Maybe this will do it.


How do you guys feel about the government promising to keep jails filled to at least 90% occupancy?
What happens if it falls below that? They just have to create a conviction? Yes, thats what it means,

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/18/12 at 00:02:48:

We should get a beer some time, Starlifter.


--Steve

Id have a surly beer with ya.,

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/21/12 at 01:41:22:


A beer's a beer.


--Steve

With regards to the original post (prisions being bought and required to be kept at 90% occ).

So much BS on the BS-o-meter with the idea that more people would be shuffled in or kept longer on such a notion. What would happen is that county and state run prisions would have to work like a resevoir.. and it would be thier populations that would fluctuate versus the large central prison. Currently, ( at least here) prisons WANT a higher pop when there is money made by doing so and when there isnt.. they just start letting people out (which in turns get the money flowing back in). All the contractor is seeking to avoid is that state woud not be allowed withhold prisoners when the money is good and flood the prison when its not. To be sure, the state would be taking the hit for empty cells not the contractor.  This is pretty basic stuff. Need a model? Just look at the schools, same concept.

hold on.. then Serowbot chimed in with...

Yup... get rid of the for-profit, do nothin', middleman...
Save 1/3 right off the top... plus lower office admin costs...
Probably raise that savings to 50%...
Then, guaranteed payment for all patients, lowers costs even more...
...and everyone contributes...

Also,.. providers will be busy enough with legitimate care, they won't need to order so much unnecessary procedures to pad their bills...

First.. I do not pose that only for-profit models work in all cases.. so bear that in mind:

In a for profit system investors can invest on the front end to build the infrastrucure that allows a lower cost of a longer period of time.  Remove the profit and that infrstructure still needs to be created/maintained.. that means taxpayers pay it. And 100% of the patients does not mean 100% of the taxpayers.. so no.. by design a not-for-profit system will cost some a WHOLE bunch .. and others very little.

No doubt there are middlemen that make a fortune on health care.. 1/3.. doubtful.  Maybe 5%.

Office admin costs.. will skyrocket.. already have. Zero savings there... more costs to come. Why? when profits cant be used to define how to allocate resources.. paperwork must be used.

everyone gets covered... the healthcare sysetm always gets paid... but NO .. not everyone is contributing.. in fact Very few will directly contribute as it wont "seem fair" so taxes and fees will be put about to generate the income as best it can.

Now your 50% is 5% and no one is contributing.. I know! lets print more money!! QE 297,452 ???

The last problem with non-profit is that it works best with stable/static systems. So as long as your happy with drugs that are 50 years old and procedures that are 50 years old.. GREAT. Zero profit means zero need for risk to change either. Wrap some mouldy bread on your wound... it worked in 1840!

a bigger government can never be MORE effcient. More government can never be MORE efficient.  The government is what it is... efficient is not one of those things. But it certainly has its place. My preference would be for MOST things to be handled at the state level or lower.  There is no good reason for someone 3000 miles away having ANYTHING to do with my healthcare.

Again, I am not saying current system is great, or even good... hell it sucks. But, being blind to what removing for-profit means can lead to some pretty sucky systems as well.  And to me DISTANCE make the difference... Greedy middle man corp or robot brain federal worker.. If I cant walk over and slap the the crap out of them for being stupid... the system aint right.   AND THAT is the current idea for BOTH systems... too much distance.

sauve
Pine  

--Steve

Trippah wrote on 09/21/12 at 20:07:45:




The OWNERSHIP of the Prison Is NOT the point.

Pay ATTENTION HERE

When the State GUARANTEES 90% FILLED PRISONS,, what does that mean? It MEANS they Promise they WILL Arrest, Prosecute & CONVICT enough people to KEEP the Prisons FULL.. GET IT????>?>