Criminally Responsible

[Morcheeba]

Well... we will call this one woosh.

First off lets make a distinction between insurance and Socialized healthcare.

Insurance everyone puts money into the company according to their medical history and risk assessment. Then everyone who paid into it gets what they need. In this way assuming that nothing unexpected happened higher risk people pay more and get more and are protected and the lower risk people pay less and get less yet are still protected.

Socialized healthcare everyone puts their money into the government based on how much money they make. Then everyone no matter how much they put into the pot get what they need no matter their risk or if they put any money in at all.

Now what you are describing takes place in both situations... you break your leg and the money that you have already paid to the government with socialized health care or the insurance provider for insurance and either way your leg gets fixed because you have paid for it basically in advance. Also because you are younger and most likely have less risk you probably have paid for your broken leg several times assuming you have a decent job because you have to cover other people who suck at making money or bodies are fucked.

Now in the case of the retard who has officially become a ward of the state he will no longer pay taxes. This means that he will be getting everything he needs FROM THE STATE. When it comes from the state the tax payers pay for it whether or not he is a tax payer or not.

If you are not paying taxes and you are getting benefits other people are covering you costs and your argument makes no sense at all. When you say lock him up and never let him out you are asking to pay for his incarceration and treatment for the rest of his life and no matter how you wish to sugarcoat it you are the one paying for it.

Thank You!!

 

[bigbroon]

Well... we will call this one woosh.

First off lets make a distinction between insurance and Socialized healthcare.

Insurance everyone puts money into the company according to their medical history and risk assessment. Then everyone who paid into it gets what they need. In this way assuming that nothing unexpected happened higher risk people pay more and get more and are protected and the lower risk people pay less and get less yet are still protected.

Socialized healthcare everyone puts their money into the government based on how much money they make. Then everyone no matter how much they put into the pot get what they need no matter their risk or if they put any money in at all.

Now what you are describing takes place in both situations... you break your leg and the money that you have already paid to the government with socialized health care or the insurance provider for insurance and either way your leg gets fixed because you have paid for it basically in advance. Also because you are younger and most likely have less risk you probably have paid for your broken leg several times assuming you have a decent job because you have to cover other people who suck at making money or bodies are fucked.

Now in the case of the retard who has officially become a ward of the state he will no longer pay taxes. This means that he will be getting everything he needs FROM THE STATE. When it comes from the state the tax payers pay for it whether or not he is a tax payer or not.

If you are not paying taxes and you are getting benefits other people are covering you costs and your argument makes no sense at all. When you say lock him up and never let him out you are asking to pay for his incarceration and treatment for the rest of his life and no matter how you wish to sugarcoat it you are the one paying for it.

My argument isn't whether or not people's money will be paying for his survival, because it will. I never said it wouldn't, I said that for me, because I don't pay for my healthcare (in the same way as people in the USA pay for their healthcare), I don't feel the same way at all about the whole "paying money to keep burdens alive." I feel that you have misunderstood where I'm coming from here, even though you do see what I think should happen.

I do believe he should be imprisoned for the rest of his life. He won't be imprisoned in Scotland with me, he'll probably be sent back where he came from or whatever. So in this case, he won't be in my country where I don't pay for healthcare etc, he'll be in a country where they do have to pay for these things. I said it as a side-point, I don't believe this man should be executed to save people money. I strongly believe that it would be totally wrong to send someone to death because he doesn't deserve to be kept alive by tax-payers. Apart from the fact it costs a shit-ton of money to execute someone aswell, he has already not been deemed responsible for his actions; if he's not responsible for his actions, he's not responsible for his words either - including "kill me".

I understand the feelings of people who think he should be executed, and their reasons for it. I understand that, not only do they not believe that he has a right to live any more, and not only should people not have to pay to keep him alive, but he actually wants to die. I don't agree with it, though. Keep him alive, keep him imprisoned, and maybe in keeping him alive, enough research and progress can be made to stop the next psycho-atrocity from happening... or we could just execute him too.

 

[Mirewen]

I think the viewpoints here aren't necessarily lumped into whether the man should be executed, but also whether or not he was actually insane.

If he is truely insane, he should be expedited and and looked after at his own countries expense. If he wasn't insane then, he should be executed or (again) expedited to serve out a life sentence.

 

[bigbroon]

I think the viewpoints here aren't necessarily lumped into whether the man should be executed, but also whether or not he was actually insane.

If he is truely insane, he should be expedited and and looked after at his own countries expense. If he wasn't insane then, he should be executed or (again) expedited to serve out a life sentence.

I know what you mean. He was examined by psychiatrists and they supposedly gave evidence saying that he was insane. I don't know whether or not he is, the only person who really knows is the man himself. What should be done to him if he is or isn't is a contentious point, however .

I guess you then have to go down the road of whether or not you think laws are correct if you're going to argue about whether or not he should be executed or not. For example, if the law in China states that he should be executed, I wouldn't have too much to say about that, because it's their law (other than the fact I may or may not disagree with the death penalty, but that is an entirely different argument for a different thread.) If this man were found to be sane, and sent back to China and executed, or executed in the USA for that matter, I would have no problem with that. The only problem I would have is if he were executed because he said he wanted to be killed, which again is getting into a whole new debate (euthanasia) :wacko:

I'm taking a leave of abscence from this thread, it's been highly enjoyable discussin this matter with you all :nyam: