If only there was an alternative, say:

http://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/03_MandatoryEligibilityGroups.asp

Well, I think there is only one of two main political parties in this country that are responsibile for this particular situation.

Spiralmonkey: Aren't there any free clinics in the US? Not snarky, just genuinely unaware.

The only "free" hospitals I'm aware of are for children. There are clinics that charge on a sliding scale based on your income, but I don't know that any that would be able to treat ruptured disks.

It's really hard to get Medicaid, the health insurance program for poor people, unless you're a kid or have a kid. That will change if ObamaCare stays in effect. I pray it does.

Also curious about if you had some sort of serious event going on, like a heart attack, when you get to hospital do they ask to see your insurance details up front, or can that wait until you've been treated?

There's a law called EMTALA that requires emergency facilities to stabilize you without determining your ability to pay. Of course, you're still responsible for paying.

Spiralmonkey: Aren't there any free clinics in the US? Not snarky, just genuinely unaware. I've been there a few times, but never had to use any health care facilities, and even if I did the travel insurance would cover it, so.... no idea.

Would it really be the case that if someone is ill and can't afford to pay and has no insurance there are no options left for treatment?

Also curious about if you had some sort of serious event going on, like a heart attack, when you get to hospital do they ask to see your insurance details up front, or can that wait until you've been treated?

That's complicated to answer. If you go to a hospital due to an emergency and you're unconscious, you'll be treated immediately w/o question. If you are ambulatory and can answer questions, they will absolutely ask for your insurance info before providing care, but you won't be turned away from accute care even if you have no insurance. You will be billed, and if you can't pay then it becomes a civil matter.

For care regarding chronic conditions (e.g., the growth mentioned in the article), the options are fewer hospitals can and will refuse to offer care on a non-emergency basis for things like cancer. Only when it progresses to an end-stage and is about to kill you would the accute-care "right" kick in -- but by then all they would be able to do would be treat whatever horrible symptom was actually in the immediate process of killing you.

/yes, it's sick and twisted
//I can't & won't make any attempt to justify this situation

Stridar: If only there was an alternative, say:

Do you see an alternative for which he meets the criteria? I don't, but I could be missing something.

rebelyell2006: Unless the government goes the cruel and unusual route and imprisons him but doesn't give him health care. It's no different than mugging someone in order to get enough money to buy drugs or cars. You don't punish the person by letting them get access to cars or drugs, you keep them away from drugs or cars so they can reform their bad behavior and responsibly use cars or drugs.

I didn't read the whole thread but mistook your original post as serious. This is obviously a troll. Nice work though -- you got me to bite.

Spiralmonkey: Also curious about if you had some sort of serious event going on, like a heart attack, when you get to hospital do they ask to see your insurance details up front, or can that wait until you've been treated?

For heart stuff they usually take you right back. I believe most hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment.

rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

I don't get it.

He did the crime for the purpose of going to jail. I say punish him by keeping him out of jail.

oh i get it. you're saying fark him. wow, you're a cold hearted doosh.
I think the old man deserves the Hero tag for pointing out the obvious flaws in our system. You think he should die.

So since he is poor then he shouldn't be punished for breaking the law?

I am going to hold back on the name calling here, and point out it was you that said he shouldn't receive proper punishment.

I said the opposite. Sending him to jail would be rewarding his bad behavior. Sending him home with an ankle bracelet would be a punishment.


Why the ankle bracelet? What are you going to do when he walks across the street and waits for the cops? Put him on double probation?

PanicAttack: bighasbeen: papabusche: I_Fly_Planes: See this is why socialized medicine doesn't work

it's too bad they haven't invented a sarcasm font yet.

Most fonts are too nice looking to get the point across

Sheesh. Everybody knows comic sans is the idiot's font.

WHO U CALLIN IDIOT JERK?

God bless America, my home sweet home.

Hey, on the bight side, we may not have single-payer health-care, but we've got lots of cool-looking bombers and a nifty fleet of nuclear submarines. Then again, blowing people apart is much more fun than putting them back together again, eh?

What stopped the guy from buying his own health insurance?

rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

And then he'll commit bigger and bigger crimes until he gets jail time.

rebelyell2006: tricycleracer: rebelyell2006: I said the opposite. Sending him to jail would be rewarding his bad behavior. Sending him home with an ankle bracelet would be a punishment.

"Your Honor, my client clearly mugged that lady at knife point because he is desperate to rob taxpayers of free prison health care. It is in the best interest of the court to deny his request for a lengthy sentence and simply send place him on probation."

/Yeah, that's a good precedent.

You're right. It should be probation and a public beating.

Who's going to pay to stitch him up after the public beating?

/letsee, your plan (a) solves nothing and (b) costs taxpayers more in an attempt to spend less
//are you a conservative by chance?

rebelyell2006: jshine: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

I don't get it.

He did the crime for the purpose of going to jail. I say punish him by keeping him out of jail.

I don't think OP thought his cunning plan all the way through:

1) give him probation so he's on the street again
2) he goes back with a (probably unloaded) gun and demands $100k.
3) we're back at square-one with even more paperwork & inconvenience for everyone involved

What does that accomplish?

Unless the government goes the cruel and unusual route and imprisons him but doesn't give him health care. It's no different than mugging someone in order to get enough money to buy drugs or cars. You don't punish the person by letting them get access to cars or drugs, you keep them away from drugs or cars so they can reform their bad behavior and responsibly use cars or drugs.

You advocate responsible use of fixing your god damn back problems and strange growths?

Fark_Guy_Rob: What stopped the guy from buying his own health insurance?

"He is 59-years old and with no job and a depleted bank account."

eraser8: Stridar: If only there was an alternative, say:

http://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/03_MandatoryEligibilityGroups.asp

You realize, I hope that doesn't cover everybody, don't you?

The guy isn't an AFDC recipient. He may not be eligible for SSI. He's certainly not an infant or a child under 6. He probably doesn't have any adopted children. According to TFA, he doesn't seem quite eligible for Medicare at the moment.

So, considering he doesn't fall into those categories, what the fark was the point of your nonsense?

I would hope that this program would cover him if he's on any sort of state support, say disability from having a growth in his chest. But I guess that's nonsense.

Spiralmonkey: Aren't there any free clinics in the US? Not snarky, just genuinely unaware. I've been there a few times, but never had to use any health care facilities, and even if I did the travel insurance would cover it, so.... no idea.

Would it really be the case that if someone is ill and can't afford to pay and has no insurance there are no options left for treatment?

Also curious about if you had some sort of serious event going on, like a heart attack, when you get to hospital do they ask to see your insurance details up front, or can that wait until you've been treated?

If you are over 18 or under 65 and not on disability and it is not an emergency you need to have insurance or pay out of pocket. If it is an emergency they treat you and then you need to have insurance or pay out of pocket.

Spiralmonkey: Aren't there any free clinics in the US? Not snarky, just genuinely unaware. I've been there a few times, but never had to use any health care facilities, and even if I did the travel insurance would cover it, so.... no idea.

Would it really be the case that if someone is ill and can't afford to pay and has no insurance there are no options left for treatment?

Also curious about if you had some sort of serious event going on, like a heart attack, when you get to hospital do they ask to see your insurance details up front, or can that wait until you've been treated?

Very few free clinics, and most specialize in a particular service like womens health.

If a person is facing an emergency (like bleeding out), they will be stabilized regardless of ability to pay. They will then be dumped on the street and sued for the bill. Unpaid medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.

The last one is funny, insurance details are Always secured up front - to the point that ambulance medics will perform a "walletectomy" - which is when they go through an unconcious persons wallet to find insurance info.

The US has the best medical care in the world - if you can pay. If you're poor, your options are die, hope for a miracle (then die)... or go to jail.

Spiralmonkey: Makes me very grateful for what I have.

It makes unemployment doubly terrifying. At least wherever you live, if you lose your job, you don't lose your health (if you need healthcare).

PanicAttack: bighasbeen: PanicAttack: bighasbeen: papabusche: I_Fly_Planes: See this is why socialized medicine doesn't work

it's too bad they haven't invented a sarcasm font yet.

Most fonts are too nice looking to get the point across

Sheesh. Everybody knows comic sans is the idiot's font.

WHO U CALLIN IDIOT JERK?

Did you just use the serial killer font to insult me? Oh, it's on now!

Why so serious?

VictorOfBorge:

Eventually, all the marbles will be in the hands of mega-corporations and the top 1%. The middle class will devolve into just one lower class. So sad.

And that's the idea. Endgame for the Republican party is a huge uneducated serf class ruled by unregulated corporate fiefdoms.

rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

I don't get it.

He did the crime for the purpose of going to jail. I say punish him by keeping him out of jail.

oh i get it. you're saying fark him. wow, you're a cold hearted doosh.
I think the old man deserves the Hero tag for pointing out the obvious flaws in our system. You think he should die.

So since he is poor then he shouldn't be punished for breaking the law?

I am going to hold back on the name calling here, and point out it was you that said he shouldn't receive proper punishment.

I said the opposite. Sending him to jail would be rewarding his bad behavior. Sending him home with an ankle bracelet would be a punishment give him incentive to commit more crimes.

rebelyell2006: jshine: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

I don't get it.

He did the crime for the purpose of going to jail. I say punish him by keeping him out of jail.

I don't think OP thought his cunning plan all the way through:

1) give him probation so he's on the street again
2) he goes back with a (probably unloaded) gun and demands $100k.
3) we're back at square-one with even more paperwork & inconvenience for everyone involved

What does that accomplish?

Unless the government goes the cruel and unusual route and imprisons him but doesn't give him health care. It's no different than mugging someone in order to get enough money to buy drugs or cars. You don't punish the person by letting them get access to cars or drugs, you keep them away from drugs or cars so they can reform their bad behavior and responsibly use cars or drugs.

The courts don't really have that kind of flexibility. Because he is only being charged with larceny this time, and has no priors, the judge can probably give him probation (depending upon that state's sentencing laws), but if he responds by doing it again, he's going to be sent away. And no, they won't have the option of denying him medical care while he's in the joint.
Sorry if that strikes you as some horrible injustice, but hey - f**k you if you can't take a joke.

The new American social security/medicare/retirement.

Spiralmonkey: Thank you all for explaining. One more thing I really don't get is that the USA spends a fortune on healthcare in emerging nations, while a situation like this can happen at home. Makes me very grateful for what I have.

It should. The American healthcare "system" is an obscenity, and fixing it ASAP should be the top priority for every voter with even the most modest shred of a conscience.

/quotes indicate that it is not really a coherent system in any sense, but rather a chaotic patchwork of band-aid type fixes that have been applied to one another over the years

Doc Daneeka: Wolfy: This story makes me sad. If I was an American I'd feel guilty.

Why should Americans feel guilty?

I'm an American who supports universal single-payer health care. I don't feel guilty, because if health care reform went the way I'd prefer, we wouldn't have cases like this.

I understand and I mean no disrespect, but were I in your place AND unless I devote my life to reform the medical system, I'd feel guilty about a case like this.

/This is not to say the US is a terrible place full of terrible people. Just in this case... it doesn't not speak well about America.

goober1223: I'm having a hard time understanding you guys. Is he a criminal or a hero?

Both.

I don't know what more sickening... the fact that Americans with no money feel better treated in prison, or the fact that people here use this article to bash socialized medicine.

jso2897: rebelyell2006: jshine: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

I don't get it.

He did the crime for the purpose of going to jail. I say punish him by keeping him out of jail.

I don't think OP thought his cunning plan all the way through:

1) give him probation so he's on the street again
2) he goes back with a (probably unloaded) gun and demands $100k.
3) we're back at square-one with even more paperwork & inconvenience for everyone involved

What does that accomplish?

Unless the government goes the cruel and unusual route and imprisons him but doesn't give him health care. It's no different than mugging someone in order to get enough money to buy drugs or cars. You don't punish the person by letting them get access to cars or drugs, you keep them away from drugs or cars so they can reform their bad behavior and responsibly use cars or drugs.

The courts don't really have that kind of flexibility. Because he is only being charged with larceny this time, and has no priors, the judge can probably give him probation (depending upon that state's sentencing laws), but if he responds by doing it again, he's going to be sent away. And no, they won't have the option of denying him medical care while he's in the joint.
Sorry if that strikes you as some horrible injustice, but hey - f**k you if you can't take a joke.


Anyone suggeting he should get probation is a moron. What happens when someone breaks probation?

elchip: Fark_Guy_Rob: What stopped the guy from buying his own health insurance?

"He is 59-years old and with no job and a depleted bank account."

You'd think 59 years would be plenty to realize people tend to get older and older people tend to have medical issues.

I've considered this. What state is best to go to jail in? I'd think the somewhere in the northeast. What state has the least crowded penal system? Best food/doctors?

fracto73: jso2897: rebelyell2006: jshine: rebelyell2006: papabusche: rebelyell2006: He should be punished with probation, not jail time.

I don't get it.

He did the crime for the purpose of going to jail. I say punish him by keeping him out of jail.

I don't think OP thought his cunning plan all the way through:

1) give him probation so he's on the street again
2) he goes back with a (probably unloaded) gun and demands $100k.
3) we're back at square-one with even more paperwork & inconvenience for everyone involved

What does that accomplish?

Unless the government goes the cruel and unusual route and imprisons him but doesn't give him health care. It's no different than mugging someone in order to get enough money to buy drugs or cars. You don't punish the person by letting them get access to cars or drugs, you keep them away from drugs or cars so they can reform their bad behavior and responsibly use cars or drugs.

The courts don't really have that kind of flexibility. Because he is only being charged with larceny this time, and has no priors, the judge can probably give him probation (depending upon that state's sentencing laws), but if he responds by doing it again, he's going to be sent away. And no, they won't have the option of denying him medical care while he's in the joint.
Sorry if that strikes you as some horrible injustice, but hey - f**k you if you can't take a joke.


Anyone suggeting he should get probation is a moron. What happens when someone breaks probation?

I believe 'public beating' was suggested. Which tells you the brain capacity of the poster...or the fools like me that thought he was serious to begin with.

GDISM-
Get our troops out of everywhere, provide everyone healthcare, and fix the damn roads.

kapaso: How did America become such a retarded country?

By telling the middle-class to fark themselves.

Fark_Guy_Rob: You'd think 59 years would be plenty to realize people tend to get older and older people tend to have medical issues.

I would say that at least 95% of Americans couldn't save for 'a growth in their chest, two ruptured disks, and a problem with their foot' at age 59 without compromising their retirement savings.