6 ms·

I'm surprised the police doesn't have to pay for them. It's not that the tests were medically necessary.

anon7000 2y ago
This is why we need constitutional amendments to make the police better. I mean there’s shit like this, and then asset forfeiture (legalized theft). Shit like this should be non-partisan.
ty6853 2y ago
In my case they tried to bill the federal government first, they then denied the claim and put me as the guarantor instead.
- account-5 2y ago
  I'm assuming you and the son of the other commenter are US citizens? Quite frankly the way the US operated on most things absolutely baffles me. In the UK were the same thing to happen to you the police would be paying the bill, but obviously we have the NHS so it actually pays. The NHS might be broken but I am thankful every time I hear an American health story!
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    I sometimes think the US exists as a cautionary tale. We suck so you don't have to!
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      But somehow you can use us as the world’s ATM! https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-cou... Imagine a fraction of that going back to citizens!
      - eru 2y ago
        > Imagine a fraction of that going back to citizens! You know that US citizens mostly donate to charities that help other US citizens?
      - ssalazar 2y ago
        You dont have to imagine! Thats less than a sixth of a percent of the entire US federal budget :)
      - mpweiher 2y ago
        Hmm...there are other countries on that list...who spend more relative to their GDP. So not exactly "the world's ATM". And of course the rest of the world finances the US economy and US debt by virtue of the US dollar being both the currency of international trade and reserve currency. And it is reserve currency by virtue of being the currency of international trade. That is a far, far greater monetary value than the aid given out. Which you can also tell by what happens to you if you start to use another currency for trade. "Would you like some regime change to go with that?" Or how the US fights the Euro tooth and nail, including sabotage.
        mywacaday 2y ago
        US are 19th according to this list: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-capita?country=USA~DEU~EU+institutions+%28OECD%29~Multilaterals+%28OECD%29~FRA~GBR~SWE~NOR~IRL~LIE~LUX~MCO~CHE~DNK~NLD~ISL~FIN~CAN~BEL~SAU~QAT https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-cap...
  - eru 2y ago
    Well, the NHS might be better than what the US has, but that doesn't mean it's good. So Britain as a whole spends roughly half (in terms of percentage of GDP) on healthcare as the US. That includes both public and private expenditure. At similar health outcomes. Now Singapore spends roughly half of what Britain spends (in terms of percentage of GDP), and our population is no worse off for it.
    - cma 2y ago
      You can also get cheap dental and haircuts in Mexico: what's Singapore's purchasing power parity compared to the UK? Maybe not an extreme difference since Singapore has has such a high GDP or even worse, but if it is more that can explain a lot even for advanced services.
      - eru 2y ago
        Purchasing power parity depends a lot on what basket you compare. Eg owning a car or cigarettes are very expensive here. But eating out starts much cheaper than in the UK. (There's no upper limit in either place, of course.)
    - supermatt 2y ago
      The GDP per capita in Singapore is roughly double that of the UK, so health spending per capita is similar. I cant find latest figures, but it seems it is somewhere around 20% higher spend in UK. On the other hand, there are EU countries such as lithuania and estonia, that spend less than half per capita of Singapore, and are ranked with a higher healthcare index.
      - eru 2y ago
        Depends on how you measure. Lots of health spending is labour costs, and our labour costs are higher. So percentage of GDP relatively closely tracks percentage of total working time. Also perhaps our more enlightened policies are helping us achieve that higher per capita GDP?
        2y ago
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  There must be a whole bootleg health system by now in the shadows , that is single payer and non-hostile/helping. Wait till the debtdoctor passes then go to the real one in some back alley .
  - astrange 2y ago
    "Single payer" means the government pays it. Hard to do in a back alley.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Are you actually legally on the hook to pay? Or are they just going after you because they think they have a better chance of getting you to pay than the government?
potato3732842 2y ago
Nobody has gotten their life ruined enough over it to go postal in a hospital so it's in hospital's interests to keep playing along.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hwillis 2y ago
> After being chased by police for stealing clothing from a Walmart, Seacat barricaded himself in a house at 4219 South Alton Street in Greenwood Village, Colorado. By the time Seacat was finally extracted from the premises, the house had been destroyed by law enforcement in their efforts to flush him out. The homeowner—Leo Lech—filed a lawsuit against the municipality for compensation, but was ruled against by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the court declined to hear the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  That's a different situation, because at least there it could be argued the damage was ultimately Seacat's fault for engaging in a shoot out with law enforcement on someone else's private property; the police were just doing their job apprehending an armed suspect. With a drug test that comes back negative, the person being tested clearly isn't at fault. That said, I think it does probably make sense for there to be some sort of financial incentive for police to not create more collateral damage than necessary. Like maybe the damages should come out of the department budget initially and then they could get a judge to decide how much of that was the suspect's fault and recover that amount from them, assuming they can pay? Policing is a social service and I don't think externalizing the costs of social services onto innocent bystanders is a good idea; it makes the agency less accountable for the monetary costs they incur if those costs aren't tracked as part of their budget, and it's bad PR.
  - hwillis 2y ago
    > At 10:38 pm, SWAT entered the house and used a stun grenade to conceal their movements, but were driven back outside by gunshots (though criminalists would later establish that they were not fired upon). During the next 10.2 hours, a Lenco BearCat was driven through the front door, tear gas and 40 mm grenades were repeatedly launched inside, shots were fired upon the house, and explosives were detonated to destroy several exterior walls. Whether or not police have any imperative to consider the impact of their actions, this situation was clear incompetence and reckless destruction. They're just as much doing their job by forcing drug tests on random people. The person may not have been on drugs, but all police would have to do is say they saw "erratic behavior". > Like maybe the damages should come out of the department budget initially and then they could get a judge to decide how much of that was the suspect's fault and recover that amount from them, assuming they can pay? This is just a different bad incentive; it incentivizes police to completely ignore situations or to find someone to hold accountable. Just extend the logic to the other expenses of an investigation- hourly pay, overtime, materials, forensics. Making a criminal pay for their own arrest is a terrible idea. Police should pay for all the drug tests they demand, and for all the damages incurred in the process of investigating or arresting a suspect. Those things are not related to the crime itself, like a fine is. They are part of the cost of investigation and operation.
fasa99 2y ago
>I'm surprised the police doesn't have to pay for them. It's not that the tests were medically necessary. If only it were so simple. Medicine can be quite nasty politically at times, internally and externally, and these mandatory examinations are the currency of really screwing someone if that's what you want. Psych especially, part of the theme of the original catch-22 book. A lot of the laws are at first pass related to psych - "harm to self or others". That earns you a free non-voluntary trip to the hospital. The part where it gets nasty is when words get twisted, when ulterior motives exist, when the accuser possesses some authority - such that an "unsafe to self or others" argument is put forth. Situations where the person needs help, but perhaps won't seek it out on their own, thus the state must intervene. In this narrative, our police officers said, "harm to self, drugs in digestive tract, may rupture and cause death, not willing to seek medical care for fear of losing drug transport and/or prosecution, please treat so they don't rupture" The victim of such a crime now has a choice - pay a bunch of money to the hospital to clear the bill, or pay a bunch of money to a lawyer to get the police to pony up responsibility. It's happened to me too along the lines of "the government made big mistake and caused problems for you, you can take ownership of the false accusations, or pay a bunch of money to a lawyer to have them wiped". Often in our society there's the suffering of being a victim, then the victim tax on top of that

This is why we need constitutional amendments to make the police better. I mean there’s shit like this, and then asset forfeiture (legalized theft). Shit like this should be non-partisan.

ty6853 2y ago

In my case they tried to bill the federal government first, they then denied the claim and put me as the guarantor instead.

account-5 2y ago
I'm assuming you and the son of the other commenter are US citizens? Quite frankly the way the US operated on most things absolutely baffles me. In the UK were the same thing to happen to you the police would be paying the bill, but obviously we have the NHS so it actually pays. The NHS might be broken but I am thankful every time I hear an American health story!
- DFHippie 2y ago
  I sometimes think the US exists as a cautionary tale. We suck so you don't have to!
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    But somehow you can use us as the world’s ATM! https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-cou... Imagine a fraction of that going back to citizens!
    - eru 2y ago
      > Imagine a fraction of that going back to citizens! You know that US citizens mostly donate to charities that help other US citizens?
    - ssalazar 2y ago
      You dont have to imagine! Thats less than a sixth of a percent of the entire US federal budget :)
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      Hmm...there are other countries on that list...who spend more relative to their GDP. So not exactly "the world's ATM". And of course the rest of the world finances the US economy and US debt by virtue of the US dollar being both the currency of international trade and reserve currency. And it is reserve currency by virtue of being the currency of international trade. That is a far, far greater monetary value than the aid given out. Which you can also tell by what happens to you if you start to use another currency for trade. "Would you like some regime change to go with that?" Or how the US fights the Euro tooth and nail, including sabotage.
      - mywacaday 2y ago
        US are 19th according to this list: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-capita?country=USA~DEU~EU+institutions+%28OECD%29~Multilaterals+%28OECD%29~FRA~GBR~SWE~NOR~IRL~LIE~LUX~MCO~CHE~DNK~NLD~ISL~FIN~CAN~BEL~SAU~QAT https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-cap...
- eru 2y ago
  Well, the NHS might be better than what the US has, but that doesn't mean it's good. So Britain as a whole spends roughly half (in terms of percentage of GDP) on healthcare as the US. That includes both public and private expenditure. At similar health outcomes. Now Singapore spends roughly half of what Britain spends (in terms of percentage of GDP), and our population is no worse off for it.
  - cma 2y ago
    You can also get cheap dental and haircuts in Mexico: what's Singapore's purchasing power parity compared to the UK? Maybe not an extreme difference since Singapore has has such a high GDP or even worse, but if it is more that can explain a lot even for advanced services.
    - eru 2y ago
      Purchasing power parity depends a lot on what basket you compare. Eg owning a car or cigarettes are very expensive here. But eating out starts much cheaper than in the UK. (There's no upper limit in either place, of course.)
  - supermatt 2y ago
    The GDP per capita in Singapore is roughly double that of the UK, so health spending per capita is similar. I cant find latest figures, but it seems it is somewhere around 20% higher spend in UK. On the other hand, there are EU countries such as lithuania and estonia, that spend less than half per capita of Singapore, and are ranked with a higher healthcare index.
    - eru 2y ago
      Depends on how you measure. Lots of health spending is labour costs, and our labour costs are higher. So percentage of GDP relatively closely tracks percentage of total working time. Also perhaps our more enlightened policies are helping us achieve that higher per capita GDP?
      - 2y ago
ashoeafoot 2y ago
There must be a whole bootleg health system by now in the shadows , that is single payer and non-hostile/helping. Wait till the debtdoctor passes then go to the real one in some back alley .
- astrange 2y ago
  "Single payer" means the government pays it. Hard to do in a back alley.
Ajedi32 2y ago
Are you actually legally on the hook to pay? Or are they just going after you because they think they have a better chance of getting you to pay than the government?

potato3732842 2y ago

Nobody has gotten their life ruined enough over it to go postal in a hospital so it's in hospital's interests to keep playing along.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hwillis 2y ago

> After being chased by police for stealing clothing from a Walmart, Seacat barricaded himself in a house at 4219 South Alton Street in Greenwood Village, Colorado. By the time Seacat was finally extracted from the premises, the house had been destroyed by law enforcement in their efforts to flush him out. The homeowner—Leo Lech—filed a lawsuit against the municipality for compensation, but was ruled against by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the court declined to hear the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat

Ajedi32 2y ago
That's a different situation, because at least there it could be argued the damage was ultimately Seacat's fault for engaging in a shoot out with law enforcement on someone else's private property; the police were just doing their job apprehending an armed suspect. With a drug test that comes back negative, the person being tested clearly isn't at fault. That said, I think it does probably make sense for there to be some sort of financial incentive for police to not create more collateral damage than necessary. Like maybe the damages should come out of the department budget initially and then they could get a judge to decide how much of that was the suspect's fault and recover that amount from them, assuming they can pay? Policing is a social service and I don't think externalizing the costs of social services onto innocent bystanders is a good idea; it makes the agency less accountable for the monetary costs they incur if those costs aren't tracked as part of their budget, and it's bad PR.
- hwillis 2y ago
  > At 10:38 pm, SWAT entered the house and used a stun grenade to conceal their movements, but were driven back outside by gunshots (though criminalists would later establish that they were not fired upon). During the next 10.2 hours, a Lenco BearCat was driven through the front door, tear gas and 40 mm grenades were repeatedly launched inside, shots were fired upon the house, and explosives were detonated to destroy several exterior walls. Whether or not police have any imperative to consider the impact of their actions, this situation was clear incompetence and reckless destruction. They're just as much doing their job by forcing drug tests on random people. The person may not have been on drugs, but all police would have to do is say they saw "erratic behavior". > Like maybe the damages should come out of the department budget initially and then they could get a judge to decide how much of that was the suspect's fault and recover that amount from them, assuming they can pay? This is just a different bad incentive; it incentivizes police to completely ignore situations or to find someone to hold accountable. Just extend the logic to the other expenses of an investigation- hourly pay, overtime, materials, forensics. Making a criminal pay for their own arrest is a terrible idea. Police should pay for all the drug tests they demand, and for all the damages incurred in the process of investigating or arresting a suspect. Those things are not related to the crime itself, like a fine is. They are part of the cost of investigation and operation.

fasa99 2y ago

>I'm surprised the police doesn't have to pay for them. It's not that the tests were medically necessary. If only it were so simple. Medicine can be quite nasty politically at times, internally and externally, and these mandatory examinations are the currency of really screwing someone if that's what you want. Psych especially, part of the theme of the original catch-22 book. A lot of the laws are at first pass related to psych - "harm to self or others". That earns you a free non-voluntary trip to the hospital. The part where it gets nasty is when words get twisted, when ulterior motives exist, when the accuser possesses some authority - such that an "unsafe to self or others" argument is put forth. Situations where the person needs help, but perhaps won't seek it out on their own, thus the state must intervene. In this narrative, our police officers said, "harm to self, drugs in digestive tract, may rupture and cause death, not willing to seek medical care for fear of losing drug transport and/or prosecution, please treat so they don't rupture" The victim of such a crime now has a choice - pay a bunch of money to the hospital to clear the bill, or pay a bunch of money to a lawyer to get the police to pony up responsibility. It's happened to me too along the lines of "the government made big mistake and caused problems for you, you can take ownership of the false accusations, or pay a bunch of money to a lawyer to have them wiped". Often in our society there's the suffering of being a victim, then the victim tax on top of that