Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

No free health care for criminals

Options
  • 17-01-2010 1:49pm
    #1
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭


    Why should criminals who hurt themselves during a crime have access to free or subsidized health care?

    If I was drunk and smashed a car into a wall and destroyed it I would not get any money from my insurance company so why should criminals who hurt themselves during a robbery get free or subsidized health care?


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    Because it would be uncivilized to leave someone who cannot afford healthcare in pain?

    Not really sure what response you're after with this in fairness.


  • Options
    #3
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    Because it would be uncivilized to leave someone who cannot afford healthcare in pain?

    Not really sure what response you're after with this in fairness.
    Why would this be uncivilized?


  • Options
    #4
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Why would this be uncivilized?
    I think a better question is how would it be Civilized.


  • Options
    #5
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Sounds like a right wing radio show phone in topic.

    In the case you are talking about wouldnt the answer be so that the criminal can be brought to justice in a court over a doctor playing judge/god?


  • Options
    #6
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    It comes down to the concept of Innocent, until proven otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Trampas
    Registered Users Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭Trampas


    If you are stuck in A&E and waiting to be seen to and people like what the OP is talking about keep coming in and jumping over you.

    You will say the same.


  • Options
    #8
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    So not only does a person get robbed, to add insult to injury his tax money will be used to treat this criminal?

    When the criminal has been treated and found guilty he should get the bill and if he does not pay it, it should be illegal to give this criminal more tax subsidized health care.


  • Options
    #9
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SLUSK wrote: »
    So not only does a person get robbed, to add insult to injury his tax money will be used to treat this criminal?

    When the criminal has been treated and found guilty he should get the bill and if he does not pay it, it should be illegal to give this criminal more tax subsidized health care.
    Rawr! And prisoners should pay for their own incarceration! But they dont and youll be hard pressed to find a System where that is the case. They get free healthcare to face their accuser, which is protected under their right to due process. Theyre given free healthcare so they will live out their sentence. You want to put a guy in for 30 years and not give him healthcare? He wont make it 10. That would not be the sentence he was given. The victim in this case has every right to expect that the criminal lives out the sentence to pay for his crime. Having them die off from Dysentery is little comfort. Nor is breeding Disease in the best interest of our Prison System Employees.


  • Options
    #10
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Overheal wrote: »
    Rawr! And prisoners should pay for their own incarceration!

    At €2000 a week, they're gonna have to do a helluva lot more robbing and moving gear.

    Anyway, it's that €2000 which is the big worry when compared to health costs. Nevermind the huge costs of going throught the whole court processes.


  • Options
    #11
    CokaColumbo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 478 ✭✭CokaColumbo


    Our justice system is centred on rehabilitation, not vengeance, right?
    Just because somebody has committed a crime, it doesn't mean that they are any less of a person and less in need of the most basic necessities in life.

    The question is a little absurd in my opinion. Say you defrauded a multinational insurance company out of E5,000, were then charged and sentenced to 3 years for the offence; and you also have a severe, chronic illness. Are you telling me that for those 3 years, if you don't have private health insurance, you should be allowed to potentially die because you stole some money?

    We live in a civilised nation so that stuff doesn't happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    dan_d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    Too many grey areas, too hard to administer and you can't have one rule for everyone and a different rule for everyone else.
    Might be worth looking into charging those who fall into A&E on weekends drunk out of their minds though.Prior to leaving said A&E.


  • Options
    #13
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    There is a courts service in place to hand out justice and decide upon the issues of guilt and reparations. It isn't the responsibility of an A&E night nurse. That's why.


  • Options
    #14
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.


  • Options
    #15
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    CokaColumbo wrote: »
    Our justice system is centred on rehabilitation, not vengeance, right?
    Just because somebody has committed a crime, it doesn't mean that they are any less than of a person and less in need of the most basic necessities in life.

    The question is a little absurd in my opinion. Say you defrauded a multinational insurance company out of E5,000, were then charged and sentenced to 3 years for the offence; and you also have a severe, chronic illness. Are you telling me that for those 3 years, if you don't have private health insurance, you should be allowed to potentially die because you stole some money?

    We live in a civilised nation so that stuff doesn't happen.



    if someone robbed and bruttally beat an elderly person living on thier own , they are most certainly less of a person in my eyes


  • Options
    #16
    Breezer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    SLUSK wrote: »
    If I was drunk and smashed a car into a wall and destroyed it I would not get any money from my insurance company so why should criminals who hurt themselves during a robbery get free or subsidized health care?
    Because healthcare and money to replace a car are two very different things. One is a basic human right. The other is a luxury.

    Besides, even if you only look at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, if an accused person was suffering an illness or injury prior to a trial then it is likely that at least some of them could be declared unfit to stand trial. This would waste court time and would cost money.

    Can I ask why this concerns you so much? Is it due to a personal experience? Or do you believe this is the reason the health service is in a mess?


  • Options
    #17
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Breezer wrote: »
    Because healthcare and money to replace a car are two very different things. One is a basic human right. The other is a luxury.

    Besides, even if you only look at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, if an accused person was suffering an illness or injury prior to a trial then it is likely that at least some of them could be declared unfit to stand trial. This would waste court time and would cost money.

    Can I ask why this concerns you so much? Is it due to a personal experience? Or do you believe this is the reason the health service is in a mess?
    I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice and common sense.


  • Options
    #18
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    SLUSK wrote: »
    It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

    Is that you Paul McWilliams?:p

    I don't think it would be part of a doctor or nurse's professional ethics to refuse to threat an injuried person who enters A & E (well, so long as they are not acting anti social)

    As you know, if anyone has the power, it would be government. It's interesting, though, to note, three years ago or so, one of the Sunday papers, I am not sure which, ran a story / investigation into politicans, including the Taoiseach at the time, Bertie Ahern, who canvassed to prison governors on behalf of families of prisoners from their patch or provided character references for the courts. Double standads?


  • Options
    #19
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice and common sense.

    You will be delighted then to see Fine Gael in power then I take it.


  • Options
    #20
    Breezer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice and common sense.
    So do I. I fail to see any justice or common sense in denying people, any people, healthcare. I see the opposite. While I respect your right to your opinion, I think you'll find more people agree with mine.
    walrusgrumble wrote:
    I don't think it would be part of a doctor or nurse's professional ethics to refuse to threat an injuried person who enters A & E (well, so long as they are not acting anti social)
    It wouldn't. They could, and should, be struck off.
    walrusgrumble wrote:
    You will be delighted then to see Fine Gael in power then I take it.
    Please explain this comment.


  • Options
    #21
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    SLUSK wrote: »
    It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

    http://www.capitolnps.com/images/img-head-desk.jpg


    Lawd....
    It's already been explained numerous times on this thread; because criminals are entitled to a minimal degree of care (food, water, healthcare, shelter). Like it or not, we're a civilised nation and we can't deny things as basic as healthcare to anyone, short of letting the State decide who can/can't live within it's care.

    Bonus points for resorting to mud slinging "ROW ROW LEFTISTS ROW ROW"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    CokaColumbo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 478 ✭✭CokaColumbo


    irish_bob wrote: »
    if someone robbed and bruttally beat an elderly person living on thier own , they are most certainly less of a person in my eyes

    Just because a small number of individuals happen to be devoid of human decency, that doesn't give us a right to act the same way.
    What separates us from the dregs of society is that when wronged, we are able to maintain our humanity.

    One wrong-doing in exchange for another never did anybody any favours.


  • Options
    #23
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    CokaColumbo wrote: »
    Just because a small number of individuals happen to be devoid of human decency, that doesn't give us a right to act the same way.
    What separates us from the dregs of society is that when wronged, we are able to maintain our humanity.

    One wrong-doing in exchange for another never did anybody any favours.

    not what i said , i said someone who commits an act like brutally beating and then robbing an elderly person living on their own is indeed less of a person than those who dont where as you stated they were no less a person


  • Options
    #24
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Breezer wrote: »
    So do I. I fail to see any justice or common sense in denying people, any people, healthcare. I see the opposite. While I respect your right to your opinion, I think you'll find more people agree with mine.

    It wouldn't. They could, and should, be struck off.

    Please explain this comment.

    The Fine Gael comment, is simply tongue in check and not intended to insult, more childish really (and resentment towards the posters comment of being leftist - nothing wrong with that btw). Traditionaly or historically, Fine Gael was seen to be the party of the Big farmer and Law n Order - that seemed or preceived to be two (of many) of fg voters main concern prior to Just & Social &Fitzgerald era (not that there is anything wrong with that of course)


  • Options
    #25
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice...
    Apart from that stupid new-fangled innocent-until-proven-guilty nonsense.


  • Options
    #26
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Apart from that stupid new-fangled innocent-until-proven-guilty nonsense.
    After conviction you can slap the criminal with the hospital bill.


  • Options
    #27
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    After conviction you can slap the criminal with the hospital bill.
    Why not just break their legs? Hell, just shoot the bastards and have done with it.


  • Options
    #28
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why not just break their legs? Hell, just shoot the bastards and have done with it.
    As I said before, if you crash you car while drunk you get 0 cents from your insurance company. That means you have to pay for the repairs yourself.

    If you get hurt while robbing someone you should have to pay for the repairs of your body yourself. It does not seem unreasonable for me.


  • Options
    #29
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    SLUSK wrote: »
    As I said before, if you crash you car while drunk you get 0 cents from your insurance company. That means you have to pay for the repairs yourself.

    If you get hurt while robbing someone you should have to pay for the repairs of your body yourself. It does not seem unreasonable for me.

    If you crashed *your* car while you were drunk and needed to be hospitalised should the ambulance people just smell your breath and say alco f' him and drive away?

    Or what about a person who crossed an empty street while the red man showed and later that day got a heart attack? do we leave jaywalkers die too?

    Should Brian Lenihan be denied treatment because he drank in the Dáil bar back before it had a license and so was breaking the law?

    what if you rushed a labouring woman to a maternity hospital, parked on the kerb and brought her in? should her care be denied for colluding with parking on a footpath?

    where do you want to draw the line?

    Why stop at healthcare?
    why not cut off someone's water supply if they ever broke a law?
    don't educate them or their children,
    change the law to prevent them using the public roads,


  • Options
    #30
    Breezer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    The Fine Gael comment, is simply tongue in check and not intended to insult, more childish really (and resentment towards the posters comment of being leftist - nothing wrong with that btw). Traditionaly or historically, Fine Gael was seen to be the party of the Big farmer and Law n Order - that seemed or preceived to be two (of many) of fg voters main concern prior to Just & Social &Fitzgerald era (not that there is anything wrong with that of course)
    Fair enough if it was tongue in cheek :)

    It's just that while FG does believe in Law and Order (although not the 'stone the blasphemer' type), it also proposes universal healthcare. Last I'll say about the party because I don't want to derail the thread.
    SLUSK wrote:
    As I said before, if you crash you car while drunk you get 0 cents from your insurance company. That means you have to pay for the repairs yourself.

    If you get hurt while robbing someone you should have to pay for the repairs of your body yourself. It does not seem unreasonable for me.
    You have just equated the human body to a piece of metal. I'm actually lost for words; I don't know how to argue with that kind of reasoning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    Wouldnt such a "justice" be more like a fluke or an accident?

    If criminal A robs a house and gets caught unscathed, and criminal B robs a house and gets caught, but gets a life thretening injury during the robbery - how is it justice that one person dies from their injuries while the other, who committed the same crime, gets off with a light prison sentence?

    Thats not justice, thats an injustice.

    Common sense.

    To me, justice implies being able to control an outcome even handedly rather than relying on treatable injuries which occur during an accident determining the "justice".


Advertisement