Inmate Health Care Issues Are Significantly Different

¶ … inmate health care issues are significantly different from those of average Americans. Furthermore, in many cases it is accurate to say that these issues have been exacerbated by the process and lifestyle propagated by incarceration. The primary issue facing prisoners is a marked lack of medical and health care treatment, which may become manifest in myriad forms including through a lack of medication, proper facilities, competent professionals and a number of other factors that can contribute to poor health, disease, and even death.

While there are a number of issues to be had with the health care system for those who are not incarcerated, it should be noted that the majority of these are pecuniary in nature and stem from relationships with insurance companies. It is largely possible for "free" Americans to get the treatment they need from adequate staff and facilities -- if they have the cash to do so. Within the prison population, however, just being able to obtain the rights to get adequate care is a significant point of contention between inmates and those operating the prisons and their respective health care provisioners -- many of which have become increasingly privatized and find it in their best interests to provide as little service as possible to maximize their earning potential (Holloway 2011). This situation is also made worse by the fact that due to what is oftentimes partisan if not outright substandard healthcare treatment, there is a trend for the body of prisoners to age faster than that of those who are free (Chen 2009).

The societal and institutional consequences of poor inmate health are fairly manifold, and may be evidenced perhaps the most saliently in the number of lawsuits that are routinely filed against prisoners who have suffered (and in more than one instance, died) due to insufficient health care. The Eight Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment, is largely cited as the basis for such litigation due to the fact that not providing adequate health services constitutes a violation of this particular piece of legislation. Further consequences may be evinced in the form of advocacy for prison rights. There are a number of both organizations and individuals who have been instrumental in the filing of grievances and in the aid of lawsuits on behalf of prisoners who have suffered from poor health conditions while institutionalized within the penal system. The aim of such actions, of course, is to provide a degree of accountability on behalf of the several private corporations that have been contracted to provide health care service within specific prisons, as well as to change the trend of substandard care for inmates. The end result of litigation and protests from prison advocacy groups can be demonstrated in a lawsuit such as Plata v. Schwarzenneger, in which the Berkeley's Prison Law office is claiming its penal system is irreparably damaged largely due to overcrowding (Noyes 2011). The case is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court, and just may result in some fundamental changes to assist in the health treatment of inmates throughout the system.

The legal decision in the Turner Case is a great example of the fraudulent, specious, and outright duplicitous behavior of the health care industry, which is largely the conclusion of my analysis of this particular issue of health care. In this court case, a Mr. And Mrs. Turner attempted to file a class action lawsuit against a group of health insurance carriers on the grounds that they had committed acts of fraud and willful, negligent misrepresentation. However, the lawsuit was dismissed earlier in 2011 by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on the grounds of summary judgment. This mandate was upheld based upon the fact that the plaintiffs were attempting to sue because a local insurance representative by the name of Douglas Milliman only made a series of recommendations to the couple when they inquired about health insurance policy, and that such recommendations are merely speculative and are not grounds for fraud or misrepresentation. Yet the pair purchased the health insurance policy on the ground in part based on the fact that Milliman said there would not be sufficient increases in the monthly premiums, which escalated from little over $100 at the outset of the policy to over $700 -- each month -- when the Turner's could no longer afford it. The plaintiffs only had the word of the insurance company to rely on -- yet when it comes down to the fine print of the legal rhetoric such a word was an "unfulfilled promise" and therefore "not actionable" (Gallivan, White, Boyd 2011). Furthermore, the summary judgment was upheld because the plaintiffs waited beyond the three-year statute of limitations to pursue legal action. This final reason is unfortunate, but the recommendations which were really just lies on the part of the health care industry are deplorable, incorrigible, and indicative of this fairly insidious capitalist scheme.