By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Your tax dollars is going to help this man

Zlejedi on 30 April 2011
rocketpig said:
Zlejedi said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:

its called being humane. since we have him detained the government has a right to treat him as a human while under its care. and they do have the same medicine as us. 

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.

And actually why do we have this responsibility?

Money and organs for transplantation are limited resources and a lot of normal paying taxes people don't get them. Why should criminals be in favourable position in this case?

They're not given a favorable position, they're given the same priority as anyone else based on necessity.

They're human beings. Due to incarceration, they are completely incapable of providing their own medical coverage or doing ANYTHING about their ailment. When that happens, the burden of care falls on the incarcerator, in this case the state.

It's the only way to handle this in a civilized society.

I think you are forgetting something important:

The main reason why he is in jail is because HE IS DANGEROUS to other human beings and that's the only way how we can secure that he won't harm others.

Now I don't know about US healthcare enough but if normal person with average savings had to undergo treatment worth 800k USD he would be in debt for the rest of his life wouldn't he?

And such human trash will have it wholy covered by money taken from hundreds of people who work hard everyday.

Therefore he benefits from the fact that he commited crime.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 30 April 2011
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:

its called being humane. since we have him detained the government has a right to treat him as a human while under its care. and they do have the same medicine as us. 

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.


The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government decide who lives and who dies?

I'm not.

And in this case, the "status quo" means this man dies. That's not a "status quo of health" AT ALL.

Every time the government spends its limited resources in one area it effectively chooses not to spend those resources in another area; and by choosing to spend $800,000 to save the life of one man they are choosing not to spend that money in a way that could save the life of (potentially) dozens of people.

Or to put it another way, the government is making the choice of who lives and dies all the time and in this case they are choosing to save the life of an old violent sexual offender at the expense of young innocent people; sounds like a pretty immoral decision to me.



dib8rman on 30 April 2011

Am I the only one that thinks maybe the real shame here is that the bill is so high?

I mean humans are like beat up cars now-a-days the parts are more expensive than the whole thing.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Galaki on 30 April 2011
dib8rman said:

Am I the only one that thinks maybe the real shame here is that the bill is so high?

I mean humans are like beat up cars now-a-days the parts are more expensive than the whole thing.


Human lives are worthless but the parts are worth a lot of money.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

twesterm on 30 April 2011
thranx said:
twesterm said:

It's the humane and right thing to do.

We're the ones holding him so we're the ones that have to take care of him to a reasonable extent.  Since he's being held against his will, he can't go out and provide for himself so we have to provide for him.  Of course I think he should incur some sort of debt when he is released but that's another story.


How is getting above and beyond care reasonable? We are holding him because he commited serious and heinous crimes. Would it not be more humane to use that money to help those who have not decided to hurt others for their own pleasure?


There are some human rights that cannot be taken away (or at least it's against the law).  By putting him in prison we make it impossible to get health care on his own so we simply must provide health care for him.  I don't want to pay for him but I do recognize that there are certain human rights we can't take away.



 

Around the Network
rocketpig on 30 April 2011
thranx said:
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:

its called being humane. since we have him detained the government has a right to treat him as a human while under its care. and they do have the same medicine as us. 

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.


The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government decide who lives and who dies?

I'm not.

And in this case, the "status quo" means this man dies. That's not a "status quo of health" AT ALL.

He had a choice to not harm and rape other people. Since he made the wrong choice he should not get above and beyond care that most other americans would not get paid by the taxpayers. He is free to pay his own surgury, I am not arguing he should barred from the procedure. Perhaps some of you would like to donate to his cause and help him get better. Maybe he has a savings he could use.

We, as a society, have removed his ability to pay for anything through incarceration. You're essentially killing the man.

And this care should be available to every American but that's steering this subject off-course. The "race to the bottom" argument posed by many in the healthcare debate is unsettling to say the least.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 30 April 2011
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:

its called being humane. since we have him detained the government has a right to treat him as a human while under its care. and they do have the same medicine as us. 

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.


The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government decide who lives and who dies?

I'm not.

And in this case, the "status quo" means this man dies. That's not a "status quo of health" AT ALL.

Every time the government spends its limited resources in one area it effectively chooses not to spend those resources in another area; and by choosing to spend $800,000 to save the life of one man they are choosing not to spend that money in a way that could save the life of (potentially) dozens of people.

Or to put it another way, the government is making the choice of who lives and dies all the time and in this case they are choosing to save the life of an old violent sexual offender at the expense of young innocent people; sounds like a pretty immoral decision to me.

Again, who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government make life-and-death decisions one at a time?




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

HappySqurriel on 30 April 2011
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:

its called being humane. since we have him detained the government has a right to treat him as a human while under its care. and they do have the same medicine as us. 

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.


The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government decide who lives and who dies?

I'm not.

And in this case, the "status quo" means this man dies. That's not a "status quo of health" AT ALL.

Every time the government spends its limited resources in one area it effectively chooses not to spend those resources in another area; and by choosing to spend $800,000 to save the life of one man they are choosing not to spend that money in a way that could save the life of (potentially) dozens of people.

Or to put it another way, the government is making the choice of who lives and dies all the time and in this case they are choosing to save the life of an old violent sexual offender at the expense of young innocent people; sounds like a pretty immoral decision to me.

Again, who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government make life-and-death decisions one at a time?


My entire point was regardless of the decision the government is making they're implicitly making life and death calls ...

In a world where people are dying all the time due to lack of access to healthcare, are you comfortable with young children dying so that a violent sexual offender can add a couple of years to their life?



thranx on 30 April 2011
rocketpig said:
thranx said:
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:

its called being humane. since we have him detained the government has a right to treat him as a human while under its care. and they do have the same medicine as us. 

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.


The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government decide who lives and who dies?

I'm not.

And in this case, the "status quo" means this man dies. That's not a "status quo of health" AT ALL.

He had a choice to not harm and rape other people. Since he made the wrong choice he should not get above and beyond care that most other americans would not get paid by the taxpayers. He is free to pay his own surgury, I am not arguing he should barred from the procedure. Perhaps some of you would like to donate to his cause and help him get better. Maybe he has a savings he could use.

We, as a society, have removed his ability to pay for anything through incarceration. You're essentially killing the man.

And this care should be available to every American but that's steering this subject off-course. The "race to the bottom" argument posed by many in the healthcare debate is unsettling to say the least.

He is killing himself by removing his abilitiy to get above and beyond care through a job like everyone else. He chose to break the law, I did not force him so I would be doing nothing. I am not saying he should not get access to care, but he should not get this above and beyond care. Its excessive.



Squilliam on 30 April 2011

The problem isn't the fact that humanity was shown to the inhumane man in prison, the problem is that inhumanity is shown to the 20% outside of prison without medical insurance.



Tease.