The prison food and burkini ban dual thread

[Berkut]

How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?

What if they want to switch back and forth?

How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?

Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?

Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.

But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.

The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.

Is that an overwhelming problem in the prison system today?

Prisoners in general trying to exploit the system to make their lives more comfortable?

Yes, I would say so - but the system as it exists today deals with it pretty well, I think.

[Malthus]

How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.

[Berkut]

How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.

I don't think it is similar at all though.

A hospital, for example, as an incentive to accommodate a variety of dietary restrictions, medical and personal. however "onerous" it might be, they will do so because they will lose customers otherwise, and the cost is largely irrelevant to the decision about whether to provide those options.

A prison, presumably, has no need to meet the wants of the prisoners, only their needs. Hence the cost to meet what amounts to a want, rather than a need, become much more of a factor.

And hence the discussion - when does a want (which we would likely all agree we probably don't care much about when it comes to prisoners) become a need (which we probably all agree that the person holding the prisoner is obligated to meet).

And how do we accommodate the needs when they are legitimate (say for some small percentage at some reasonable cost) when we know that the populace will attempt to exploit that accommodation and insist that their wants are actually needs?

I actually think it is a tough thing to handle. I assume it is handled now on some kind of case by case basis, which is probably about the best you are going to do...

[Malthus]

How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.

I don't think it is similar at all though.

A hospital, for example, as an incentive to accommodate a variety of dietary restrictions, medical and personal. however "onerous" it might be, they will do so because they will lose customers otherwise, and the cost is largely irrelevant to the decision about whether to provide those options.

It is rather different outside of the US. Here in Canada, as in many places in the Western world, hospitals are mostly* funded through public insurance, and so do not have an economic incentive to attract paying "customers". Costs spent on food is thus presumably something that comes out of their global budget and so they have the same incentives as prisons on minimizing unnecessary expense - they probably get budgeted so much on food per patient and no more.

*Here in Ontario, for example, you can pay to upgrade your room to semi-private or private, but that's it; you don't get better care, or food, simply by paying more.

A prison, presumably, has no need to meet the wants of the prisoners, only their needs. Hence the cost to meet what amounts to a want, rather than a need, become much more of a factor.

And hence the discussion - when does a want (which we would likely all agree we probably don't care much about when it comes to prisoners) become a need (which we probably all agree that the person holding the prisoner is obligated to meet).

And how do we accommodate the needs when they are legitimate (say for some small percentage at some reasonable cost) when we know that the populace will attempt to exploit that accommodation and insist that their wants are actually needs?

I actually think it is a tough thing to handle. I assume it is handled now on some kind of case by case basis, which is probably about the best you are going to do...

Hence the question - is it really a big expense for others who have to do it on the public dime in other settings? We have to know if it's a problem of any magnitude, before we can say how much if at all we should care about it.

[Berkut]

Again, it isn't the same though.

Even a publically funded institution has an incentive to make their customers happy. If nothing else, they are going to complain if they cannot get decent food. And they should care about such a complaint.

Hell, even the military in the US, tries to keep the soldiers basically happy with the food, as much as they can.

Presumably we don't care if prisoners are "happy" with their food, within reason. As long as it provides for their NEEDS, what they want is irrelevant.

That is not at all the case with hospitals, military bases, or any other large institutional organization. Even if they are not attracting paying customers directly, they have an incentive (at least I hope they do) to keep their customers basically *happy* or at least content.

I doubt they even could tell you how much it costs them to provide that level of service compared to the option of not, since it seems unlikely they would have ever even considered the not option.

Hmmm...makes me wonder what the overall cost per meal is for a prisoner compared to a hospital. I bet it is a fraction...off to google!

[garbon]

How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?

What if they want to switch back and forth?

How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?

Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?

Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.

But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.

The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.

Is that an overwhelming problem in the prison system today?

Prisoners in general trying to exploit the system to make their lives more comfortable?

Yes, I would say so - but the system as it exists today deals with it pretty well, I think.

Yeah I was asking in the context of this specific 'issue.'

[alfred russel]

Again, it isn't the same though.

Even a publically funded institution has an incentive to make their customers happy. If nothing else, they are going to complain if they cannot get decent food. And they should care about such a complaint.

Hell, even the military in the US, tries to keep the soldiers basically happy with the food, as much as they can.

Presumably we don't care if prisoners are "happy" with their food, within reason. As long as it provides for their NEEDS, what they want is irrelevant.

That is not at all the case with hospitals, military bases, or any other large institutional organization. Even if they are not attracting paying customers directly, they have an incentive (at least I hope they do) to keep their customers basically *happy* or at least content.

I doubt they even could tell you how much it costs them to provide that level of service compared to the option of not, since it seems unlikely they would have ever even considered the not option.

Hmmm...makes me wonder what the overall cost per meal is for a prisoner compared to a hospital. I bet it is a fraction...off to google!

Also, you can bring food into a hospital. You don't have to eat their crap.

You still need to pay for meals in Canadian hospitals, don't you?

[Berkut]

Quick google search says that the average cost per inmate per day is about $2.50 or so. That is crazy cheap, and must be some pretty crappy food. So something like $1 per meal or less?

A good comparison might actually be to public school lunches - that is about as close to a prisoner population as you are going to get!

Apparently a typical school lunch, which is just one meal, is about $2.75 or so. So that is probably at least three times the cost, if not more.

[Malthus]

Also, you can bring food into a hospital. You don't have to eat their crap.

You still need to pay for meals in Canadian hospitals, don't you?

No, they have to feed you at no cost to you. However, the food is widely thought to be terrible, and so people do bring food in.

This article claims it cost an estimated CAN $8 per day in 2012.

http://healthydebate.ca/2012/05/topic/cost-of-care/hospital-food

Hospital food has traditionally had a bad reputation, and for good reason. Ontario's hospitals feed patients 3 meals a day, and 2 snacks, on an estimated budget of less than $8 per day per patient , excluding labour costs. It is no wonder that many associate hospital food with bland sandwiches, canned fruit and jello as hospitals aim to feed patients in a way that is nutritionally balanced, broadly appealing, cost effective and easy to assemble.

In an era of tight hospital budgets, food services are often cut or looked to for efficiencies. Ontario's hospitals operate largely with global budgets, meaning that they receive a fixed amount of dollars per year from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to run the entire operations of the organization – which includes staff salaries, equipment, medicines and supplies such as food.

[Berkut]

So this is what Obama has in store for us...

[Malthus]

So this is what Obama has in store for us...

There is no doubt, public hospital food isn't the best advertisement for the public system.

[CountDeMoney]

I've seen what prisoners eat.  It's not an unreasonable expectation to be offered at least basic nutritional subsistence, even if some people believe they don't "deserve" it.

Same goes with public school systems, even if some people think certain school populations don't "deserve" it, either.

[LaCroix]

there's an assumption that certain choices would provide materially better food. there also seems to be an assumption that a majority of inmates would select the option that provides this "better" food.

I'm not sure either is true.

[alfred russel]

No, they have to feed you at no cost to you. However, the food is widely thought to be terrible, and so people do bring food in.

This article claims it cost an estimated CAN $8 per day in 2012.

That is actually a decent amount of money, considering it excludes labor costs.

FWIW, while I definitely see the benefits in public healthcare, I think having a free cafeteria in a hospital is going too far.

[Malthus]

No, they have to feed you at no cost to you. However, the food is widely thought to be terrible, and so people do bring food in.

This article claims it cost an estimated CAN $8 per day in 2012.

That is actually a decent amount of money, considering it excludes labor costs.

FWIW, while I definitely see the benefits in public healthcare, I think having a free cafeteria in a hospital is going too far.

It's for in-patients only. Most hospitals have a paid version, or outlets of chain restaurants in their lobby, to feed visitors and out-patients (and for visitors to get better food to bring in!).

If you accept all patients regardless of ability to pay, it kinda follows that you have to feed them regardless of ability to pay, as well; not sure what else you could do.