Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

[dcarrigg]

Well, I can think of other ways to get care (demand it then don't pay, apply for Medicaid etc), but I guess this guy was proving a point:

Full article here

A middle-ged man with no criminal record walks into a Gastonia bank on June 9 and slips a teller a note demanding $1 - and medical treatment.

Then he sits down and waits for police.

James Richard Verone's story has captured national attention and made front pages in papers as far away as England, Gaston County Sheriff Alan Cloninger said Tuesday.

Verone, 59, was charged with larceny from a person after he entered the RBC Centura Bank on South Hope Road and handed the teller note demanding $1.

"It's a bad situation when someone who's been law abiding all his life falls on hard times and feels like he has to commit a crime to get health care," Cloninger said. "It's tragic."

In an interview with the Gaston Gazette, Verone said he was unemployed and suffering from various ailments including back and foot problems and what he suspects is pancreatic cancer.

On the day of the robbery, Verone sent a letter to the Gazette listing the Gaston County Jail as his return address.

"I am of sound mind, but not so much sound body," he wrote.

Before deciding to commit the robbery, Verone explained he'd looked into filing for disability and had applied for early Social Security.

The only thing he qualified for, Verone said, was food stamps. A feeling of desperation, not wanting to be a burden on his relatives along with extreme pain made him consider going to a homeless shelter or asking charities for help.

Instead, he decided to rob a bank.

Verone said he didn't want to scare anyone during the robbery and never showed a weapon.

"I didn't have any fears," he told The Gazette. "I told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police."

While in jail, Verone has seen several nurses and a doctor. He's also waiting to do interviews with the national media.

Verone said he'd expected to be charged with bank robbery. While the current charge is a felony, it won't land him in jail as long.

If things go as hoped, Verone said during the interview that he'd get needed medical care while serving several years in prison. Then he'd collect Social Security and move to the beach.

Meanwhile, Verone is being held under $2,000 bond awaiting a June 28 court date.

He'll represent himself.

The newspaper reported that Verone was considering an ultimatum if the active sentence wasn't long enough: "The crime will happen again."

[touchring]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

I remembered there was a report on some Somalians being caught for piracy, was it the French? and were delighted at the prospect of going to jail, the jail cells and the food were many times better than what they ate at home - they were probably even starving judging by their skeleton like physique.

[aaron]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

This was bound to happen. It makes perfect rational sense.

It makes me think... In society today we consider it cruel and unusual punishment to not provide health care to inmates. Does this not show that health care is a basic human right?

[Ghent12]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

It makes me think... In society today we consider it cruel and unusual punishment to not provide health care to inmates. Does this not show that health care is a basic human right?

No, it doesn't show that health care is a basic human right. It's more like a necessity. Food, water, clothing and shelter are necessities too. But they are not rights either. How can you possibly claim that someone else's labor, or the fruit of someone else's labor, is your basic human right?

[aaron]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Your answer makes much sense.
So, do we need to provide for the needs of those who cannot afford it? Or, is it a simple calculus: What is the minimum amount society can spend to keep the poor from revolting?

To me, it is criminal to spend 100K to fix an inmates lung cancer, for example. Medicare is also criminal in its current form. We spend thousands to keep old people alive (who should be dead) while ignoring the health of our youth.

How can you possibly claim that someone else's labor, or the fruit of someone else's labor, is your basic human right?

I did not claim this. However, I think you will be very hard pressed to find somebody whose labor was not in a large part enabled by society as a whole. Simply put, you cannot make money without the help of society. You do owe society some of your labor.

[Ghent12]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

I did not claim this. However, I think you will be very hard pressed to find somebody whose labor was not in a large part enabled by society as a whole. Simply put, you cannot make money without the help of society. You do owe society some of your labor.

Indebted to society? The "help" of society is necessary to make money? Both are nonsense. "Society" is the sum of everyone's individual efforts and interactions. Anyone who provides any service at all is enriching society, even if they do it for profit and enrich themselves simultaneously. There need not be, and indeed there should not be, any form of mandatory "debt to society" for simply conducting business within it.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Indebted to society? The "help" of society is necessary to make money? Both are nonsense. "Society" is the sum of everyone's individual efforts and interactions. Anyone who provides any service at all is enriching society, even if they do it for profit and enrich themselves simultaneously. There need not be, and indeed there should not be, any form of mandatory "debt to society" for simply conducting business within it.

+1

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Indebted to society? The "help" of society is necessary to make money?

It's an age old arguement...wikipedia

"In Wealth, Carnegie examines the modes of distributing accumulated wealth and capital to the communities it originates from. He preached that ostentatious living and amassing private treasures was wrong. He praised the high British taxes on the estates of dead millionaires, remarking that "By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction."[1] His "gospel of wealth" earned much praise, but did not win many converts. Carnegie made it clear that the rich were best suited for the recirculation of their money back into society where it could be used to support the greater good, given that they are presumed to have a penchant for management of capital. However, he shunned aristocratic chains of inheritance and argued that dependents should be supported in moderation, with the bulk of excess wealth to be spent on enriching the community. In cases where excess wealth was held until death, he advocated its apprehension by the state on a progressive scale: "Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the State."

[aaron]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

I must not be explaining myself clearly since it comes off as "nonsense".

Society provides a framework in which you can make money. If those who benefit most from this framework are not responsible for its maintenance, then who is?

[Ghent12]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

I must not be explaining myself clearly since it comes off as "nonsense".

Society provides a framework in which you can make money. If those who benefit most from this framework are not responsible for its maintenance, then who is?

Ah, I see what you are saying. I apologize for my abrupt manner. I think you are mistaken, however, in that society needs to be "maintained" through something other than what people would do normally. If everyone is seeking their own best interest, then it is all but inevitable that society at large, though not necessarily every single individual all the time, will continuously benefit. It is when the process of freedom of commerce is interfered with that problems arise, eventually growing into significant breaking points in systems.


Thailandnotes, the estate tax issue has long been a thorn in the side of the "greater good." Many wealthy individuals who die and have their estates taxed heavily are family business owners and their business--hence, the communities where those businesses operate--suffer tremendously.

To me, it is a simple and easily-answered question: where should the money go? There are really only two options:
1) To capitalists who busy themselves with perpetually improving the quality of life of society at large. They seek to utilize scare resources in manners where they are most needed.
2) To government which serves two masters. The moneyed interests that fund the politicians or the political power blocs which put them in office. The result is favored groups benefiting from arbitrary rules, which is the polar opposite of any notion of fairness.
It's a no brainer--I would willingly give money to the rich all day long so long as they continue to provide me with far more than the essentials of life and continue to increase my quality of life in addition to the quality of life of society at large (again, not necessarily for every individual, but definitely in aggregate).

[aaron]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

I agree with what you are saying. I do question this statement, however:

Many wealthy individuals who die and have their estates taxed heavily are family business owners and their business--hence, the communities where those businesses operate--suffer tremendously.

Do you know of many examples of this happening? I think it is a scare tactic put out by whichever republicrat needs to buy some votes that particular day.

It is this year, or last or next... I forget which. If you die in one of these years you are taxed at some insanely low rate. I would love to see the death stats of rich people for the year. Do they go up?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Thailandnotes, the estate tax issue has long been a thorn in the side of the "greater good." Many wealthy individuals who die and have their estates taxed heavily are family business owners and their business--hence, the communities where those businesses operate--suffer tremendously.

"Suffer tremendously"

Not true whether you're talking family farms or dominate businesses in small towns.

And never mind. let's talk about the super rich.

Rockefeller controlled 80 - 90 percent of the oil as the industrial revolution ramped up in the US. He was by many measures the richest man ever. It made no sense that he controlled that wealth. Bill Gates is richer than the bottom 40% combined. His monopoly is/was ridiculous. Schools and businesses pay/paid an absurd tax to Gates to make him the richest man in the country.

The super rich should be heavily taxed in the end, because they do owe big time, as Carnegie argued.

[BK]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Is the World bettter off if the Government takes 80-90% of the Wealth of some one like Bill Gates upon their death.

This Money while it is invested with the Family provides Revenue for Financiers, Attorneys, Accountants, and Capital that may sit in Banks (this Capital gives the Bank a larger pool of Capital from which to make loans) or Municipal Bonds or Stocks certificates that would be liquidated if there was an 80% tax- isn't this wealth being productive.

Alternatively, this Money gets sucked up by the Government and spent very quickly. There is a loss of wealth at the local Bank were the Family kept CDs, there is one less buyer on Municipal Bonds, one less buyer of the Family business publicly trade stock (bringing down the value of the stock for all owners of shares).

Does Society actually end up better off with Massive Taxation of wealthy at death or does the Government become the spend-thrifts?

[brent217]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Is the World bettter off if the Government takes 80-90% of the Wealth of some one like Bill Gates upon their death.

This Money while it is invested with the Family provides Revenue for Financiers, Attorneys, Accountants, and Capital that may sit in Banks (this Capital gives the Bank a larger pool of Capital from which to make loans) or Municipal Bonds or Stocks certificates that would be liquidated if there was an 80% tax- isn't this wealth being productive.

Alternatively, this Money gets sucked up by the Government and spent very quickly. There is a loss of wealth at the local Bank were the Family kept CDs, there is one less buyer on Municipal Bonds, one less buyer of the Family business publicly trade stock (bringing down the value of the stock for all owners of shares).

Does Society actually end up better off with Massive Taxation of wealthy at death or does the Government become the spend-thrifts?

Our world seems to go to extremes. As the rich get richer, eventually all the wealth concentrates in 1 person (case history, the last Czar of Russia) and the rest get scraps. Is this the optimal end? I would say no, and with all of the BS that I have observed in the financial world in the last few years, I would say no to all of the Gordon Gecko wannabes as well.

[Munger]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

How did Bill Gates gain his wealth? Through government protection of an artificial monopoly - copyright. How did Rockefeller gain his wealth? Through government protection of private property.

Always conveniently overlooked by the libtards.