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

should they be left to their fate? Serious question I have seen people who oppose "socialized medicine" that it should only be for those who can afford it. I assure I am not looking to bate or incite flame wars. So what is your opinion?

Originally posted by Cassius666
should they be left to their fate?

No. I pay taxes on this planet and dont worry if they go to help another for when I was a child my mother needed medical assistance form taxpayers back then so its a cycle of help somewhat now I pay for others to help them out. I cannot see the issue?

reply to post by Cassius666

As victims of crime, I would hope that their expenses would be covered without them needing to dig into their own pockets. However, I don't know what the laws are in CO in reference to medical/other costs in victims-of-crime cases.

At the very least, they ought to receive whatever care they need without being asked to show they're insured up front.

After all, Holmes is being provided with legal representation at no cost to himself. (The judge said so in his first hearing.) Wouldn't it be fair, then, that victims should also receive what they need at no cost to themselves?

Just my opinion; others may differ and if they do, that's fine by me.

Mike

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.

I think in times like this, victims should not be accounted for their accounts. It's just wrong. Just like myself when my dog and I were brutalized by a pit bull. He should not have to pay the medical bill and neither should I. Yes, I took the cast off myself and that arm is fine, but when trying to move my arm today, It was a royal pain in the you know what. I can move it now, after swinging it around multiple times, but it hurt like a SOB. Why should we be responsible for someone else's doing?

I have no issue with my taxes going towards this. Anyone who would is unreasonable. Id prefer as much as possible come from charity first though.

It's a sad state of affairs we live in when we can even ask these sorts of questions.

What's more important:

Life or Money?


Of course life is, but it is only as valuable as the size of your bank account. What a sick world we live in!

Listen to the end of this video according to the tea party members in the audience they say let them die.

Good grief. In what sort of third-world country would this even be a topic for discussion?

Originally posted by fiflad
Good grief. In what sort of third-world country would this even be a topic for discussion?

In a country that when it comes to life expectancy, lags countries like Cuba and Costa Rica and Macau?

reply to post by buster2010


Your post with that exact debate is just
what I thought of when I read the Thread title.
Well done Buster.
"let em die!"
Lovely.

And for those who don't know,
There are many of the wounded from this tragedy
who work but don't have health care and could end up bankrupt.

Originally posted by Cassius666
should they be left to their fate? Serious question I have seen people who oppose "socialized medicine" that it should only be for those who can afford it. I assure I am not looking to bate or incite flame wars. So what is your opinion?

edit on 27-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

According to most Republicans...they first responders should have checked them for an insurance card before treating them...if they didn't have insurance...they should have moved on to paying customers.

reply to post by Cassius666


I believe we should have have an option for free health care available to every citizen. That goes for the theater victims, multi-billionaires, blue collard workers, unemployed, poor, elderly, etc.

If you want it, it's there regardless of who you are.

I think we pay enough taxes for it to be an option. We just need to quit the frivolous government spending, reduce the insane military budget, curb a bit of foreign aid, and create a fair tax system.

I cant believe that in this day and age that people in the so called land of the free should have to pay for their own medical treatment when they are gunned down by a gun wielding maniac.
This disgusts me
I think a new tax called " THE INNOCENT VICTIMS TAX" should be added to the purchase of all guns sales in the USA, taxes of which will go to pay for the future medical treatment for any innocent person that has been shot in any type of gun related crime.
Once again, it disgusts me that some of you American think that these innocent victims should have to pay for their medical treatment with their own money for being victims in these cowardly acts.

Wake up America.

GIve me a contact point to send donations to and I know that myself and many of my family/friends would be more than happy to donate to help pay for the victims hospital bills.

Charity is not dead... it may be on life support, but it's still around.

After all, it's the least that those of us who are fortunate to be healthy and financially secure can do.

Originally posted by Dreine
GIve me a contact point to send donations to and I know that myself and many of my family/friends would be more than happy to donate to help pay for the victims hospital bills.

Charity is not dead... it may be on life support, but it's still around.

After all, it's the least that those of us who are fortunate to be healthy and financially secure can do.

As some of you may already know, a very dear and close friend of mine, Joshua Nowlan, was at the Dark Knight Premier in Aurora, CO on July 20th. He was shot twice, once in his right arm and once in his left calf. He saved the lives of the newlywed couple he went to the movie with by throwing them down under the seats and lying on top of them. He is a true Hero! While we mourn the 12 people who tragically lost their lives, we also want to support those who survived. Josh has a very long road to recovery in front of him, going through 3 - 4 major surgeries to reconstruct his muscles both in his leg and arm. He is a father of 2 wonderful boys, 7 and 9 and is a Navy veteran who was deployed to Iraq twice. Any contribution you can make to help with the burden of the medical bills will make a HUGE difference. Thank you from the bottom of my heart!

www.giveforward.com...

- If this link is against T&C please remove, I just wanted those members of ATS to know how to help with my friends medical expenses as he is un-insurred. And the above poster wanted a link.

Thanks,

God Bless,

Thank you for the link...

I wish him and his family all the best and a speedy and full recovery!



D

Caleb Medley is another victim who was there with his wife. She had their baby yesterday morning... He's in a medically-induced coma, having many injuries, including losing one of his eyes. He had a new job, but his insurance hadn't kicked in yet, so he's without insurance.

To answer the OP, I agree with Ashley. Every person should have easy access to quality health care. regardless of their station.

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)

They knew what risk they were taking, being uninsured in a theater that banned guns.

Now the real question is this: Since demand for trauma services has risen sharply in colorado, should doctors raise prices?

Originally posted by narwahl

They knew what risk they were taking, being uninsured in a theater that banned guns.

And the owner should now know the risks of disarming his customers, and he should help pay the expenses. Now the owner has to live with the fact that he allowed his customers get gunned down by an individual that ignored the owners rules.