Man Robs bank for $1 to get prison healthcare

[Graham Kennedy]

He told the judge that if he wasn't sent to jail he would do it again. If you fine him he hasn't got any money anyway, so he's not going to pay it and then what? Fine him even more for not paying the fines? Give him a license to break the law as he pleases without punishment just to make sure he doesn't get medical care?

In the end you have to send him to jail, because that's all you really can do.

[Tyyr]

Then get your ears checked because it's about punishing a bank robber for robbing a bank, not giving him exactly what he was after.

The situation sucks, the healthcare system needs major work, but this isn't going to fix it it's only going to encourage more stupidity like this potentially from less mentally sound individuals.

[Tyyr]

Graham has a point, but I'm still not thrilled about the precedent.

I'm also not exactly feeling that sympathetic for the guy after this:

The ideal scenario would include back and foot surgery and a diagnosis and treatment of the protrusion on his chest, he said. He would serve a few years in prison and get out in time to collect Social Security and move to the beach.

[Graham Kennedy]

Then get your ears checked because it's about punishing a bank robber for robbing a bank, not giving him exactly what he was after.

So punish him how? It's all very well to say don't jail him, but what should they do instead?

[BigJKU316]

The guy committed an illegal act. He attempted to rob a bank. His entire goal being to get arrested and get health care. If you throw him in jail you're not punishing the man, you're giving him what he wants. So instead you hand him a fine and kick his ass to the curb rather than rewarding him for breaking the law.

To my ears this sounds like nothing more than punishing a disadvantaged man for being poor and sick. Clearly the robbery was an act of high desperation, albeit illegal. He surely saw no other option. Yes, the law was broken (even if only by the margin of a single dollar) but negligible harm was done and there was no malice. Is letting the man die on the street a better option?

Are you suggesting that only the "haves" deserve care and the "have-nots" should get trampled on? When the latter threaten to outnumber the former (like as in some country you may happen to live in) that doesn't strike me as a healthy society.

How do the have nots threaten to outnumber the haves? The vast majority of the people in the US do have health-insurance and access to care. Last I looked it was around 80-85% or so.

[Captain Seafort]

How do the have nots threaten to outnumber the haves? The vast majority of the people in the US do have health-insurance and access to care. Last I looked it was around 80-85% or so.

Of whom how many only had partial coverage?

[Mikey]

How do the have nots threaten to outnumber the haves? The vast majority of the people in the US do have health-insurance and access to care. Last I looked it was around 80-85% or so.

Of whom how many only had partial coverage?

No more partial than you have. The ony difference is that covered Americans pay a balance to the doctor, while you guys pay it annually to the gub'mint.

[BigJKU316]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117205/ameri ... nding.aspx

Despite the title I think these surveys show something important. On the whole nearly as many US people are satisfied with their healthcare as in most other nations with universal coverage and they actually like their access to quality local care more than the average OECD nation. Both types of systems have their good and bad aspects.

The US public has clearly shown there is little to no mandate to move to a single-payer system and ensure universal access. On many levels the majority of the public has shown preference for having access to higher quality and more responsive care even if that means others go uncovered. I am not passing a judgement on if they are right or wrong but the US is a democracy where if the people wished to force universal healthcare on the nation they could. Support for that collapses on both sides of the aisle when it comes time to really take steps in that direction.

[Captain Seafort]

No more partial than you have. The ony difference is that covered Americans pay a balance to the doctor, while you guys pay it annually to the gub'mint.

Wrong. The proportion of our taxes that go towards the NHS are the equivalent of your insurance, not whatever top-up you have to pay.

[Captain Seafort]

Despite the title I think these surveys show something important. On the whole nearly as many US people are satisfied with their healthcare as in most other nations with universal coverage

I'd call that a symptom of natural human apathy. Most people don't bother looking at alternative systems, so they compare their treatment with those of their immediate neighbours, and if they're about as good or better, they're happy.

Both types of systems have their good and bad aspects.

There are no benefits whatsoever to the US system that the UK or European systems lack. There are, however, significant drawbacks to the US system that the UK and European systems lack.

The US public has clearly shown there is little to no mandate to move to a single-payer system and ensure universal access.

The US public has also shown that Sarah Palin is considered someone worthy of consideration rather than some random loony.

On many levels the majority of the public has shown preference for having access to higher quality and more responsive care even if that means others go uncovered.

Why do you treat this as an either/or situation. Some people over here consider private health care to be sufficiently superior to the NHS to take out private health insurance. However, the majority of those who could afford it don't bother, because the NHS is good enough, and those who can't afford it don't die in a ditch because they can't afford it.

I am not passing a judgement on if they are right or wrong

I am.

the US is a democracy where if the people wished to force universal healthcare on the nation they could. Support for that collapses on both sides of the aisle when it comes time to really take steps in that direction.

How does this in any way change the fact that the system is badly fucked up? You spend far more money and you still have people dying because they haven't got access to health care.

[Mikey]

Wrong. The proportion of our taxes that go towards the NHS are the equivalent of your insurance, not whatever top-up you have to pay.

Oh, really? Then what portion of those NHS-destined taxes - aside from those you mention here - are the equivalent of employer contribution?

I'd call that a symptom of natural human apathy. Most people don't bother looking at alternative systems, so they compare their treatment with those of their immediate neighbours, and if they're about as good or better, they're happy.

Irrelevant. The function of democratic government derives from public mandate, no matter the rationale behind that mandate.

There are no benefits whatsoever to the US system that the UK or European systems lack.

You're talking out of your ass... sorry, "arse." You may speak with considerable first-hand authority about the UKoGBaNI system, but you're way off-base in your reference to all Europeans systems... and I have that first-hand from physicians who have worked at length both in continental Europe and in the U.S. And no, to forestall your sarcastic question, I'm not talking about the physicians getting paid, I'm talking about access to necessary procedures and diagnostic tools for the public.

The US public has also shown that Sarah Palin is considered someone worthy of consideration rather than some random loony.

So? The fact that a government based in part on public mandate has on occasion come up with some screwballs doesn't mean that we should scrap that type of government. Going by your logic, you guys should have completely binned the whole idea of monarchy because of the actions of some rather nasty Tudors. Yet, AFAIK, you still have a queen.

Why do you treat this as an either/or situation. Some people over here consider private health care to be sufficiently superior to the NHS to take out private health insurance. However, the majority of those who could afford it don't bother, because the NHS is good enough, and those who can't afford it don't die in a ditch because they can't afford it.

Because it is an either/or situation, for all practical terms of this discussion. We have supplemental insurance, probably more prevalently than you do; but we're talking about what coverage constitutes the main - or sole - coverage for the bulk of the populace. To talk about it otherwise is simply dodging.

I am.

Indeed, and your bias towards that end shows itself in some of your arguments.

How does this in any way change the fact that the system is badly fucked up? You spend far more money and you still have people dying because they haven't got access to health care.

It doesn't... but you referred to the issues with accepting public mandate.

[Captain Seafort]

Oh, really? Then what portion of those NHS-destined taxes - aside from those you mention here - are the equivalent of employer contribution?

Those paid by whatever company you're working for. In any event, I asked about those with insufficient insurance cover, you attempted to compare the gap to the NHS bit of taxes. This is a bad analogy because the NHS is the equivalent full insurance cover, not incomplete cover.

The function of democratic government derives from public mandate, no matter the rationale behind that mandate.

And? Big was arguing that surveys show people are happy with the current US system. I was explaining why that would be the case despite the system being a piece of shit.

I'm talking about access to necessary procedures and diagnostic tools for the public.

And? Private health care over here is just as good as private health care in the US if you can afford it. The difference is the answer to the question "what if you can't afford it". Here and in Europe it's "accept a lesser but still acceptable standard of care". In the US it's "die".

The fact that a government based in part on public mandate has on occasion come up with some screwballs doesn't mean that we should scrap that type of government.

My point was aimed demonstrating that the US public doesn't exactly have a great record when it comes to differentiating between good things and stupid things.

Going by your logic, you guys should have completely binned the whole idea of monarchy because of the actions of some rather nasty Tudors. Yet, AFAIK, you still have a queen.

We did bin the monarchy, although it was due to an idiotic Stuart rather than a nasty Tudor. It took us about a decade to realise it that this was a really bad idea.

Because it is an either/or situation, for all practical terms of this discussion. We have supplemental insurance, probably more prevalently than you do; but we're talking about what coverage constitutes the main - or sole - coverage for the bulk of the populace. To talk about it otherwise is simply dodging.

On the contrary. One of the main arguments in favour of the US system is that privatised health care is of a superior standard to state-funded health care. This is true (although the degree is exaggerated) due to the fact that insurers can pick and choose who to insure. However, if you have the money there's nothing to stop you taking out private health insurance here. Ergo, it is not an either/or situation.

[Tsukiyumi]

Ah, healthcare. The one subject I consistently agree with Seafort on.

Ow, I think my brain just hemorrhaged a little. Guess I'm fucked!


Seriously, though, the counter-argument is that "the majority doesn't see a problem with the system, and they don't want to change it", which is asinine. So what if the majority likes it the way it is? I'm sure in 1950, the majority liked having the coloreds drink from separate fountains and ride on the back of the bus; our laws are supposed to protect the rights of the minority, not the preferences of the majority.

[Captain Seafort]

Ah, healthcare. The one subject I consistently agree with Seafort on.

Well, that and genocide.

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah.