• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Who should pay the medical bills of the Movie Theater victims?

nanette1985

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2005
4,209
1
0
Some of them have insurance - there'll probably be a lot of donations etc for the ones without insurance - but that's not fair to the victims who have insurance Insurance doesn't pay everything.

Feel bad for all of them, but it's a tough situation all around.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,105
400
136
thought I had heard that the hospital was cover all of them
 

MrMuppet

Senior member
Jun 26, 2012
474
0
0
The perpetrator obviously should pay all damages (within reason), if found guilty in a court of law. Now, who should pay for the court of law and the trial? Hmm. :biggrin:
 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
3
76
The perpetrator obviously should pay all damages (within reason), if found guilty in a court of law. Now, who should pay for the court of law and the trial? Hmm. :biggrin:
What does this even mean? He either pays it or he doesn't. "Within reason?" Five dozen people injured. That's millions of dollars. He should pay all of it? There is no "within reason" here. A person probably earns 1-2 million in their life. So would within reason mean he pays like $100k? He doesn't have that. Sorry to go grammar police on you but you can't just throw out cliches and sayings just because you heard it somewhere. In this case, it doesn't make any sense.
 

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,829
183
106
The movie studios because they make da violence moves.

Flame on!
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
6
81
The perpetrator should be killed and his organs should be auctioned off to the highest bidders who need transplants. That money should go toward the medical bills of victims.
 

SlitheryDee

Lifer
Feb 2, 2005
17,252
18
81
Honestly? The victims should pay for their own medical care. I know this isn't a popular attitude, but still.
 

Lifted

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2004
5,752
2
0
What does this even mean? He either pays it or he doesn't. "Within reason?" Five dozen people injured. That's millions of dollars. He should pay all of it? There is no "within reason" here. A person probably earns 1-2 million in their life. So would within reason mean he pays like $100k? He doesn't have that. Sorry to go grammar police on you but you can't just throw out cliches and sayings just because you heard it somewhere. In this case, it doesn't make any sense.
If you'd stop second guessing the meaning of his post, and simply took it with a grain of salt, you'd probably go easy on him as he's just pulling the OP's leg.
 

MrMuppet

Senior member
Jun 26, 2012
474
0
0
What does this even mean? He either pays it or he doesn't. "Within reason?" Five dozen people injured. That's millions of dollars. He should pay all of it? There is no "within reason" here. A person probably earns 1-2 million in their life. So would within reason mean he pays like $100k? He doesn't have that. Sorry to go grammar police on you but you can't just throw out cliches and sayings just because you heard it somewhere. In this case, it doesn't make any sense.
As long as they're within reason, he should pay them all (e.g. not half). While I do see your point, I believe the statement (and its conditions) can be reconciled (grammatically/logically).

Within reason could mean a lot of things. (Unreasonably high direct costs of (perhaps experimental) treatment (including long-term), or unreasonably high indirect damages (let's say he murdered a top scientist on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer or whatever). You get the picture. It's just a way of hedging against the unforeseen.)


If you'd stop second guessing the meaning of his post, and simply took it with a grain of salt, you'd probably go easy on him as he's just pulling the OP's leg.
Correct, however since I'm not a native speaker, I do have to take constructive linguistic criticism into consideration. (I guess native speakers should too, but you get the point.) :)
 
Last edited:

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
306
126
The OP's question is a great example of how screwed up this country has become.

You should pay for it. Through your insurance, or out of your pocket. Feel free to sue the perpetrator if you like trying to squeeze water out of a rock. I'm sure some ambulance chasing lawyers are already filing wrongful death suits against the theater. I hope the judge throws them all out and they lose all their money doing so.

Christ, the entitlement mentality in this country is out of control.
 

arrfep

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2006
2,312
3
71
The OP's question is a great example of how screwed up this country has become.

You should pay for it. Through your insurance, or out of your pocket. Feel free to sue the perpetrator if you like trying to squeeze water out of a rock. I'm sure some ambulance chasing lawyers are already filing wrongful death suits against the theater. I hope the judge throws them all out and they lolse all their money doing so.

Christ, the entitlement mentality in this country is out of control.
I don't think this is entitlement talking. It's a reasonable question. If you were crossing the street and a driver hit you and broke your leg, would you not expect him to pay? If he couldn't pay personally, then wouldn't you expect his insurance to pay?

Situation's the same here, just that the means of assault is changed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY