If we did move away from prisons, and placed many first-time offenders in reform-based correctional housing, instead, would there be enough punishment involved to deter people from committing the crimes?
Just being placed in a home where there are restrictions on moving about is punishment. Depending on the crime, some of those sent to the non-lockup housing would still be restricted from leaving the facility. And, if they did run away, they would be moved to a lock-up facility.
Others would not be restricted. If the crime were not considered serious enough, they would be free to come and go. The primary purpose would be place them in a site where they could be guided, taught and influenced to become better people.
The idea would be to rehabilitate them -- as would be the idea for anyone sent to prison, whether they were in lockup, in restricted non-lock up, or in open-door housing.
Punishment exists even in open-door housing, even without lockup. The very fact of being placed in the correctional housing is perceived by the offender as punishment. The simple fact they are not only required to be there, but to go through a rehabilitation program is punishment. Being required to spend the time away from doing the things they want to be doing is punishment.
Punishment would not be lost,
Saturday, March 31, 2018
We have Allowed More Money to be Spread on the Table
One of the principles of human nature is that if you leave money on the table, someone will sweep it away.
I suppose you could say it is a principle of economics, as well.
And, it is a principle we should consider as we lament the staggering cost of health care these days. I understand 17 percent of our GNP goes to the health-care industry, easily the highest rate in the world.
I would suggest, how much the industry takes from us is largely dictated by how much we place on the table for them to take. It is a simply a principle of economics that a person will make as large of a profit as he can. He will take as much money from you as you let him get away with.
So, if we would wonder how to lower our health-care costs, we should consider it is as simple as not placing so much of our money on the table for the health-care industry to take. If we leave it open for them to get at our money, they will.
What are the three things driving up the price of health care -- the three ways the industry has of getting more money out of us than it was able to get out of us a couple hundred years ago?
Credit, insurance and, liens.
If the medical provider is not limited by how much money you have at time of service, but can add to its take by getting you to cough up money you will make in the future, it is going to do so. The increase of lending in American has led to an increase in medical prices.
Secondly, if the medical provider is not limited by how much you, as an individual, have in your own pockets, but can collect from someone with larger pockets, instead, he will do so. And, obviously, an insurance company has much more money in its account than what any one person has.
Thirdly, if the medical provider can go after your property, it can increase the pool of money it has available to go after. I doubt that 200 years ago that doctors came after people's property the way the industry does today.
If we really want to address the high cost of medicine, then we must address these three things. We must address how the medical industry gets at more of our money as a result of credit, insurance, and liens.
We have allowed more money to be spread on the table, and the medical industry is sweeping it up.
I suppose you could say it is a principle of economics, as well.
And, it is a principle we should consider as we lament the staggering cost of health care these days. I understand 17 percent of our GNP goes to the health-care industry, easily the highest rate in the world.
I would suggest, how much the industry takes from us is largely dictated by how much we place on the table for them to take. It is a simply a principle of economics that a person will make as large of a profit as he can. He will take as much money from you as you let him get away with.
So, if we would wonder how to lower our health-care costs, we should consider it is as simple as not placing so much of our money on the table for the health-care industry to take. If we leave it open for them to get at our money, they will.
What are the three things driving up the price of health care -- the three ways the industry has of getting more money out of us than it was able to get out of us a couple hundred years ago?
Credit, insurance and, liens.
If the medical provider is not limited by how much money you have at time of service, but can add to its take by getting you to cough up money you will make in the future, it is going to do so. The increase of lending in American has led to an increase in medical prices.
Secondly, if the medical provider is not limited by how much you, as an individual, have in your own pockets, but can collect from someone with larger pockets, instead, he will do so. And, obviously, an insurance company has much more money in its account than what any one person has.
Thirdly, if the medical provider can go after your property, it can increase the pool of money it has available to go after. I doubt that 200 years ago that doctors came after people's property the way the industry does today.
If we really want to address the high cost of medicine, then we must address these three things. We must address how the medical industry gets at more of our money as a result of credit, insurance, and liens.
We have allowed more money to be spread on the table, and the medical industry is sweeping it up.
Friday, March 30, 2018
We are limited
not by our weakest moments,
but by whether
we let them define us.
I noticed a basketball player miss a crucial shot in the closing seconds of his team's loss. The next game, he did not have a tremendous game, and I wondered if he let the missed shot affect how he played. Basketball is a game of belief; If you believe you can achieve, you will be more likely to do so.
Even so it is with life. We all have moments of failure. We will all do things we are ashamed of. Does this mean we should retreat from life and no longer try to achieve things, letting the weak moments define us?
We need not.
Just as the basketball player can decide to put the missed shot behind him, so can we decide to put our weak moments behind us, and go on to yet achieve great things.
We need not.
Just as the basketball player can decide to put the missed shot behind him, so can we decide to put our weak moments behind us, and go on to yet achieve great things.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Replace Prisons with Correctional Housing
If we were to reform our judicial system, how about replacing prisons with correctional housing? Seems I may have caught wind of some place in Scandinavia doing this -- sending offenders to correctional housing instead of prison.
Not everyone would go to the correctional housing. Those posing as threats to society, and who would flee if not locked up, would still be sent to lock-up. But, but it makes sense to send much of the rest (or at least some) to correctional housing. If these are offenders who would not flee -- and if no great harm would be done if they did flee -- why lock them up?
Remember, America is known for having one of the highest -- if not the highest -- incarceration rates in the world. This is America, land of the free, we are talking about.
So, let's bring it down. Let's lower the incarceration rate.
Besides saving money, it would help in reforming the offenders. Sticking them in with hardened criminals, sometimes only leads them to become hardened, themselves. If you want to reform them, why not simply house them in facilities where they are taught and molded, guided and changed?
Speak softly, and don't even carry a big stick, so to speak. Keep them in a loving and caring facility without the harshness of prison walls.
Note: Blog tweaked 3/30/18
Not everyone would go to the correctional housing. Those posing as threats to society, and who would flee if not locked up, would still be sent to lock-up. But, but it makes sense to send much of the rest (or at least some) to correctional housing. If these are offenders who would not flee -- and if no great harm would be done if they did flee -- why lock them up?
Remember, America is known for having one of the highest -- if not the highest -- incarceration rates in the world. This is America, land of the free, we are talking about.
So, let's bring it down. Let's lower the incarceration rate.
Besides saving money, it would help in reforming the offenders. Sticking them in with hardened criminals, sometimes only leads them to become hardened, themselves. If you want to reform them, why not simply house them in facilities where they are taught and molded, guided and changed?
Speak softly, and don't even carry a big stick, so to speak. Keep them in a loving and caring facility without the harshness of prison walls.
Note: Blog tweaked 3/30/18
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Under this, the Second Amendment Only Gives Guns to the Military
I don't know that there is hardly anyone who believes some people should not be allowed guns. Why do I say this? Well, I open today's newspaper and read a statement from the NRA, saying, "We think that the focus has to remain on removing weapons from dangerous individuals . . ."
Even the NRA sees that there should be exceptions.
Here's the trick: If you suggest the Constitution allows for taking guns away from one group, then shouldn't you allow it to take guns away from a broader group? Where do you draw the line? Do you say the right to keep and bear arms just doesn't apply to the mentally unstable? Frankly, I don't see that exception specified when I read the Second Amendment. So, can we not just as well say a larger group will not be allowed guns as long as we let those who the Second Amendment intended to have them, have them?
Now, you are on dangerous ground. Just who did the Second Amendment intend to have guns? It suggests that since it is necessary for us to have a military in order for us be secure the from being taken over by other nations, then we must allow those people who would fight for us to keep and bear arms.
I would suggest that if you are conceding the Constitution allows us to take guns away from some people, as long as you do not take them from those it intended to have them, then you have lost the argument.
When you have conceded as much, then it would seem you must concede the only people the Constitution calls for having arms are the ones who would be in the military.
Even the NRA sees that there should be exceptions.
Here's the trick: If you suggest the Constitution allows for taking guns away from one group, then shouldn't you allow it to take guns away from a broader group? Where do you draw the line? Do you say the right to keep and bear arms just doesn't apply to the mentally unstable? Frankly, I don't see that exception specified when I read the Second Amendment. So, can we not just as well say a larger group will not be allowed guns as long as we let those who the Second Amendment intended to have them, have them?
Now, you are on dangerous ground. Just who did the Second Amendment intend to have guns? It suggests that since it is necessary for us to have a military in order for us be secure the from being taken over by other nations, then we must allow those people who would fight for us to keep and bear arms.
I would suggest that if you are conceding the Constitution allows us to take guns away from some people, as long as you do not take them from those it intended to have them, then you have lost the argument.
When you have conceded as much, then it would seem you must concede the only people the Constitution calls for having arms are the ones who would be in the military.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
When You Seek to do Damage, You are Using the Element of Force
There are two kinds of power in society: The power of force and the power of persuasion, the power of might and the power of right.
And then there is something in the middle we call intimidation So, I guess there are really three kinds of power society uses.
Intimidation is where you threaten -- yes -- but it is more. Intimidation is where you mock, belittle and taunt. It is where you name-call. It is where try to discredit another person, where you attack another person, and where you find fault with another person.
It is where you do damage in hopes of gaining advantage.
When you use the element of damage, you are using the element of force. Intimidation can be said to be a form of persuasion, but it is really an offshoot of it, rather than a pure form of it. Pure persuasion is done with logic and reasoning and concern. It is achieved by showing love and providing positive reinforcement. Those are inviting actions, not forceful ones. Intimidation, on the other hand, is the emotional extension of force. It is where you grab and use emotional weapons, and use them to do damage, just as physical weapons do damage.
And then there is something in the middle we call intimidation So, I guess there are really three kinds of power society uses.
Intimidation is where you threaten -- yes -- but it is more. Intimidation is where you mock, belittle and taunt. It is where you name-call. It is where try to discredit another person, where you attack another person, and where you find fault with another person.
It is where you do damage in hopes of gaining advantage.
When you use the element of damage, you are using the element of force. Intimidation can be said to be a form of persuasion, but it is really an offshoot of it, rather than a pure form of it. Pure persuasion is done with logic and reasoning and concern. It is achieved by showing love and providing positive reinforcement. Those are inviting actions, not forceful ones. Intimidation, on the other hand, is the emotional extension of force. It is where you grab and use emotional weapons, and use them to do damage, just as physical weapons do damage.
Monday, March 26, 2018
If this is America's System, America should be Ashamed of it
Calling the hospital today to make a payment for my emergency room visit, I was shocked to be told the minimum payment that would be accepted was well over $200. The collector did end up dropping today's fee to $101, but I was left not knowing if that was an acceptable amount, as she said it still could go to collections.
Now, I've always been told that as long as you are paying some, and doing it every month, they won't go after you, and won't send it to collections.
What was the total bill for my one-day hospital stay? Close to $20,000, if not that. I believe one of the bills hasn't arrived yet. Now, they adjusted that to maybe about $16,000. And, insurance payed a lot, leaving me about $3,000 or just a little less than that. There was no ambulance ride; That's all just for the one day in the hospital. I'm left thinking I was a total fool to accept being admitted to the hospital after the emergency room visit.
I went to the hospital because I was experiencing signs of a stroke: a sagging face and slurred speech. Although it ended up being just a TIA (a minor stroke), going to emergency seemed the only thing to do.
Strokes are life-threatening.
And, the point is, next time I'm in a life-threatening situation, I might be less inclined to go to emergency.
And, the point is, if I feel that way, there are others.
And, the point is, if we don't go to emergency, some of us will die.
And, the point is, some, surely, already have died -- died because they could not afford to go to the hospital.
There are a lot of folks who defend the American medical system, who say no one is deprived the life-saving care they need.
I beg to differ.
After I got off the phone with the hospital bill collector, I thought of the corporate executives living high up the side of the hill, rich and comfortable. I wondered if they realized people are going to their death beds to allow them to live in such comfort. They charge way beyond value of service, and collect it, and buy their houses on the hill with that inflated amount of money. And the people who cannot afford their services die.
This is not a very honorable medical system. If it is America's system, America should be ashamed of it.
Now, I've always been told that as long as you are paying some, and doing it every month, they won't go after you, and won't send it to collections.
What was the total bill for my one-day hospital stay? Close to $20,000, if not that. I believe one of the bills hasn't arrived yet. Now, they adjusted that to maybe about $16,000. And, insurance payed a lot, leaving me about $3,000 or just a little less than that. There was no ambulance ride; That's all just for the one day in the hospital. I'm left thinking I was a total fool to accept being admitted to the hospital after the emergency room visit.
I went to the hospital because I was experiencing signs of a stroke: a sagging face and slurred speech. Although it ended up being just a TIA (a minor stroke), going to emergency seemed the only thing to do.
Strokes are life-threatening.
And, the point is, next time I'm in a life-threatening situation, I might be less inclined to go to emergency.
And, the point is, if I feel that way, there are others.
And, the point is, if we don't go to emergency, some of us will die.
And, the point is, some, surely, already have died -- died because they could not afford to go to the hospital.
There are a lot of folks who defend the American medical system, who say no one is deprived the life-saving care they need.
I beg to differ.
After I got off the phone with the hospital bill collector, I thought of the corporate executives living high up the side of the hill, rich and comfortable. I wondered if they realized people are going to their death beds to allow them to live in such comfort. They charge way beyond value of service, and collect it, and buy their houses on the hill with that inflated amount of money. And the people who cannot afford their services die.
This is not a very honorable medical system. If it is America's system, America should be ashamed of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)