a doctor would have had to prescribe and sad that it was cheaper to keep a pig healthy than a human.


That's because if you acidentally kill a pig you get an early shipment of bacon and bbq, but if you kill a human you get a lawsuit.  I would hope they put a little more manpower into human pharmacies than animal ones.
 
2014-03-12 01:20:44 PM  
I announce Avik Roy as candidate for "Person who needs the biggest cockpunch in 2014"
 
2014-03-12 01:23:35 PM  
So what?  If it's good for ex-cons, that is only a good thing.  Preventing those citizens from acquiring resources in the traditional means will only encourage further criminal behavior, due to the lack of a legitimate option.
 
2014-03-12 01:24:40 PM  

vernonFL: Of course you wouldn't hire a child molester to work at a daycare center, but would you hire him as your accountant? If he was a good accountant?


Maybe after the Tong cut off most of his fingers (you only need two to work a calculator, right?).
 
2014-03-12 01:25:40 PM  

factoryconnection: That's because if you acidentally kill a pig you get an early shipment of bacon and bbq, but if you kill a human you get a lawsuit. I would hope they put a little more manpower into human pharmacies than animal ones.


Actually, they're produced in the same facilities. Just the batches that go to humans go through a slightly more rigorous testing process than the ones that are made for pigs.
 
2014-03-12 01:28:41 PM  
Thanks a lot, Burraco Barner.
 
2014-03-12 01:28:58 PM  

factoryconnection: We as a society, one of the most imprisoning societies in the world, have to decide whether our prisoners are paying their debt to society in the clinker or not.  The punishment for the crime is prison time, but then if it is followed by a lifetime ban on gainful employment, participation in society and whatnot, then what was the prison time for?  I'm not saying we shouldn't punish criminals, but I wonder if we over-do it after prison.

Read another way, "people with criminal records often end up poor and/or broke."  That seems to be by design.


If you keep them poor and broke, that increases the likelihood of recidivism, which is key to keeping the for-profit incarceration industry rolling.

I'm not saying private prisons are a key component when it comes to problems in our justice system, but...no, wait, that's exactly what I'm saying.  WTF America?
 
2014-03-12 01:30:14 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Actually, they're produced in the same facilities. Just the batches that go to humans go through a slightly more rigorous testing process than the ones that are made for pigs.


I understand that production is basically the same (though more rigorous testing = more sunk cost) but I was referring to human pharmacy costs being higher.
 
2014-03-12 01:31:32 PM  
In many states, ex-felons can't even vote, so the constituency for prisoners and ex- prisoners is small. They don't participate in elections.
 
2014-03-12 01:33:34 PM  
My God you guys sure hate poor people.
 
2014-03-12 01:35:06 PM  

factoryconnection: I was referring to human pharmacy costs being higher.


Oh derp. Sorry.
 
2014-03-12 01:37:52 PM  
It turns out that more than a third of the U.S. population eligible for the Medicaid expansion are ex-cons. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that "at least 35 percent of new Medicaid eligibles under the Affordable Care Act will have a history of criminal involvement."

Well, I screwed around some in my 20's, got drunk, tried to scale a fence to see if I could drive away on a tractor that was there with the keys in it. THAT "counts" as a "history of criminal involvement".

Talk about a broad brush.
 
2014-03-12 01:39:27 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Sadly when I was uninsured, we used to get antibiotics down at the animal feed store. Sad that it was the same medicine a doctor would have had to prescribe and sad that it was cheaper to keep a pig healthy than a human.


Newsflash: people are willing to pay more to keep a human alive than to keep a pig alive fat, because they consider it more valuable.

Second newsflash: pharmaceutical companies are for-profit. This means that, whenever possible, they will extract value from their surroundings. (If we're lucky, the net value overall will increase, but this is not guaranteed.)

You want antibiotics sold at cost of production? Two things need to happen. First, give the FDA a legal mandate to act as a no-markup intermediary (or even to perform production itself). Second, give NSF the mandate to provide grant support for pharmaceutical research at universities, and to set priority for diseases to treat.

Because right now, R&D decisions are based upon what will recoup the tremendous cost of R&D, not what will treat or cure diseases.
 
2014-03-12 01:40:01 PM  

vernonFL: Of course you wouldn't hire a child molester to work at a daycare center, but would you hire him as your accountant? If he was a good accountant?


Probably depends on how young my business was...
 
2014-03-12 01:41:51 PM  

serpent_sky: when you prevent people from having a place to live, getting a job, and brand them for life - all that happens is they are encouraged to go underground with other criminals and continue their criminal ways.


All of this. There is a reason "tough on crime" legislation leads to more recidivism rather than more people trying to stay out of prison is that we make prisons a place where people have to harden to cope with it (made worse by a tolerance for gang violence and rape that we turn a blind eye to because it's happening to "bad people" that essentially gives the worst offenders a degree of authority to run the system and the most harmless offenders the worst experiences in prison) and limit people's options once they leave that system. When you know nobody will hire you with a cocaine charge on your record for 8 years suddenly learning another "trade" from your cellmates is a way to get a leg up in the world.
 
2014-03-12 01:44:13 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Prisons are basically de facto mental health facilities at this point: locking up people with mental health problems society doesn't want to deal with anymore. I don't think making sure they have access to on-going psychiatric care is going to be the end of our society.

Also, the metric is pretty broad "criminal justice system involvement." Does that include everyone who got picked up for a gram of pot?


Depends on what their agenda is... Seeing as this is a 'bash Obama' piece, I'd say yes. Anything that wasn't a civil case(Like speeding and other relatively minor traffic infractions) serves their purpose here.
 
2014-03-12 01:46:30 PM  

vernonFL: In many states, ex-felons can't even vote, so the constituency for prisoners and ex- prisoners is small. They don't participate in elections.


I never understood this?
 
2014-03-12 01:48:43 PM  

mrshowrules: vernonFL: In many states, ex-felons can't even vote, so the constituency for prisoners and ex- prisoners is small. They don't participate in elections.

I never understood this?


I've never understood that, either. Again, it comes back to they paid their debt to society, and should have all freedoms and rights restored the moment they are released from jail.
 
2014-03-12 01:48:52 PM  
I'm sorry. What was that? I can't hear you.

My dogs keep going berserk when I try to read that article.

Weird.
 
2014-03-12 01:51:16 PM  

mrshowrules: vernonFL: In many states, ex-felons can't even vote, so the constituency for prisoners and ex- prisoners is small. They don't participate in elections.

I never understood this?


The logic is that if you cannot abide by society's rules you shouldn't have a voice in determining what the rules are. It's letting the foxes watch the henhouse.

Of course, when you actually look at the makeup of ex-felons off parole who would qualify to vote the vast majority have been in good standing with the community for a while and are likely from underserved communities, but we can't let that get in the way of principle of the thing.
 
2014-03-12 01:51:40 PM  

vpb: So people with criminal histories shouldn't have health care?


Unfortunately, I'm sure many people in this country would say "No, they shouldn't."
 
2014-03-12 01:52:16 PM  
Call me cwazy, but I think everyone should have healthcare.
 
2014-03-12 01:59:23 PM  

Grungehamster: mrshowrules: vernonFL: In many states, ex-felons can't even vote, so the constituency for prisoners and ex- prisoners is small. They don't participate in elections.

I never understood this?

The logic is that if you cannot abide by society's rules you shouldn't have a voice in determining what the rules are. It's letting the foxes watch the henhouse.

Of course, when you actually look at the makeup of ex-felons off parole who would qualify to vote the vast majority have been in good standing with the community for a while and are likely from underserved communities, but we can't let that get in the way of principle of the thing.


If votes determine what is illegal and what is illegal determines who votes, the only possible outcome is that more and more things are made illegal until only one group votes.

It's perfectly logical in its unfairness.
 
2014-03-12 01:59:41 PM  
Instead of running away from Obamacare, Democratic candidates should tout this news on the campaign trail.
 
2014-03-12 02:02:22 PM  
Well, that would explain why Holder is pushing to lift the ban on felon's voting rights.  No sense in buying people's votes with free stuff if they can't vote.
 
2014-03-12 02:03:10 PM  

mrshowrules: If votes determine what is illegal and what is illegal determines who votes, the only possible outcome is that more and more things are made illegal until only one group votes.

It's perfectly logical in its unfairness.


We don't vote directly on laws, though.  We vote for lawmakers, yes, but let's face it - if someone committed vehicular manslaughter and really wanted to do it again, they're not going to find a pro-vehicular manslaughter politician.  You're not going to find someone who campaigns on making child porn legal. Generally, we all agree that felonies are bad and no politician is going to come out in favor of legalizing felonies. Or if they did, they would never get elected.  (Exception: legalization of drugs, prostitution, or gambling.)
 
2014-03-12 02:04:29 PM  
check on  the comments from any story about some prank or harmless idiocy done by kids and you'll see how many farkers want them to go to prison, so it is no surprise that 1. we have some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. and 2. many poor people have criminal records.
 
2014-03-12 02:07:28 PM  
Yeah, but by the time they get out of prison, they lose all of the skill accumulation towards their next level.  Who wants to retrain that?
 
2014-03-12 02:10:23 PM  

serpent_sky: mrshowrules: If votes determine what is illegal and what is illegal determines who votes, the only possible outcome is that more and more things are made illegal until only one group votes.

It's perfectly logical in its unfairness.

We don't vote directly on laws, though.  We vote for lawmakers, yes, but let's face it - if someone committed vehicular manslaughter and really wanted to do it again, they're not going to find a pro-vehicular manslaughter politician.  You're not going to find someone who campaigns on making child porn legal. Generally, we all agree that felonies are bad and no politician is going to come out in favor of legalizing felonies. Or if they did, they would never get elected.  (Exception: legalization of drugs, prostitution, or gambling.)


Or if we look at in another way, we want politicians/voters to fix problems.  Why would we excluded the people most understanding of the problems to begin with.  They are supposed to be reformed as citizens of society again.

If they felt that being from a broken home, being, poor or limited access to education and/or mental health care lead to their issues.  Why exclude those people (who have paid their debt to society) from the National debate?  The complete idiots who learned nothing, probably won't vote anyways.

Criminal/felons (at least some degree) are a by-product of a dysfunctional society, excluding them from the conversation would make it easier to perpetuate the same circumstances that allows people to fall in this trip to begin with.
 
2014-03-12 02:10:49 PM  
Damn you, Fartbama!

i28.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-12 02:17:26 PM  

vernonFL: Of course you wouldn't hire a child molester to work at a daycare center, but would you hire him as your accountant? If he was a good accountant?


This guy?

img3.wikia.nocookie.net

In a heartbeat.
 
2014-03-12 02:25:10 PM  

jst3p: vernonFL: Of course you wouldn't hire a child molester to work at a daycare center, but would you hire him as your accountant? If he was a good accountant?

This guy?

[img3.wikia.nocookie.net image 720x482]

In a heartbeat.


Not if I'm the warden though.
 
2014-03-12 02:30:36 PM  
So?

They've served their time.
 
2014-03-12 02:31:17 PM  
So, the takeaway is that people who have served their time should be made to live lives that continue to be desperately insecure?  That sure makes me feel safer.
 
2014-03-12 02:36:24 PM  
I am all for ex-cons finding gainful employment, however the fundamental question seems to be:

If our criminal justice system does not rehabilitate criminals, why should we expect employers to hire them when they get out? If they are just as likely to offend as when they went in (and perhaps even more?), why should employers take on this risk?

Don't get me wrong, this is not the fault of the ex-cons, but rather the fault of how we have constructed our CJ system.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report