• 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?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
That wasn't the question. You claim individual insurance is unaffordable to most. A quick glance online tells me individual insurance ranges from $250-450 a month. You're trying to say that's unaffordable?
From a more detailed search the cheapest I found was $362 a month BUT, that's with a $25,000 out of pocket max for a family of three, and a $20,000 deductible, and a 30% co-insurance. Mind you this is the minimum, and it is only a quote, which is going to be jacked up to hell if there is an type of pre-existing condition, or bad medical history.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Do you happen to be a supporter of Obamacare?

The premise of that wonderful piece of American legislation is that those who are able to afford it yet do not take personal responsibility for their health by buying health insurance are to be penalized by a federal tax.

Most people will acknowledge that the world is a violent place. American courts have ruled that the purpose of police is to enforce law, not to protect citizens.

We note that not a single person in that theater was armed to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Is it more or less irresponsible to not be willing to protect your loved ones or even yourself from violent attack?

As the federal government is penalizing by tax someone's disinterest or simple unwillingness to purchase health insurance, should a similar tax be imposed on those who can afford to, but have chosen not to take sufficient precautions to protect themselves and their loved ones from common, much less uncommon, violent crime?

You may certainly opt to not carry a weapon, and you are not legally obligated to take any specific action no matter what the circumstances. But, if you are not prepared to take action to protect yourself and your loved ones, should you pay a tax as a means for society to recoup the specific costs of law enforcement and emergency services that are forced to do that in your stead?

If a private citizen saves your bacon, perhaps such a special tax can be shared with him or her?

We have hundreds of thousands of documented cases where private armed citizens stop crime, violent and not so violent. They have bought "insurance," is it fair that you do not?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Do you happen to be a supporter of Obamacare?

The premise of that wonderful piece of American legislation is that those who are able to afford it yet do not take personal responsibility for their health by buying health insurance are to be penalized by a federal tax.

Most people will acknowledge that the world is a violent place. American courts have ruled that the purpose of police is to enforce law, not to protect citizens.

We note that not a single person in that theater was armed to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Is it more or less irresponsible to not be willing to protect your loved ones or even yourself from violent attack?

As the federal government is penalizing by tax someone's disinterest or simple unwillingness to purchase health insurance, should a similar tax be imposed on those who can afford to, but have chosen not to take sufficient precautions to protect themselves and their loved ones from common, much less uncommon, violent crime?

You may certainly opt to not carry a weapon, and you are not legally obligated to take any specific action no matter what the circumstances. But, if you are not prepared to take action to protect yourself and your loved ones, should you pay a tax as a means for society to recoup the specific costs of law enforcement and emergency services that are forced to do that in your stead?

If a private citizen saves your bacon, perhaps such a special tax can be shared with him or her?

We have hundreds of thousands of documented cases where private armed citizens stop crime, violent and not so violent. They have bought "insurance," is it fair that you do not?
you = middle school civics nerd.

I went through a similar phase where I took similar "stands of principle". Now, I don't really care to argue about free market this or that.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
We can look at a compilation source of academic and criminology references with attendant summary conclusions here -

Violence in America - Effective Solutions

by

Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
Family Practice
San Ramon CA

William C. Waters IV, MD
Internal Medicine/Nephrology
Atlanta GA

George B. Murray MD
Director, Psychiatric Consultation Service, Massachusetts General Hospital
Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
Boston MA

Christie B. Hopkins MD
Professor of Medicine, Acting Division Director, Cardiology
University of South Carolina School of Medicine
Columbia SC

Joseph Asiaf MD
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
Boston University School of Medicine
Boston MA

John B. Moore MD FACS
Chairman, Colorado Committee on Trauma
Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver CO

Col. Martin Fackler MD
Chief, US Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory (retired)
Hawthorne FL

et al
A short extract, study references in the link above -

A conservative estimate from the largest scale, methodologically sound
study to date, the study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5
million protective uses of guns by adults annually.[22] As many as 65
lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun
tragedy sensationalized, dozens are averted by guns, but go unreported.
Whether or not "newsworthy," scientific method begs accounting of the
benefits of guns - enumeration of the lives saved, the injuries prevented,
the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is
absent from the medical literature. The protective benefits of guns - and
the politicized "science" that has been used to underestimate or totally
deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been
extensively reviewed.[4-12]

As ten studies have shown, in any year, about 1 to 2.5 million Americans
use guns to protect themselves and their families. and about 400,000 of
those defenders believe that they would almost certainly have lost their
lives if they had not had a gun for defense.[11,22] Even if only one-tenth
of those defenders are correct, the lives saved by guns would still be more
numerous than the lives lost to guns.
The Kleck and Gertz study (Reprinted by special permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.) can be found here -

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991). He has testified before Congress and state legislatures on gun control proposals. His research was cited in the Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

While there have been attempts to attack the conclusions of the study, the methodology has held up to challenge -

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. The survey can be found here -

Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig


A direct quote -

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.

Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)
Prison polls, which ask prisoners their experience with armed citizens, indicate that up to ten million crimes are aborted each year because the prospective victim “may” be armed.

You can read about this in the following Cato Institute study, which also offers up numerous anecdotal instances -

Tough Targets by Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett, The Cato Institute, 2012

Would you like to know more?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
you = middle school civics nerd.

I went through a similar phase where I took similar "stands of principle". Now, I don't really care to argue about free market this or that.
I will burn an inexpensive joss stick for you in the hope that the blindness drops from your eyes and that your soul is freed from envy. :thumbsup:
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
57,086
5,427
126
The OBVIOUS answer is make the gun manufacturers pay their medical costs...I was going to say the ammunition manufacturers, but it's not all their fault. If Holmes would have used a slingshot to shoot the bullets, the resulting damage would have been far less...therefore, it's the fault of the gun manufacturers. He could not have injured/killed nearly as many nor nearly as quick without guns...

















Yes people...check your batteries, I'm being sarcastic as hell. As cold as it may seem, each person should be responsible for his/her own medical bills. If they, like me, don't have insurance, then maybe the state can help.

For those who claim private medical insurance is affordable...wait until you hit your 50's...especially for those of us in California.
My COBRA was over $1400/mo. in 2004. Hunting the various medical insurance sites, even crappy insurance with high deductibles and high co-pays is in the $1200-$1500/mo. range for my wife and I...IF we qualify with our pre-existing conditions.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I'm all for being cold and heartless when say, the federal government repeatedly bails out people who build vacation homes near coastlines that flood.

But the Aurora incident truly is an act of terrorism, and is beyond the pale.

It is too bad there is a liability shield. If they could sue the gun distributors, that would go a long way towards slowing the flow of guns.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
The theater operator and company that leases the mall facility out. - For posting that concealed carry weapons are not allowed on premises.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I'm all for being cold and heartless when say, the federal government repeatedly bails out people who build vacation homes near coastlines that flood.

But the Aurora incident truly is an act of terrorism, and is beyond the pale.

It is too bad there is a liability shield. If they could sue the gun distributors, that would go a long way towards slowing the flow of guns.
If someone purposely runs someone over with a car should auto manufacturers be held responsible?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I'm all for being cold and heartless when say, the federal government repeatedly bails out people who build vacation homes near coastlines that flood.

But the Aurora incident truly is an act of terrorism, and is beyond the pale.

It is too bad there is a liability shield. If they could sue the gun distributors, that would go a long way towards slowing the flow of guns.
Should you be able to sue spoon and bowl manufacturers because you got fat? Idiot.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Or we could dispense with the lawsuits and be like most civilized countries where you don't get financially and sometimes physically crippled by not having premium insurance + $10million extra when disaster strikes.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
With the amount of taxes you guys pay, health care should be free for all
this i agree with 100%

we have the money to be in a war for 10 years that cost trillions dollars but we cant afford healthacare for our own people???

america is the most war mongering country on earth, there is something wrong with that.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,497
436
126
If someone purposely runs someone over with a car should auto manufacturers be held responsible?
That's the thing. When people talk about a car and stopping they're talking about in how many feet a car can go from a certain speed to a full stop.

When people talk about stopping power in terms of firearms (or more accurately a certain caliber or brand of ammo) they're talking about how likely a person will be incapacitated and rendered unable to act when hit by a firearm using a certain round.

According to 2008 numbers firearms are the most used instrument in murders. Cars don't even make the top ten list. Maybe vehicles creeped up since then but when a person starts thinking about a murder they probably consider several options before they think about a car.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
That's the thing. When people talk about a car and stopping they're talking about in how many feet a car can go from a certain speed to a full stop.

When people talk about stopping power in terms of firearms (or more accurately a certain caliber or brand of ammo) they're talking about how likely a person will be incapacitated and rendered unable to act when hit by a firearm using a certain round.

According to 2008 numbers firearms are the most used instrument in murders. Cars don't even make the top ten list. Maybe vehicles creeped up since then but when a person starts thinking about a murder they probably consider several options before they think about a car.
Furthermore, exotic cars tend to be most dangerous to their owners.

I've yet to hear of a rich guy and his sports car killing 12+ bystanders.

Cars aren't used to threaten and rob other people. GUns are.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Okay, lets breakdown the parties who were involved in this event and their fiscal responsibility:
- The federal/state/local governments - Do they have a duty to protect citizens from events like these? Should they pay?
- The shooter - Does he have a responsibility to pay for injuries that he caused directly? Should he pay?
- The victims - Do they have a responsibility for their own health? Should they pay?
- The movie theater - Does it have a responsibility to protect its patrons? Should it pay?
- The gun manufacturer - Does it have a responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of psychopaths? Should it pay?
- The movie producers/distributors - Do they have a responsibility to only show films that won't induce violence? Should they pay?

My thoughts:
- The government is pretty much never responsible for anything, so good luck with that.
- The shooter caused the injuries himself. If you got into a fight and broke somebody's arm, you'd be responsible for it. He should be responsible, but he probably has no assets worth mentioning and he is an adult, so the parents are no longer financially responsible for him.
- The victims are usually responsible for their own health, unless the injuries are caused by another party - such as a car accident where the other driver caused the crash that broke your leg. They/their insurance company will pay. If they are uninsured, you can sue them, but you're probably not going to get anything if they have no assets. Your insurance company (if you have one) will pay. You will be out of pocket for anything they don't pay.
- I don't think the movie theater has any culpability. From what I've seen, they didn't violate any laws. They could have had someone monitoring the emergency exit, but do you think an usher would have stopped him? Or that he wouldn't have just walked in the front door? I have a feeling the body count would have just been higher.
- The gun manufacturer isn't liable at all. They are not responsible for what their consumers do and they also aren't responsible for ensuring that guns only go to those who aren't psychopaths.
- The movie producers/distributors aren't responsible. This is just stupid.

So ultimately, I think the victims would be responsible for their own bills, minus what insurance pays. I would guess that after lawsuits, donations, etc. are finished, the victims will not pay any bills. The government, hospitals, movie theater, and private contributors will probably all chip in the foot the bills - some of those may do so under judgement of lawsuits.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Okay, lets breakdown the parties who were involved in this event and their fiscal responsibility:
- The federal/state/local governments - Do they have a duty to protect citizens from events like these? Should they pay?
- The shooter - Does he have a responsibility to pay for injuries that he caused directly? Should he pay?
- The victims - Do they have a responsibility for their own health? Should they pay?
- The movie theater - Does it have a responsibility to protect its patrons? Should it pay?
- The gun manufacturer - Does it have a responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of psychopaths? Should it pay?
- The movie producers/distributors - Do they have a responsibility to only show films that won't induce violence? Should they pay?

My thoughts:
- The government is pretty much never responsible for anything, so good luck with that.
- The shooter caused the injuries himself. If you got into a fight and broke somebody's arm, you'd be responsible for it. He should be responsible, but he probably has no assets worth mentioning and he is an adult, so the parents are no longer financially responsible for him.
- The victims are usually responsible for their own health, unless the injuries are caused by another party - such as a car accident where the other driver caused the crash that broke your leg. They/their insurance company will pay. If they are uninsured, you can sue them, but you're probably not going to get anything if they have no assets. Your insurance company (if you have one) will pay. You will be out of pocket for anything they don't pay.
- I don't think the movie theater has any culpability. From what I've seen, they didn't violate any laws. They could have had someone monitoring the emergency exit, but do you think an usher would have stopped him? Or that he wouldn't have just walked in the front door? I have a feeling the body count would have just been higher.
- The gun manufacturer isn't liable at all. They are not responsible for what their consumers do and they also aren't responsible for ensuring that guns only go to those who aren't psychopaths.
- The movie producers/distributors aren't responsible. This is just stupid.

So ultimately, I think the victims would be responsible for their own bills, minus what insurance pays. I would guess that after lawsuits, donations, etc. are finished, the victims will not pay any bills. The government, hospitals, movie theater, and private contributors will probably all chip in the foot the bills - some of those may do so under judgement of lawsuits.
How about the gun seller?

I'm okay with a gun manufacturer not being liable, but the gun seller ought to be IMO. Even if it is "unfair"

The best line of defense against a psycho shooter is the sales manager of a gun shop not selling to a guy.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
How about the gun seller?

I'm okay with a gun manufacturer not being liable, but the gun seller ought to be IMO. Even if it is "unfair"

The best line of defense against a psycho shooter is the sales manager of a gun shop not selling to a guy.
Assuming they followed all laws, I don't see how they could be found liable unless there is proof (ex. video) that the shooter was talking about killing people while purchasing the gun. Other than the face to face conversation (which may be very short), the gun buying process is kind of a black box to dealers. The purchaser picks a gun and a price is decided. They provide some information that is sent off for verification. They just get a yes/no/delay response. They have the right to deny any purchase, but why would they if there were no clear signs that the guy has problems? By all early accounts from his school, he seemed like a normal, intelligent guy to them.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Assuming they followed all laws, I don't see how they could be found liable unless there is proof (ex. video) that the shooter was talking about killing people while purchasing the gun. Other than the face to face conversation (which may be very short), the gun buying process is kind of a black box to dealers. The purchaser picks a gun and a price is decided. They provide some information that is sent off for verification. They just get a yes/no/delay response. They have the right to deny any purchase, but why would they if there were no clear signs that the guy has problems? By all early accounts from his school, he seemed like a normal, intelligent guy to them.
It's unfair to them, as it places a huge amount of responsibility on the gun sellers.

But it's the best system. Gun nuts talk about how laws can't stop the bad guys. Fine. But human intuition can sniff out suspicious characters.

Jared Loughner was denied a sale from at least one store before he went on his shooting rampage.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
It's unfair to them, as it places a huge amount of responsibility on the gun sellers.

But it's the best system. Gun nuts talk about how laws can't stop the bad guys. Fine. But human intuition can sniff out suspicious characters.

Jared Loughner was denied a sale from at least one store before he went on his shooting rampage.
I don't think that's a good solution at all. Judging whether someone is fit to purchase a firearm is extremely subjective. A future murderer may say all of the right things all the time or maybe even just the day he bought the gun. Even a mandatory psych evaluation before purchasing a gun won't catch those people - I don't know how you expect a gun store clerk making $10/hr to do something a trained psychologist can't. Being unfair to dealers just shifts the burden instead of actually providing justice.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I don't think that's a good solution at all. Judging whether someone is fit to purchase a firearm is extremely subjective. A future murderer may say all of the right things all the time or maybe even just the day he bought the gun. Even a mandatory psych evaluation before purchasing a gun won't catch those people - I don't know how you expect a gun store clerk making $10/hr to do something a trained psychologist can't. Being unfair to dealers just shifts the burden instead of actually providing justice.
It's more unfair to the shooting victims. You have to pick a poison.
 

Abe Froman

Golden Member
Dec 14, 2004
1,053
0
76
You mean not having an user or monitoring system to ensure/alert if an exit door was left open? Closing of the door could have prevented the massacre or given more warning to patrons to gtfo if Holmes needed to shoot the door open to get back in.
If someone breaks into your home, do you get to sue the development you chose to live in, knowing there wasn't a guard to stop the assailant, because there wasn't a guard? The doors have locking mechanisms to prevent people from walking in... if he walked out... blocked the door and came back in minutes later, that's a different story. Perhaps they should sue the company that manufactures the door.... [/sarcasm]
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY