If the government provides healthcare to everybody, then inmates get the same care as everyone else. Fantastic huh?

I don't see what's wrong with this. I may not like it or think they really dedserve free healthcare, but letting someone slowly die is just sick. 

Next you guys will be saying they should buy their own food 

Tell that to the child that got raped, possibly traumitized .... yet this garbage human gets better treatment

**** Him!!!

That's the whole point of prison. To be punished for your crimes.

Still, being left to slowly die of heart problems isn't the right thing to do. 

Societies have decided, rather than have each individual take justice in their own hands, they would implement a court system and an incarceration system, where people would be imprisoned against their will as punishment.  In this situation, it is assumed they person incarcerating would provide the same level of care that a pet or zoo owner would, which is to provide for a safe environment with medical help and food and shelter.  This is done, in part that the person incarcerated may be innocent, but also you are engaging in a system that violates basic human rights as a means of punishment, so the person in charge of the imprisioning must do things not normally done for free people.

Anyhow, the issue here is that people who are free, when the economy suffers, end up having less benefits than people in prison.  And, this is a problem.

By the way, please explain how payback on the person who did the crime will make things better for the victims.  Does the trama and memories of the rape go away?  Does the person harmed get healed? 

Right. It's a bit like slavery in a way. You lose your freedom, but there is a burden on part of the owner (in this case, the State acting as incarcerator) to look after your wellbeing as part of their investment

The twisted part of all this is that we don't view healthcare as a matter of human wellbeing, we view it as a commodity. That's the only thing wrong with this picture

There are some individuals who view the marketplace as some sort of sacred place that will ALWAYS, without exception, generation the best solution to EVERY problem humanity has.  It may not be perfect, but it is expected to be optimal.  Outside of a few realms, like national defense, or anything else they would be spooked into believing their neighbor would overpower them, they believe the market is the answer to every ill of humanity.  For these individuals the idea that health care is a product that would be provided outside the marketplace, is a horror.  Such individuals, in the latest round of Obamacare debate, had concerns that Obamacare would drive private insurers out of business.

A question I would have to ask here is: If the marketplace is such a superior option, and private industry is so much superior to the government, HOW could the government then put them out of business if competing in the same market arena?  Is it that the government would set demands of service for rules that only they are able to compete?

Regarding markets, I personally believe they are very effective, and a critical part of society.  However, I hold NO faith that they are the best answer in all cases.  A free society also has a ballot, and gives everyone one vote, and you aren't allowed to have more than that.  You have the ability to freely organize oneself also as one choose.  There are also families, where the balance of power is WAY out of wack, and individuals in families don't contribute back the same level as they put out.  Religious institutions, and other non-profits, that also step into the gap.  And there is also governments with systems of taxation and government workers that also do things.  Society has shown a range of ways to provide solutions, that aren't the marketplace alone.  The only one would would end up arguing against this are individuals who worship Capitalism as some sort of perfect system that will lead the world to some sort of utopia, or at least the most optimal way for society to organize itself.

On that note, I will close with this memory of William F Buckley statement of him trying to quote someone else:

Five years ago this week, my former boss William F. Buckley started a column thusly:

“Every ten years I quote the same adage from the late Austrian analyst Willi Schlamm, and I hope that ten years from now someone will remember to quote it in my memory. It goes, ‘The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.’”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229606/capitalism-vs-capitalists/jonah-goldberg

I agree, which is part of what puts me off of more fundamental Marxist-Leninist views like Central Planning, because the market is best at determining which products should be made in which quantities, but greater control is needed than is currently provided, and more concern with the wellbeing of people in mind

Part of the reason why i might qualify as a Fascist, believing in a strong, progressive-minded state that will preserve social order yet work for the enrichment of the state and its people as a whole

I disagree with the aims of Fascism (namely all this national strength and betterment is for the end purpose of being able to fight your outside enemies), but the technique of it all seems to fit with the ideals i hold...

Sounds resonable. Pity eurocommies from Brussel would never accept that.

This. As a society, we have a responsibility to keep the man alive. He is detained and has no ability to attain health coverage through other means. An ugly necessity but one we have to uphold. It's part of the agreement we make as a society to not treat prisoners cruelly and to let the courts decide their fate instead of leaving everything to vigilante justice.

I suspect many people in this thread complaining about his medical costs haven't really thought this through entirely. What about a guy who was given ten years for robbery and needs a heart transplant nine years into his term? Should he die? What exceptions to we make to this rule and who decides how to enforce them?

I've never seen a government agency be given "exceptions" to rules where it has handled them properly. The only alternative is to give everyone care and just swallow that bitter pill.