Mediaboss Marketing

A recent Politifact fact checkfound that California Senator Kamala Harris statements arguing that it costs $33,000 a year nationally to incarcerate an inmate are in fact correct.

Harris told the incarcerated womens advocacy group Women Unshackled in Washington D.C. in July that it costs $75,000 a year to lock up an inmate in California.

Lets look at the fact that there is an issue around how much we are paying and again, this gets back to the economic cost it costs us about $33,000 a year to lock somebody up. In California it costs about $75,000 a year, Harris told the forum.

RELATED:Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democrat Kamala Harris are teaming up to seek bail reform

Harris, a Democrat, recently teamed up with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on bipartisan bail reform legislation toprevent accused minors from sitting in jail for their offenses if they cant afford bail.

An op-ed written by the senators targets the current discriminatory and wasteful bail system and its crippling effects on young offenders.

Our justice system was designed with a promise: to treat all people equally, the op-ed reads. Yet, that doesnt happen for many of the 450,000 Americans who sit in jail today awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail.

The Senators argue that an accuseds jail time is often determined by their economic status or available connections.

Whether someone stays in jail or not is far too often determined by wealth or social connections, even though just a few days behind bars can cost people their job, home, custody of their children or their life.

Harris and Paul argue that bail reform could potentially save American taxpayers roughly $78 billion a year.

Politifact analyzed Harris figures and other reports and found her statistics to be correct.

We interpreted Harriss claim about per inmate expenses to mean the operational costs to house male and female inmates, including security, health care, facility upkeep and employee compensation, Politifact said. Advocates for criminal justice reform often argue that just looking at the operational costs of running prisons ignores the social costs of incarcerating Americans.

We looked at those costs as well, but based our rating primarily on the evidence supporting the numbers Harris cited in her Women Unshackled appearance.

RELATED:Congress can get rid of a lot of unconstitutional mass surveillance by doing nothing at all

A Vera Institute report examined the cost to house inmates at prisons nationwide. Data from 45 states found the total cost per inmate to be approximately $33,274 a year.

Additionally, a June 2017 article by the Associated Press estimates that it costs the state of California $75,560 per fiscal year to house an inmate. This number comes from funds Governor Jerry Brown set aside in the 2017 budget Californias Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed it costs us about $33,000 a year (nationally) to lock somebody up In California it costs about $75,000 a year. A recent study that examined costs in 45 states plus data from Californias departments of corrections and finance support the senators statement. The evidence supports the figures she cited. We rate Harris claim True, Politifact concluded.

Link:
Fiscal conservatives should support Rand Paul and Kamala Harris' bail reform bill - Rare.us

Tyler Eschberger | Daily News Sen. Rand Paul at Middlesboro ARH for a roundtable discussion concerning important healthcare issues.

Middlesboro ARH welcomed Sen. Rand Paul to a roundtable discussion concerning ways to improve and implement healthcare needs of the hospital and Bell County.

Fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives (FACHE) Community CEO Michael Slusher introduced Paul to the room of various physicians and hospital personnel and opened the floor for discussion on different market forces the hospital has found challenging.

MARH Chief Regulatory Affairs Officer Vicki Thompson was the first to address Paul regarding the patient population of the area.

Bell County ranks 115 out of 120 counties representing the overall health condition. Theres a lot of reasons for that. We have a higher rate of obesity, smokers. 38 percent of our counties lives below the poverty line; 52 percent of that being our children. And that is very distressing to all of us, she said.

Another problem we face here in Bell Countyour opioid crisis. We at one point from 2012 and 2015 were the second-ranked county for the worst overdose and overdose deaths here in Kentucky with heroin and narcotics being the main culprits.

Discussion of the shift from opioid addiction to heroin addiction was raised, with Paul asking if the medical community shared some guilt with having too many people on opioids to begin with.

Slusher stated that he didnt feel guilt was the right term, citing the pain is the fifth vital sign push as part of the problem with opioids.

Pharmacist Steve Weaver stated that the hospital is now using the drug Naloxone as a way to treat opioid dependence and overdose. The drug is prescription free. A protocol has been developed for dispensing Naloxone, he said. First responders, school workers and concerned family members are all able to receive the product with the proper education on the subject.

I think the drug company shares some blame in this too for saying Oxycontin is no big deal and its not really addictive and this a great drug for your patients, they wont get addicted to it. That may have been a lie, said Rand.

Paul went on to say that the spread of opioids was more rapid in areas of high Medicaid and high disability.

Disability you can understand, theyre taking medication for painin most of the counties that have expanded Medicaid they have a worse problem now because, again, more legal opioids because its free. We do need to think through what we can do to make it better, said Paul.

Reach Tyler Eschberger at 606-248-1010, ext. 1126 or on Twitter @TylerEsch89.

Tyler Eschberger | Daily News Sen. Rand Paul at Middlesboro ARH for a roundtable discussion concerning important healthcare issues.

http://www.harlandaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/web1_rand.jpgTyler Eschberger | Daily News Sen. Rand Paul at Middlesboro ARH for a roundtable discussion concerning important healthcare issues.

Discusses opioid issues

.

View original post here:
Paul visits Middlesboro ARH - The Harlan Daily Enterprise

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is known for his support of free market principles, but that apparently changes entirely when it comes to bail. He is championing legislation alongside Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) that would use federal grants to effectively destroy the bail bonds industry, putting thousands of small businessmen at risk of losing their livelihoods. Our justice system was designed with a promise: to treat all people equally, Harris was quoted as saying in a news release. Yet more than 450,000 Americans sit in jail today awaiting trial and many of them cannot afford money bail. In our country, whether you stay in jail or not is wholly determined by whether youre wealthy or not and thats wrong.

Harris and Paul published a joint op/ed in the New York Times where the lawmakers referenced the policies of New Jersey as an example of what their proposed federal grant money would influence states into adopting. New Jersey has become a stunning example of the unintended consequences of government solutions to the supposed bail problem.

NBC New York conducted an early expose of what happened after New Jersey effectively dismantled the bail bonds system in their state. What they found was a tremendous lack of accountability, increased government control and spending, and the empowering of criminals to commit more offenses. From the report:

On January 1 of this year, New Jersey overhauled its criminal justice system and virtually eliminated the old cash bail structure, replacing it with one that relies heavily on a mathematical risk assessment formula

From January 1 through March 31, 10,193 eligible defendants were processed. Preventive detention was ordered for only 12.4%. Nearly 85% were given pretrial release, some with conditions

Outraged mother June Rodgers of Millville blames bail reform for the murder of her son. He was shot to death on a street in Vineland in April after a verbal dispute with a man driving a car. Cops arrested career criminal Jules Black, whod been picked up on a separate gun charge four days before, and released with no bail

The state has created a Division of Pretrial Services to monitor defendants. The funds come from court fees. There have been 173 employees hired so far. The projected spending for next fiscal year is expected to be in the range of $36 million to $38 million dollars.

The Office of Administrative Courts was unable to provide any statistics on the number of released defendants who have re-offended since January 1, or the number of those who have failed to appear for scheduled court dates.

Under Pauls proposal, $10 million in federal grant money would be earmarked toward coercing states across the country to adopt these policies. Matt Maddock, a conservative activist and bail bondsman from Michigan, has lobbied on behalf of his industry for many years. He believes that Pauls plan is misguided and unbecoming of the tea party values that got him elected to the Senate in 2010.

Outlawing bail bond agencies and eliminating money bail is not the solution to the problem of the criminally accused from languishing in jail unable to post bail, Maddock said. User-funded bail bond agencies are the only mechanism that effectively reduce the number of fugitives in our communities because they have skin in the game, and they go out and bring fugitives back into custody.

The streets may not be safer, government may not be limited, and small businessmen may have to worry about their livelihood, but at least Paul will have a decent photo-op with a Democrat and series of media appearances to boost his political aspirations. The legislation is not expected to pass.

Enjoyed the article? Make a contribution to support our work via Patreon!

Read more:
Rand Paul Abandons Market Principles In His Attempt To Nationalize Bail Bonds - The Liberty Conservative

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul had an interesting article in The Hill last week about an easy way to make health insurance more affordable -- and better.

"What if I told you that much of what was attempted through ObamaCare could actually happen if the government could go the opposite direction and get more out of the way in the area of health insurance?" he asked.

"If you have insurance through a large employer, say, Toyota or General Motors, certain things are true," Paul wrote. "You don't have to worry about preexisting conditions, because the large group plans don't stop you from joining. You have better coverage at better prices -- because you have the power of tens of thousands of people banding together to drive down prices."

"Competition is key to health reform," he wrote.

Paul said, "It is very clear the original language of the law allows for far more wide-reaching groups than the Department of Labor's bureaucratic rules permit today. The Department of Labor should revise its rules to allow virtually any group to become a group for insurance purposes."

He added, "From the chamber of commerce to the credit unions, from the NRA to the ACLU, from the Realtors to the restaurant association, there are many groups who could almost immediately begin to offer insurance to their members."

And Paul wrote, "As a physician, I can tell you this: Insurance was bad before ObamaCare. Why? Because the power was too often on the side of Big Insurance. I want to turn that on its head as we debate repeal."

It all sounds great -- if it would actually work.

But then, I thought, what is the largest association in the country?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 325 million of us last week -- and counting.

So, instead of a bunch of smaller associations, why don't we just form one for the whole country?

I think you're onto something, Senator.

Here is the original post:
Will Rand Paul's insurance idea work? - messenger-inquirer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Fist of Etiquette|8.3.17 @ 9:00AM|#

The Trump administration wants to cut legal immigration to the U.S. by 50 percent.

And raise illegal immigration 50%?

OM Nullum gratuitum prandium|8.3.17 @ 9:10AM|#

100%, Fist. It would be 100%.

Trumpistas think that reducing immigration will make Americans work again. Just like Prohibitionists really believed Prohibition would turn America into a nation of teetotalers.

some guy|8.3.17 @ 9:22AM|#

I don't know about most Republicans, but Jeff Sessions would be happy turning everyone into a criminal.

BestUsedCarSales|8.3.17 @ 9:32AM|#

He already knows we all are.

Tony|8.3.17 @ 11:35AM|#

If this isn't a nation of criminals then why are there so many prison cells in it?

timbo|8.3.17 @ 12:38PM|#

I'm tired of explaining it to you

Bless your heart.

Finrod|8.3.17 @ 1:19PM|#

Too late, everyone on average already commits three felonies a day.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 1:30PM|#

Some of us commit way more....

Fist of Etiquette|8.3.17 @ 9:34AM|#

Neither 50% nor 100% is correct. We need to take time to do the math on this. The answer is actually 110%, because that's the effort President Trump gives every day.

timbo|8.3.17 @ 10:47AM|#

Trump: a liar, a buffoon, a statist, a war monger, a big government asshole, a protectionist, and does not appear to be very bright when it comes to free market economics.

And yet all of Washington DC and the corrupt propaganda press hates his guts and he has already done some work to roll back business crippling regulations.

There is some value there.

Is the enemy of my enemy my friend or the enemy of my enemy my enemy or is trump just playing foil to the scam and they are all deep down just colluding to protect the FED, the military-ind complex, entitlements, and to keep the debt rolling? Our largest yokes around the neck are untouchable still.

Tony|8.3.17 @ 11:37AM|#

He just bragged about corporate profits and stocks. How are businesses being crippled?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 1:31PM|#

Government over-regulation 101

Eek Barba Durkle|8.3.17 @ 9:37AM|#

I'm willing to volunteer to help raise the number of anchor babies being born. Because I'm a patriot.

OM Nullum gratuitum prandium|8.3.17 @ 10:20AM|#

There's no such thing as an "anchor baby". Only adults of 21 years of age can sponsor their parents or siblings.

Curt|8.3.17 @ 11:20AM|#

I think the "anchor baby" fear is both more focused on the longer term implications (i.e. eventually that "anchor baby" will turn 21 and bring their family into US) and the soft feelz implications (i.e. Republicans don't seem so bad when their bouncing illegal immigrants, but they seem horribly cruel when they're throwing out an illegal immigrant who has a baby that's an american citizen; and that parent has to make the heart-wrenching decision of whether or not to leave their baby in the US).

So, yeah, there is such thing. No opinion offered on how valid that concern is.

Hi Tony!|8.3.17 @ 1:22PM|#

Jesus Christ, that's not what an anchor baby is you fucking idiot.

Tom Bombadil|8.3.17 @ 11:08AM|#

I do a lot of work with unwed mothers. You know, helping them get their start.

Curt|8.3.17 @ 11:14AM|#

Regardless of how much it raises illegal immigration (and it would), it also proves the ridiculous of the position claimed by him and his many supporters that they're cool with legal immigration... just not illegal. But, I'm sure we can all agree that too many legal immigrants was one of the biggest problems we were facing?

"President Donald Trump's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent in a new poll."

Wasn't it at about 20% when he was elected?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 11:31AM|#

They are cool with legal immigration, just less of it. They are against any illegal immigrants being here.

Why is ~330M people in America not enough? Why do we HAVE to have hundreds of thousands more immigrants come here rather than thousands each year?

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 11:38AM|#

1. Making more people into Americans makes the world a better place and is the right thing to do

2. Trump's stated reasons attempting to justify this policy are largely bogus

3. No one in their right mind would trust Trump to find the right setting for a thermostat, much less set immigration levels for an entire nation

Rhywun|8.3.17 @ 11:54AM|#

I don't care about the numbers so much as the "skilled" part.

So the cries of "tearing families apart!" from the usual suspects are largely BS. What a surprise.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:04PM|#

1. Why is allowing more people into America making the World a better place and is right?

2. Politicians are largely liars and flip-flop. Trump said he wanted to control immigration and he has. Definitely there has been better control on immigration policy than most administrations in the last 40+ years.

3. Is there a "right" setting? I support zero illegal immigration and less legal immigration. 50%+ less legal immigration is fine with me.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 12:14PM|#

1. LOL

2. LMAO

3. ROFLMAOWTFBBQMAGA

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:21PM|#

1. Still refusing to answer.

2. laughing at you.

3. still laughing at you.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 12:23PM|#

Jokes aside, it's more than you deserve, but I'll try to answer honestly:

1. I wouldn't be here if my ancestors hadn't risked everything they had to cross the ocean to get here, for which I am eternally grateful. Anyone suffering in their own country who is willing to work hard and make a better life for themselves deserves that same chance.

2. Don't feel the need to respond to meaningless pro-Trump propaganda

3. Why do you want any legal immigration at all? What would you say to a Trump supporter who thinks the proper amount of legal immigration is zero?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:42PM|#

They weren't jokes though. You were trying to be serious.

1. Congratulations on your ancestors probably going thru Ellis Island or San Francisco port authority. They were allowed to come and become Americans because as many new Americans were needed to make develop America. How would letting in immigrants to America make the World a better place? It lets people off the hook to make THEIR country better.

See your assumption is flawed. There are already hundreds of millions of hard working Americans who want a better life. Non-Americans don't deserve shit from America. If we Americans want to let in thousands of immigrants, then so be it.

2. I know propaganda is only things you don't like. You don't like immigration controls, so when Trump ran on immigration controls and is doing it, you call it propaganda.

3. I personally don't care if there is zero immigration. That is not fair to Americans who marry foreigners but for all other non-Americans, I don't really care. I would say that zero immigration should only last a couple years and then re-evaluate the policy.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 1:02PM|#

How are the borders being "controlled" more compared to previous administrations? Has illegal immigration fallen to zero? I thought that would have been on the news. Seems to me the amount of control has gone unchanged, but the amount of propaganda about it from the White House has increased several-fold.

If we Americans want to let in thousands of immigrants, then so be it.

As I pointed out below, Americans broadly support maintaining or increasing levels of immigration. It's actually decreasing immigration that is the unpopular minority position. All you have is lies, just like Trump.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 1:17PM|#

Illegal immigration is down 67% since Trump took office, according to the Washington Times. WT illegal immigration

Its anecdotal but I know two Mexicans who said their goodbyes to go back and apply. This way they don't get caught and be prohibited from applying for visas to the USA.

I would say your assumption, because it not based on fact, is incorrect that Americans want MORE immigration. Trump ran on controlling immigration and he won. At least 62M people were for Trump, so they knew it would probably happen. I voted for Gay Jay but I support stricter immigration controls.

Scarecrow Repair & Chippering|8.3.17 @ 11:52AM|#

Why wasn't 200M enough? Or 100M? or 4M?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:01PM|#

Zeb|8.3.17 @ 11:56AM|#

You are asking the wrong questions.

Why is having more people a problem?

Is there a good, compelling reason to limit immigration more than it is?

We may have different answers to those questions. But the assumed default position should never be the one that is more restrictive if you give a crap about freedom. It's like asking why we need 23 kind of deodorant.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:26PM|#

No. I AM asking the correct question. Why does AMERICA have to take in hundreds of thousands or millions of people?

There does not need to be a compelling reason. There is no current compelling reason to let immigrants live in the USA.

There used to be a reason which was because not many people lived in North America until the 1900s.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 12:29PM|#

Read more:
AM Links: Trump's Approval Rating Drops to 33%, Rand Paul Blasts Civil Asset Forfeiture, John Kelly Reassures Jeff ... - Reason (blog)