It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If the Colorado Victims can not afford health care and medical intervention

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:42 PM
People talk about "free" health care without any regard for cost. People talk about "health care' as if it is an after the fact phenomenon. No one in this thread has yet, as part of their advocacy of "free" "health care" made the argument that fresh fruits and vegetables and clean drinking water should be "free". Of course, this thread is in regards to victims of a tragic crime, and "health care" in this regard would be trauma due to violence. While the O.P. claims to not be baiting anyone, plenty too the bait the O.P. claims to have not put on any hook, line and sinker. There are plenty of facts that are being ignored in order to have this baited hook, line and sinker in play.

Consider this:

Hospitals are required by federal law to stabilize patients during emergencies without regard to their ability to pay.

The problem is not the treatment of the victims immediate trauma wounds, that by federal law is covered and if you read the article I just linked you will see that three of the five hospitals that have treated the victims are offering to either limit the medical bills or wipe them out completely. The concern is:

"The issue most probably facing the hospitals and patients in a situation like Aurora is what comes after 'stabilization,'" said Dr. Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and a frequent critic of excessive medical costs. "Many of these people I assume will need prolonged and expensive rehabilitation after their immediate injuries are dealt with, and that seems precisely what hospitals today are less and less willing to cover out of their own funds, and no law requires that they do so, as far as I am aware," he said.

But, as that article I linked ends:

"We have individuals who will need a lifetime of care, or a lifetime of accommodation, and our job is to make sure those needs are met," said Karla Maraccini, deputy director for community partnerships in the office of Gov. John Hickenlooper.

In one article it appears as if the genuine concern for the victims medical treatment now, and for the remainder of time necessary afterward is being addressed and whatever histrionic reports out there declaring these victims will not get medical attention is just that, histrionics and probably willful histrionics intended to get knees to jerk and hearts to bleed so that the facts get drowned out by all the knee jerking and emotional outbursts of bleeding hearts.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by Skewed

Any rule always describes an ought, not an is. Thats why they always have a "And if you don't do it, you pay x dollars, and or spend y days in jail" part.
Why should the owner feel responsible for it that this guy ignored his rules?
actually I am fairly certain there are rules against gunning down people.

Also more guns would just have added to the carnage. It's a simple supply side argument: more guns around -> more services being offered to getting shot at, demand be damned.

Ok: slowly: guy starts firing at folks. you fire back. I sit there with my gun. Are you the killer, or are you the guy killing the killer? I have no way of knowing. It's a dark and crowded theater. Maybe I haven't seen the killer yet. I shoot at you.
3rd guy with a gun sees me shooting a person. Oh! got him, lets shoot him etc, etc etc.... not counting the colateral damage.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by narwahl

If you say so.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by Skewed

Ever heard the expresion "friendly fire"?
It happens to well trained military units.

You are saying that that would never happen to a bunch of strangers who have no way of coordinating, in a place where I am not supposed to yell "fire"?

If you say so...

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Skewed
I think the theater owner should be at least partially responsible.
After all, the owner did opt to ban weapons on the premises.

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to have firearms to defend ourselves. The owner has the right to not allow weapons on his premises. Now, if the owner is going to take away his customers right to defend themselves then the theater must take the responsibility to protect the customers. Even if that means hiring a private security firm to come watch over the patrons.

Now before anyone flames me, NO, I do not think what happened was the theaters fault. But, I do think it is the theaters fault that the customers could not defend themselves.

If a customer is injured on the establishments property, lets say there was water on the floor and a customer falls and breaks a leg, the owner is responsible. No difference here.
edit on 27-7-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

I see your point, but that's the silliest argument i have heard.

So, if an armed citizens happened to be present, and DID kill the suspect AFTER he had already shot and killed X number of people, the theater should still be responsible. I could understand if the theaters were supposed to have metal detectors or something, but the fact that an armed citizen can't always prevent all crime, thereby making the establishment responsible, it's silly. Weren't there armed people at the Loughner shooting (who actually DIDN'T use their weapons), so what did it matter?

The water example is a terrible analogy. Water has neither free will nor consciousness, and the fact that banning weapons had NOTHING to do with the shooter or his intentions or actions or subsequent results..


Someone can walk in most places, if one desired, and commit violence or shoot someone, regardless if a weapons policy is in place or not, so why should the establishment be responsible unless they set up ridiculous measures to ensure ALL threats are minimized?

edit on 27-7-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by narwahl

Using solely your example.

From the criminals perspective, what would his/her reaction be when people stood up and pointed their weapon at the criminal. Now he is outnumbered and is in the sights of multiple guns. The table just got turned.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by Liquesence

So are you saying the rights of a business owner outweighs the rights of the customers? The Constitution allows for us to protect ourselves, this owner took away their right and did not provide adequate security to protect them. I know it is hindsight but the owner crippled the customers ability to defend themselves.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by Skewed

He didn't stand there, drawing high noon fashion. He was already firing.
In a firefight, shooting first is an advantage.
You aren't prepared for a firefight. He is.
How do you seperate the "bad guy" from the "good guys"?

I heard that in the confusion of the event some folks thought the killer had returned, even though he was already in custody. What do you do? fire at anybody who has a gun?

Gifford Shooting: broad daylight, armed folks around, stopped when he had to reload
Aurora Shooting: No guns around, dark and crowded theater, stopped when the magazine jammed.

Edit to add:
These were suprise attacks.
Suprise attacks are highly effective.
It's actually a tactic designed to circumvent the fact that your target can fire back.
edit on 27-7-2012 by narwahl because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Liquesence

So are you saying the rights of a business owner outweighs the rights of the customers? The Constitution allows for us to protect ourselves, this owner took away their right and did not provide adequate security to protect them. I know it is hindsight but the owner crippled the customers ability to defend themselves.

Rights do not "outweigh" each other and the Constitution does not "grant" any rights. Just as the theater owner had the absolute right to deny people entrance into his private business while bearing arms, those who have the right to keep and bear arms had the right to decline to do business with that theater owner. Not a single patron of that theater the night in question were forced to go to that theater by the theater owner.

It bears repeating: The Constitution for the United States of America with that Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. The language is clear and undeniable, the Bill of Rights is an express prohibition on government in regards to rights and the Ninth Amendment makes perfectly clear no rights had been granted by The Bill of Rights.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:24 PM
May I ask what in the holy hell is wrong with "you People"

Health care is a business in America and there are executives/administrators and shareholders in the medical industry and pharmacutecual industry that need to be paid. Afterall they put their hard earned money into stocks and deserve a good return.

What difference does it make if a person was injured in a shootemup or a car crash. If you can't afford a good insurance policy or are out of work...that's your fault. You better just stay healthy and avoid accidents. Socialized medicine is a giant step toward communism and government tyranny. Lock and Load. It's "people like you" the damn nanny staters that will bring this great Republic down with your crybaby whining.

Sound Familiar?

Sarcasm of course. But it's rightwing conservative thinking ala Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Levin, Sean, OReilley, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Alan Keyes, M. Medved, D Prager, P Schlafly, Dennis Miller, GG Liddy and Lary Elder.
edit on 27-7-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by olaru12

Also, do these doctors know nothing about the free market? Offering to *lower* their prices when they are in high demand???

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by olaru12

Lol I'm a conservative and you post still made me cringe until I saw it was sarcastic.

I mean I can certainly understand wanting to earn you fair share for you hard work and extensive education. But you lose my support when you want five bajillion dollars to perform an operation. Lol

Ya it's also frivolous lawsuits and the government and unscrupulous insurance companies too but this stuff is ridiculous.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:50 PM
So it needs a major event like the CO shooting to make some people aware how screwed up the health system in the US is?

And now everyone is screaming there should be some help for those particular people....while otherwise the idea of a more "European" health care system (aka: Tax ----> Healthcare) is rejected because "it's socialism"?

I know it sounds harsh, but from that point of view those shooting victims had luck in an otherwise horrible situation - but what happens with the 100.000s of other people who have some health problems and cant pay for it? Oh wait...they were not lucky enough to be featured on the news....

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:50 PM
Healthcare for Profit is a crime against Humanity.

Take the Profit out of Health Care, and it is surprisingly affordable.

Never happen though, too many brainwashed idjits see Commies under bushes.

Just like the Lobbyist want you to see.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Sarcastic or not....that's the way conservatives think! Business and profit before the welfare of the citizens that pay the taxes.

Inexcusable and shameful in a country that likes to shout...were # 1. Well not in infant mortality anyway. Now even Cuba beats the USA.

I guess only rich babies have the right to live.

edit on 27-7-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:58 PM
Im sure the theater owner has insurance. The insurance company covering the theater should pay for the victims expenses. On top of that these people will have donations flowing in from all over the place.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
Loved how the thread turned in to a left right argument so lets run with that:

The largest single provider for healthcare is the US federal Goverment over 120 million people on Medicare and Medicaid that costs over 2.5 trillion dollars per year to fund with no way to pay for it, then added 30 millionmore new people on to that role.

That is the liberal way want,want,want is all they do, without the cash to fund all that grand ideology we end up with a nation that is 16 trillion dollars in debt with no way to pay for it.

As to the topic the theatre is liable they should foot the costs, and i really do love people think there is such a thing as "free healthcare" any kind of insurance works by those who are not using it pay for those who are.

edit on 27-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in