AlwaysArousedGirl has another reminder that what does not kill us does not always make us stronger.
Were they mixed up with drugs and gangs as was originally suggested by the newspaper? Only in the most tangential sense; the shooter had been sent to their apartment complex to settle a drug debt but had mixed his instructions. He was told to find the third building from the road. Instead he ended up at its neighbor. His boss, you see, had not included the pool house in his count. The shooter had.
As you can no doubt imagine, my friends’ medial bills ran well into six figures. “They must have had horrible insurance,” you’re probably thinking, and that’s one of the great ironies of this tale. From years before the attack until this very day they have both been employed by a very large, nationwide company which has a reputation for treating their employees well. They have the same insurance now that they had then. And all these years later and despite numerous fund-raising events and private donations, they still owe tens of thousands of dollars that they’ll be paying down for years to come.
...
No matter where you stand on health care reform or any other issue, please let your congress members know how you feel:
I’ll repeat what I said not that long ago...
If I was a legislator promoting the healthcare initiative currently being debated in Congress I think I’d be inclined to determine whether it’s really true that there’s really currently no Federal provisions for healthcare for the victims of violent crime then I’d attach an authorizing rider to the bill. Then I’d accuse anyone unwilling to support the healthcare-reform bill soft on crime and indifferent to the plight of crime victims.
Awesome post, AAG.
Submitted by 3191 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-09-08 09:00.
There is a federal office for crime victims and a federal crime victim compensation program. One of my friends has help from this fund for the rest of her life. The problem is that the word isn't out and people don't know or aren't advised to apply. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/vocacvf/welcome.html
[Thanks for the link, Justme. I still think the issue should be raised in the healthcare debate. That current care for victims of violent crime isn't adequate is... disappointing. --fl]
Submitted by 3191 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-09-08 09:10.
Of course, these funds even combined with social security and medicare/medicaid or insurance are not adequate. People often lose the ability to work and bills still exceed the compensation. I want to know if conservatives wish to eliminate medicare and medicaid and chip, and if they even care what would happen.
Submitted by 3191 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-09 10:18.
A victim should sue the criminal for the financial loss incurred directly, if it was e.g. a robbery, or indirectly, through the loss of health, if it was a violent crime. I think that any plan to place a settlement burden on the taxpayers' shoulders instead of making it the criminals' duty, thus exempting criminals from the due punishment, better qualifies for being soft on crime.
[Since annual income for the average street criminal of the sort who shot up AAG's friends because he *couldn't figure out the right address* is about $17,000/year when they're *not* in jail, and since Jim David Adkisson, who shot up my family church last year had a total net worth of about eleven cents *and* will be spending the rest of his life in prison, and while the $250,000 the late George Sodini left behind in his IRA sounds like a lot, when divided by the short- and long-term healthcare needs of nine surviving gunshot victims, it's not gonna go very far. So while I applaud the idea of redress from perpetrators I'm not exactly sure how your restitution-based healthcare plan would remain solvent. And then there are victims of crimes where the perpetrator is unknown. Point being that just saying the entire care package for victims ought to be "make perpetrators pay for it" is just so much handwaving, and therefore it's not being serious about crime victims, and thus not serious about crime. --fl]
Submitted by 3191 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-09 12:15.
So, I assume it's just a matter of convenience to substitute the broke perpetrator with an innocent bystander because the bystander happens to be richer? I don't mind the idea, you can propose to charge Bill Gates for money loss in any crime done all over tho world, just because he can pay, and let all unconvenient criminals go free. I just can't see why the opposite views are labelled "soft on crime"?
[Not sure what the point is here. We charge Bill Gates for police protection, roads, sewers, public education, poultry inspection, Medicare, research into the military application of Frisbees, and Rep. John Boehner's tanning booth. Just like we charge me or you and everyone else who can afford more than baseline subsistance. I can completely see how you can say Bill Gates, nor you, nor I should never be charged for *any* of that. But barring an absolute repeal of all taxation and public expenditure of funds it's totally random to say he, and we, should pay for one thing but not another. (Especially when large economies of scale could be realized.) But at the end of the day, yeah, I think society should pool its resources to support the healthcare needs of victims of violent crimes, and anyone else who needs it. --fl]
Submitted by 3191 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-09 13:17.
I see no problem with pooling resources, the voluntary Health Insurance for those who want to be protected is just the very idea of pooling them.
For those who by any unlucky off-chance got cought without the said HI a way out through some other, bigger, resource pool might also exist, I have no qualms about it.
I disagree with a notion that the very unwillingness to take any part of the due punishment off a criminal just for convenience sake might be called "soft on crime". Personally I figure it just the opposite - trying to be generous towards the victims, you propose the collateral goodwill towards the criminals, who will be exempt from the due punishment on the thin pretext of their insolvency. In my book that's what is called "soft on crime".