Blog Stage Four: "State funding doesn't cover prisoner health care costs, officials say"

On the blog, Grits for Breakfast, a commentary was written about Texas' budget for prisoners' healthcare and how to cut costs. The audience: Texas taxpayers. The author believes that the best solution to this budget crisis is to parole older inmates, who have the higher healthcare costs.

UTMB is spending $2 million per month over the prison healthcare budget. Officials are making a new contract which will "provide medical care for Texas' imprisoned criminals." The Legislature's plan of $900 million isn't enough, so "top officials with the University of Texas... threatened to stop providing care unless adequate funding can be guaranteed."

The author gave names such as Dr. Kenneth Shine, Dr. David Callender, and Brad Livingston. By providing this evidence, I feel like the author is more creditable because he has sources. I agree that "the policy will actually increase demand for prisoner healthcare." The author did include a link to the policy which is supportive evidence.

"...'offenders 55 and older averaged $4,853 in yearly medical costs, while the average for those below that age was $795.' So to really get the most bang for the buck, paroling older offenders would generate the most savings in healthcare costs."

Is this editorial successful: No. Not in my eyes.
Even though the older inmates cost more, in healthcare, that doesn't mean we should parole them. That's not a good enough reason. No matter who you are, you should get the consequence that your crime deserves. I would rather have more prisoners be euthanized than be let out on the streets as free men. I don't want to pay for these horrible people's healthcare. Murderers and rapists shouldn't get parole. The prisoners, who are spending the remainder of their lives in prison, should be put to death.

The author did include a link to the recidivism report that supports the idea that "Older offenders also have much lower recidivism rates than ...younger inmates".

Author's Conclusion: "So for my money, the best budgetary and public-safety bang for the buck comes from releasing older offenders who... cost the state the most in healthcare services. Do I think the parole board will do that? Not really. But that's what would make the most sense."

This commentary didn't convince me that we should parole older prisoners to cut healthcare costs. Just because the statistics say that older offenders are more likely to not return to jail, doesn't mean that they aren't committing crimes. They've just gotten better at hiding them.

I hope the parole board has enough sense to not release offenders because of their age. This author has a money saving point of view and not a realistic point of view. Would this author want a bunch of old men/women, who committed heinous crimes, be released from prison earlier than they should? I hope not.

I definitely don't want to live in a state that would permit older offenders parole just for the sake of spending less money. Money isn't everything to me.