Man Sends Self to Jail to Get Medical Care

Wow.

Wow, you know something's wrong when.

It's not as stupid an idea as it looks like. If he can get less than a year jail time and refuses to pay bail or enter probation or any such thing, he gets the surgeries done and doesn't get a permanent felony record. Then he's let out of jail.

If he makes his story well-known enough, his jail time won't jeopardize his future job prospects too much.

I was wondering if somebody would post this here.

Tempted to suggest a flash mob to form, and mass rob a bank of 1$ each just to make a point.

That's terrible! That poor guy had to steal money, to go to jail, just to get healthcare? I feel so damn lucky with my NHS.

So, in America, the social security net must be pretty weak?

edited 21st Jun '11 5:15:01 PM by Inhopelessguy

How about no?

The guy intended to go to jail deliberately to get medical treatment. If a protest gets him out of jail before he gets treated, it's a screw job for the poor dude.

If I were the bank teller, I might have had the gall to give him a buck outta my own pocket and tell him to piss off.

That was my point. He was reduced to planning to go to jail, just to get something that should be a universal right.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:19:20 PM by Inhopelessguy

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

What social security net? You dont have insurance you're pretty much SOL. Medicare doesn't do alot.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:18:27 PM by Thorn14

Savage: Still, the fact that he had to do that to get care, that's... pretty bad.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:20:52 PM by Zersk

Huh. It must suck being poor. So, you have to PAY to get cured? And it's attached to your job? Isn't that stupid? You usually leave a job because of illness. I don't think that was thought through well.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:22:38 PM by Inhopelessguy

I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I'm saying that getting him freed wouldn't be a good idea right now.

The problem is health care costs, they're out of control! As little as I like State intervention in life, the most feasible way to bring them back into manageableness is to set up a network of public health. It might get contracted from existing hospitals at government-set rates.

Those willing to accept them would have a steady supply of patients. Those who weren't willing wouldn't have the patients, I guess.

Most jobs have to give you insurance benefits.

Also the new health care law would make it that everyone has to have insurance, and if a job denies that, then they get into trouble.

Dont know what it means for the unemployed though.

(God would a public option be so hard for this damn country of ours?!)

I think you're confused about what I suggested, the point of the protest I'm suggesting would be to further highlight the issue.

One lone guy just wouldn't have the impact of say 1,000 people lined up at the same bank. Do it 10 or 15 times, maybe more, it'd really start to make a dent.

And whether or not a job offers insurance is...variable.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:27:19 PM by blueharp

A public option would force health care costs down... If you don't lower the prices, you don't get the lucrative contract for a bazillion public option patients.

Combined with nondiscrimination in pricing (that is, a particular procedure costs the same for any client) it'd quickly force costs to plummet.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:27:56 PM by SavageHeathen

Here's something for ya:

Infant mortality in Washington DC is HIGHER than that of Bangladesh.

Your hospitals are worse than in a 3rd world country. Man... that's sucky.

So, yeah, a public healthcare system is better. Anyone against that?

What, seriously? That sounds improbable.

A little googling reveals it's not true. Bangledesh, though it's made some impressive progress at reducing it's infant mortality rate, still has about four times the rate of DC.

In the Great Depression, people committed crimes just so they could get three meals a day.

NOOO! Curse my Citizenship teacher! Now I'm going to have to take back my main argument.

When I asked if anyone was against it, I meant anyone here.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:46:23 PM by Inhopelessguy

Hospitals in the US are great, generally speaking.

Access to them is not.

So it's a toss up between "Die" and "Go to jail"?

Private healthcare, truly all about choice.

Prove it. The major countries in Europe doing it is not a valid proof of statement, it's the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Are there long diatribes and books written about the subject the same way folks like John Locke and Voltaire wrote about things like free speech and freedom of religion? No? Well that's a big problem for your case.

Then you have one big problem in the US: Where in the US Constitution does it allow the government the privilege of running the entire healthcare industry. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say governments can just make up rights out of thin air, they must be added by way of constitutional amendment. (For the record, the "promote the general welfare" clause does not hold argument, otherwise it raises the issue of "where does government power stop?"; which for that means there's effectively no limits, no rules against circumventing anything in the Constitution so long as they used the "promote the general welfare" clause. That's the quick road to tyranny and oppression.)

Go ahead and propose the amendment then.

Good luck getting a 75% approval in the House and a 67% approval in the Senate. Then good luck getting 75% of all State legislatures to ratify it.

It's not politically popular enough to warrant it or pass it. I'm not against amending the constitution, but you must pass the (intentionally) really high bar set by the Framers and it won't pass in the present political climate. Health care is not the civil rights movement of the 1960s, it's not something everyone can agree to on basic principle.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:55:11 PM by MajorTom