Posted by hawks422 (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out...Eichorn and Old have been in office how many years and there just no figureing this out!!! Duh...it's time for a change we need Sheriff Taylor & Barney Fife out of office...I can't believe these guys want another 4 years...Vote em out Lyon County!!!!!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hawks422 and I must have read different news articles. What I read described the Sheriff making a reasoned response to a real world problem that will save the taxpayers money and heartache. On a side note, hawks, name calling only makes the writer appear to be rude and ill mannered. It is not persuasive to the writer's point of view.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Jayhawker. There is probably a good reason to wait until now. For one thing, they have to sell it to the commission. That is no easy sale. Hawks why is it you never have anything good to say about the sheriff or undersheriff. No one filed against him despite all the rumors around this forum. No recall votes, no picketing, no public discourse. Perhaps it's because people can't hide in their home and lob insults and falsehoods against public servents who are willing to take the brickbats from anonymous folk who do no service to constructive public discourse?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts has identified exactly one of the difficulties that those who are willing to serve the rest of us must deal with daily. While there are exceptions (recall that old saying that the exceptions prove the rule), the vast majority of our public servants are only trying to do the best job that they can. People like hawks, who hide in the shadows and throw stones, but who never put themselves out there, point to facts or offer constructive suggestions are much more destructive to our society than any public servant. The only good thing about their methods is that their name calling, unreasonableness and obvious ignorance (as manifested by their outright rudeness) persuades no one. Whiners and complainers will be with us always, as will all of the other leaches of nature. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a public servant, as I have on this blog many times, provided that the writer can cite facts (especially by way of example) and basic logic. Name calling doesn't cut it. If hawks and his ilk can point to facts, we might listen. Instead, they are nothing more than character assassins and deceivers (for example, their claims that they had the perfect candidate for Sheriff, when in fact they had no one). Enough of that - I've already consumed more keystrokes than the whole of them are worth.

Posted by Mypoint (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kids, Kids, Kids… I don’t know where all of hawk’s anger is coming from but I think jayhawker stated it best “the Sheriff (is) making a reasoned response to a real world problem that will save the taxpayers money and heartache.” I also agree with the comment about hiding in the shadows.
We likely all know someone that has, or is, working for one of the local law enforcement agencies. I talked to a guy that left the sheriffs department recently to go work for the state. Whenever I would talk to him he rarely ever complained about the sheriff, and often defended him. His only complaint was about a few of his coworkers. Instead he left because it was a move that was good for him. There is only so far that one can go in the local departments, and he had to go to the state level to advance his career. So there are many reasons why people quit, don’t assume that it is because of bad management.
With the election around the corner the sheriff should have a town hall style meeting where everyone that is “hiding in the shadows” could come and address the issues that they have. If they are not willing to make a comment to the sheriff’s face they shouldn’t make it on here.

Posted by CassieJo (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Old said it’s a balancing act with medical care in the jail. If an inmate is refused treatment, there’s a liability for the jail. If the inmate is sent to the hospital for treatment, the county is stuck with an ambulance and hospital bill.

It doesnt seem right that an inmate is in jail for a crime and the tax payers have to pay for their medical expenses.

So if you commit a crime you do your time and get 3 hots and a cot, someone does your laundry for you and the TAX PAYERS pay their medical bills. Something is wrong with this picture! Why not make them responsible for their own medical expenses like everyone else and help the budget.

Posted by lawman (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CassieJo:

You have raised an excellent point. Unfortunately, the Kansas Court of Appeals (later confirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court) held in a 1984 case in which a hospital sued the Ford County Sheriff for costs associated with treatment of a jail inmate that the Sheriff is responsible for inmate medical care, not the inmate. There was a case a few years ago in Chase County where an inmate's medical care was so high that it depleted the county's general fund to pay for it. The Kansas Sheriff's Association lobbied the Legislature for relief, but in view of the Kansas Courts' decisions, the best that the Legislature could lawfully do was provide that the medical provider could charge the Sheriff no more than the medicare/medicaid rate (which is about a 40% savings). However, even that leaves the Sheriff (meaning the taxpayers) with a substantial liability. That is precisely why Sheriff Eichorn's action in hiring a night shift nurse will potentially save the county a chunk of money. Of course, the Courts' decision defies common sense - but we all know that the Courts' legal reasoning can be different than common sense reasoning.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I became familiar with this issue as it progressed through the legislative process. Lawman correctly summarized the situation. My recollection is that the Courts believed that if the county was not obligated to pay the bill that in most cases the bill would never be paid because most inmates have little money. As I further recall, the Courts did not excuse the inmate's obligation on the bill, but they made the Sheriff jointly responsible. Given that the county is the one with the deeper pockets, in almost 100% of the cases, the counties are stuck with the bill. The Courts felt that to put the obligation on the inmate solely would result in health care providers refusing treatment and/or the costs being passed on to other health care consumers. Hopefully, having a qualified medical person on the jail staff will screen out the need for hospital intervention except in legitimate cases. My take on it was that the courts said that they decided this case on constitutional grounds, when in reality they were deciding it on public policy grounds, which properly belongs to the peoples' elected representatives. While the Courts' public policy reasoning has some merit, it is an example of judicial activism. They are unelected, but more importantly, they are from the only branch of government that is constitutionally prohibited from getting into public policy. Ironic, isn't it?

Posted by Blackshirt (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What does a LPN make hourly? $15.00 to $16.00 an hour? So that is a min. of $31,200.00 a year in salary alone, there are benefits above that number. If we take Olds figure of a savings of $10,000.00 a year. I am not really seeing the savings here. Am I wrong or is it bad money management to spend 31K+ a year to save 10K a year?

Posted by CassieJo (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If an inmate has medical issues and needs medical services the bills incured should be added onto their fines. So what if they dont have any money isnt that what community service is for??? Make them WORK it off! Oh I forgot if they are on disability most of the fines are "waived" no wonder we have so many repeat offenders!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blackshirt, you're back. Still no candidate, huh? Filing deadline passed, you know. No less bitter, notwithstanding.

Here is how it works, Blackshirt: If a nurse costs $31K per year, and the undersheriff says that it will save $10K per year, then you do the math this way: Cost to County before Nurse $41K, less: Cost of nurse $31K, savings: $10K.

Posted by zeus (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 5:03 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by zeus (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

o.k. Jayhawker lets try it this way. First off this is a discussion about how much money the powers that be at the Sheriff's Dept. want us to think we are going to save (yeah right). Why are you bringing up the election? Before you gloat remember that just because Eichorn might be here for four more years doesn't mean Old will, give him a little more time to be seen for what he really is. Old makes the decisions at the Sheriff's Dept. not Eichorn and before to long somebody is going to get tired of it and Old may have to go back to security at K-mart.

Posted by Blackshirt (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker:

Math is not your strong suit I see. Without the cost of the nurse you will take $10,000.00 from County funds to pay for the care. If the nures saves the County 10,000.00 +/- then we are still paying out more than the original medical costs. I
31,000.00 salary
-10,000.00 savings
==================

21,000.00 spent over what you "saved"

The election is now been set, sorry that there wasn't another candidate to step forward. But that's the way that it goes.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gross Savings to County because of Nurse: $41K
Cost of Nurse: 31K
Net Savings to County: $10K

All the bitter complaints in the world do not change the fact that this is a good idea that will save taxpayers money.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

$10k is a bit light considering the costs of medical care these days. One lawsuit against the county for failing to provide adequate medical attention would cost much more than $10k, win or lose in the case.

Posted by zeus (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Price of nurse to county after potential lawsuit: tens of thousands

Price to county after getting rid of Richard Old and his silly ideas: 0

Price of seeing Richard Old employed back at K-mart: PRICELESS