NO SYMPATHY WHAT SO EVER!

After reading a recent blog posted by Anabel last week, I have to say that I unquestionably agree with her.  Entitled "The First Use of Pentobarbital on a Texas Inmate," she writes about an inmate who was scheduled for execution by a new drug.  This particular drug filled the place of another that there was an apparent shortage of.  This inmate, Cary Kerr, not only raped but killed a woman.  He argues about having be the first inmate to be injected by this new FDA approved drug, while knowing that this particular drug has not been even been used on pets.  According to the article, the new drug is Pentobarbital.  This drug, one of the three used during executions, takes the place of sodium thiopental due to shortage. 

Anabel writes about how inmate Kerr does not want to volunteer himself to the state for testing of this drug .  She makes a very good point when she states how the victim he raped and murdered certainly didn’t volunteer for that to happen to her.  How is this any different?  He didn’t have sympathy for this woman so why should the state of Texas have sympathy for something that is deemed safe and has already been FDA approved.  After reading her article, I learned that Pentobarbital is also used for seizures and preoperative sedation.  I feel this inmate does not any valid arguments when it comes to this particular situation.  It’s been ten years and his time is up.  The world is a better place without murderers walking around in it.

Hospitals Provide Millions of Dollars of Free Care to Needy

An article published by Mary Ann Roser entitled, “ Hospitals Provide Millions of Dollars of Free Care to Needy, but Taxpayers, Others Share Burden,” was posted Sunday, May 1 by Austin-Statesman Staff.  Roser discussed how a particular patient, who had been laid off, leaving him without insurance, had later developed acute myeloblastic leukemia, a fast-moving cancer of the blood and bone marrow.  After hospitalization, his bill reached to approximately 52,000 dollars, which he states is something he could never repay.  This patient in turn qualified for St. David’s Charity Care, a program provided for underinsured patients and uninsured patients.  Roser also noted that there are thousands of patients that receive charity care each year, in which the hospital, insured patients and taxpayers end up paying for.  In 2009, 29.7 million dollars was contributed by Travis County taxpayers, 61.3 million by the federal government, and other aid programs brought in 30.3 million dollars.  According to Mark Clayton, senior vice president at St. David's, hospitals are currently reimbursed sixty percent of what it costs to provide care to Texas Medicaid patients.

As currently being an employee of Seton Medical Center (also a charity hospital), I have indeed witnessed many charity situations within the facility.  It’s very surprising to see the amount of patients on a daily basis in dire need of financial assistance for their medical costs.  I’m most definitely pleased to see that a vast among of funding for these charity cases is coming from the federal government but taxpayers still are paying nearly half that amount.  Even though the money taken from taxpayers is to save the lives of  the sick, I still see it as somewhat frustrating.  This high amount of charity spending has once led to lay offs within the network, reducing of hours to employees and/or reducing the percentage of any yearly raises that are given.  It  just seems to me that the federal government should come up with a better funding strategy instead of tacking on a thirty million dollar tab to taxpayers.

Rewarding Criminals for Crime

After reading Erika’s blog entitled “Paying Criminals For Their Crimes,” I would also have to agree with her.  It’s absolutely ridiculous that these youth offenders are being compensated for work.  It’s almost as if they are being rewarded for committing crime.  We don’t pay adults in prisons for work, so you kind of have to wonder why on earth would we do not do the same for youth offenders.  How are they any different?  Both committed crime.  Maybe the crime was not as severe but indeed a crime was still committed.  At that, I’ve learned that these earnings are tax free!  Offenders are using these funds to pay for things such as child support, court costs, fines, as well as other remarkable dues.  I also agree with how she states that these young offenders should learn from their mistakes.  They shouldn’t just be given a slap on the wrist.  Realize the mistake you made and make sure it doesn’t repeat itself. 

We are over here having severe budget cuts within our schools to honest hard working teachers when instead the budget cuts should be within our correctional facilities.  It seems there is a lot of unnecessary spending around these areas. 

Texas Spends Millions on College Education for Inmates

It honestly shouldn’t even be a debate as to whether or not the college-in-prison program should see some sort of budget cut, or be wiped out completely from Texas expenses.  Personally, I am all for Texas lawmakers to completely remove the program.  If it can at all protect some portion of education funds, then by all means, let‘s get rid of it.

After reading an article online entitled, “Texas spends millions on college for prison inmates”, found in the Austin American Statesman, I learned that for the past ten years Texas has spent more than $26.9 million dollars on higher education for Texas inmates.  And of this $26.9 million, Texas has only received $4.7 million dollars reimbursed from ex-convicts.  Yes, the whole idea of the program is for good towards these felon-students, but what about good for non-felon students who are desperately wanting help to pay for their education tuition? What about those who have never committed a crime?  Why not help those in need who actually have a clean record?  Instead of giving funding to those who originally decided to rob banks, sell drugs, and/or assault people, let’s give a lending hand to those who have a better chance of paying back the state once their schooling is finished.  According to the article, state records have shown that of twenty-two thousand felons who signed up for the program and agreed to pay back the state, there were only a little under seven thousand felons (6,630 to be exact) who have repaid the state in full. 

Yes, statistically more inmates who have participated in the college-in-prison program have a lower recidivism rate, but it really isn’t fair to those who didn’t put themselves in this type of situation in the first place.  Let’s help those who choose to get an education to have a well respected profession, a legal profession at that, than those who chose not to in the first place.  

Who Would Be Allowed to Carry on Campus?

A recent blog posted by Reeve Hamilton of the Texas Tribune: Texplainer, was in response to the question of “Who would be able to carry hand guns on campus?”, if the campus carry bill passes.  He notes that some supporters suggest that only those with concealed handgun licenses (CNL) would benefit with the passed bill.  He also points out that the particular individual must be 21 years of age, with no criminal background, of sound mind and with no chemical dependencies. His argument zooms in on the fact that if this bill is passed, mostly upper graduate students and elders would benefit, and this is the majority who would be able to carry handguns.  A survivor John Woods, from the Virginia Tech shootings, opinioned that younger individuals with a CNL are more prone to act out that older individuals.

I believe that the audience for this post is most definitely intended for the student body and of course those participating in the passing of the Campus Carry Bill.  I myself,  do not agree with any sort of law passing that allows weapons on campus, whether it being allowed for those individuals who meet the qualifications or whether it be allowed for all individuals on campus.  However, if the bill does pass, I agree with Hamilton, and the point made that at least those who do decide to carry a concealed weapon, will be at least somewhat older in age, if not an elder, and have to meet all qualifications required.

Hand over the drug money….

An article published Wednesday, February 23,2011, from the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman entitled “Turn drug money into tool used against cartels”, suggested using the money confiscated from any illegal drug trade be used towards providing more safety for the U.S. citizens.   The article stated that Senator Steve Ogden proposed, while during a hearing on financing public safety, that confiscated drug money be put to use in a more effective way.  Forwarding such money to pay for additional border security checkpoints and/or paying for additional federal authorities seems like it could be an exceptional plan. 
According to the editorial, an estimated twenty-eight billion a year cash flow crosses the United States border into Mexico every year, in which two-thirds passes through Texas alone.  The article also noted that Steve McCraw, director of the Department of Public Safety, stated around 140 million dollars had been seized since the year 2006 in drug money.

Based on the information provided with this editorial, I’d have to say that I strongly agree with the ideas presented for the use of any money seized.  The article focuses its attention towards the public and it making an important financial decision.  Why not indeed use their own money against them?  No telling how many lives of citizens around our borders are put into harms way on a daily basis just for these drug trafficking organizers to make their living.  The idea of  turning this drug money around and using it for something positive, perhaps like the idea of saving lives, should definitely be taken into high consideration.

The Women's Health Program

The Texas Medicaid Women's Program is designed to help women with low income.  Each woman is provided with one family planning exam each year, family planning counseling and education, as well as a form of birth control for those planning abstinence.  Texas Senator Kirk Watson and Texas State Representative Mark Strama are both on board with a renewal of this program.  As it is set to expire this year, both filed the Prevention Works Act.  In 2008, the program saved Texas $21.4 million dollars in general revenue.  According to Kirk Watson, a year's worth of family planning services costs a single woman $203 dollars and birth costs $9,012 dollars paid via Medicaid. 

This article suggests that the renewal of this program would have highly beneficial outcome.  I absolutely agree.  I believe our schools definitely need a push for further sex education that involves the parents.   The health program offers women with education regarding family planning and the Prevention Works Act proposes further education within our schools.  With that said, I completely agree with Kirk Watson's statement.

"The surest way to prevent termination of an unwanted pregnancy is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy".---Sen. Kirk Watson

The Austin American Statesman