4 ms·

> Why is this treatment that can cost from $50,000-$500,000 something a person can be burdened with by court order? Though the US talks a good game about right

> Why is this treatment that can cost from $50,000-$500,000 something a person can be burdened with by court order? Though the US talks a good game about rights and freedoms, LEO and courts do not respect the Bill of Rights, nor is there ever any consequences for them for illegal searches, illegal interrogations nor coerced confessions. In this case, the 8th Amendment should protect her from this burden quite obviously as "excessive fines," but these rights really don't exist, nor is it possible for any court in the US to find a defendant, "innocent." Most state law, at least, once accused, it simply is not possible to be acquitted, making nearly all trials a sham. The prosecutor, not any judge, as Robert Jackson said, "has more control over life, liberty, and reputation, than any other person in America." They don't care about justice, they only care about their conviction record. They will never agree to consider exculpatory evidence. It is only a matter of whether they think they can win, such that they will happily and readily convict the innocent if they can, and will avoid prosecuting the guilty if they have any doubt they could not. Individuals that never had the misfortune of being charged with a crime and attempted a defense in court could never understand, and they also, as a rule, have a strong bias towards accused being guilty, even prior to conviction, even if there is no evidence of crime. There is a reason most cases end before there is any ruling... they usually end as plea deals. There is no presumption of innocence in US courts. All that is needed for a conviction is an ambitious prosecutor to slander the accused with absolute bullshit fantasy. The ability of a prosecutor to seat and manipulate a Grand Jury, even to indict a ham sandwich if that's what they wanted, is the source of their power, which is nearly absolute, and that power is the source of their corruption. There are very few with that power that have resisted its corruption and are not obsessed with their ambition to win at any cost over the platitude of justice being served. We have to assume Associate Justice Robert Jackson was one. I think probably Kenneth Star and Merrick Garland, also. I would have insisted John Roberts was also among them until he saw the opportunity to overturn Roe with an illegitimately weighted conservative Court, and despicably did so, and young women will bear the consequences with their very lives, not him.

naikrovek 4y ago
think a bit more before you reply, please. or maybe read a bit closer and get the details before you type out a 500 word essay on why the justice system is broken. the court order is to get treatment according to doctors instructions, OR isolate. isolation costs nothing. what is worrying to me is that A) you just had this entire wall of text ready to go, it seems, waiting for somewhere to put it, and B) what the hell kind of a society do we live in where the society doesn't take care of its citizens, and how the hell do we view this as normal in the US? in this case, it doesn't matter. she's got TB and doesn't want treatment for whatever reason. so you sit your ass down and you don't leave the house until you either die, miraculously are cured, or you change your mind about treatment.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Maybe you want to rethink your argument as something better than a string of ad hominem attacks. I'll give you a massive hint: any time you focus on the person, you are committing a fallacy and your reasoning is invalid and unsound. All that matters is what was said, not who was saying what. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you can only rationally argue such by speaking to the argument, not the man. The 8th Amendment reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The issue here is that defense is expensive, which means it necessarily discriminates against anyone that can not afford $50K in attorneys fees, just for starters, so to protect one's 8th Amendment rights against excessive fines often costs more than the excessive fine itself.
  - jrmg 4y ago
    What’s a solution to (or, I guess, outcome of) someone refusing to get treatment or isolate with a highly infectious disease that conforms to your ideology?
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > She noted that the cost of treating drug-resistant TB can run $100,000 or more. My ideology is to not violate the patient's 5th and 8th Amendment rights. The government can pay for the treatment in the interests of public health rather than discriminate against her because she can't afford it. Though you wouldn't know it, being poor isn't a crime.
      - jrmg 4y ago
        Sorry, I assumed from your other responses that you were not okay with enforced treatment. Given how focused you were on the government not infringing rights, and how you were explicitly against enforcing isolation, I guess I assumed that carried over to not allowing the government to enforce medical treatment (even if it was free). I’m still unclear what you think should be done in this concrete case. I see a few options here: - Don’t enforce anything, allow the person to spread TB unrestricted. - Enforce isolation until death or recovery. - Enforce treatment until death or recovery (note though that if you were not to enforce isolation during treatment you’re allowing TB to spread during this time!) - Something else? Forgetting for a moment about payment, It sounds like you would be in favor of the third option? We can also discuss who should pay for the latter two (and I know the answer to that is not an isolated question - they go together). I would agree it should be the government - though I’m also for government-provided, taxpayer funded healthcare generally, which I suspect you are not - and would possibly consider its imposition as unconstitutional?

naikrovek 4y ago

think a bit more before you reply, please. or maybe read a bit closer and get the details before you type out a 500 word essay on why the justice system is broken. the court order is to get treatment according to doctors instructions, OR isolate. isolation costs nothing. what is worrying to me is that A) you just had this entire wall of text ready to go, it seems, waiting for somewhere to put it, and B) what the hell kind of a society do we live in where the society doesn't take care of its citizens, and how the hell do we view this as normal in the US? in this case, it doesn't matter. she's got TB and doesn't want treatment for whatever reason. so you sit your ass down and you don't leave the house until you either die, miraculously are cured, or you change your mind about treatment.

Maursault 4y ago
Maybe you want to rethink your argument as something better than a string of ad hominem attacks. I'll give you a massive hint: any time you focus on the person, you are committing a fallacy and your reasoning is invalid and unsound. All that matters is what was said, not who was saying what. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you can only rationally argue such by speaking to the argument, not the man. The 8th Amendment reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The issue here is that defense is expensive, which means it necessarily discriminates against anyone that can not afford $50K in attorneys fees, just for starters, so to protect one's 8th Amendment rights against excessive fines often costs more than the excessive fine itself.
- jrmg 4y ago
  What’s a solution to (or, I guess, outcome of) someone refusing to get treatment or isolate with a highly infectious disease that conforms to your ideology?
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > She noted that the cost of treating drug-resistant TB can run $100,000 or more. My ideology is to not violate the patient's 5th and 8th Amendment rights. The government can pay for the treatment in the interests of public health rather than discriminate against her because she can't afford it. Though you wouldn't know it, being poor isn't a crime.
    - jrmg 4y ago
      Sorry, I assumed from your other responses that you were not okay with enforced treatment. Given how focused you were on the government not infringing rights, and how you were explicitly against enforcing isolation, I guess I assumed that carried over to not allowing the government to enforce medical treatment (even if it was free). I’m still unclear what you think should be done in this concrete case. I see a few options here: - Don’t enforce anything, allow the person to spread TB unrestricted. - Enforce isolation until death or recovery. - Enforce treatment until death or recovery (note though that if you were not to enforce isolation during treatment you’re allowing TB to spread during this time!) - Something else? Forgetting for a moment about payment, It sounds like you would be in favor of the third option? We can also discuss who should pay for the latter two (and I know the answer to that is not an isolated question - they go together). I would agree it should be the government - though I’m also for government-provided, taxpayer funded healthcare generally, which I suspect you are not - and would possibly consider its imposition as unconstitutional?