Man robs bank for health care

Yahoo article said: Some people who need medical care but can't afford it go to the emergency room. Others just hope they'll get better. James Richard Verone robbed a bank. Earlier this month, Verone (pictured), a 59-year-old convenience store clerk, walked into a Gastonia, N.C., bank and handed the cashier a note demanding $1 and medical attention. Then he waited calmly for police to show up. He's now in jail and has an appointment with a doctor this week. Verone's problems started when he lost the job he'd held for 17 years as a Coca Cola deliveryman, amid the economic downturn. He found new work driving a truck, but it didn't last. Eventually, he took a part-time position at the convenience store. But Verone's body wasn't up to it. The bending and lifting made his back ache. He had problems with his left foot, making him limp. He also suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. Then he noticed a protrusion on his chest. "The pain was beyond the tolerance that I could accept," Verone told the Gaston Gazette. "I kind of hit a brick wall with everything." Verone knew he needed help--and he didn't want to be a burden on his sister and brothers. He applied for food stamps, but they weren't enough either. So he hatched a plan. On June 9, he woke up, showered, ironed his shirt. He mailed a letter to the Gazette, listing the return address as the Gaston County Jail. "When you receive this a bank robbery will have been committed by me," Verone wrote in the letter. "This robbery is being committed by me for one dollar. I am of sound mind but not so much sound body." Then Verone hailed a cab to take him to the RBC Bank. Inside, he handed the teller his $1 robbery demand. "I didn't have any fears," said Verone. "I told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police." The teller was so frightened that she had to be taken to the hospital to be checked out. Verone, meanwhile, was taken to jail, just as he'd planned it. Because he only asked for $1, Verone was charged with larceny, not bank robbery. But he said that if his punishment isn't severe enough, he plans to tell the judge that he'll do it again. His $100,000 bond has been reduced to $2,000, but he says he doesn't plan to pay it. In jail, Verone said he skips dinner to avoid too much contact with the other inmates. He's already seen some nurses and is scheduled to see a doctor on Friday. He said he's hoping to receive back and foot surgery, and get the protrusion on his chest treated. Then he plans to spend a few years in jail, before getting out in time to collect Social Security and move to the beach. Verone also presented the view that if the United States had a health-care system which offered people more government support, he wouldn't have had to make the choice he did. "If you don't have your health you don't have anything," Verone said. The Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health-care overhaul passed by Congress last year, was designed to make it easier for Americans in situations like Verone's to get health insurance. But most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2014. As it is, Verone said he thinks he chose the best of a bunch of bad options. "I picked jail."

Man robs bank for health care!

Bad reporting, bad decision, uninformed decision made due to ignorance, etc etc etc.

This is pretty much where i stand on the subject.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576074/201106211840/A-Phony-Tale-Of-Woe.htm

Health Care: The story currently making the rounds about the guy who robbed a bank for $1 to get free jailhouse health care is supposed to expose how terrible our medical system is. It actually exposes something worse. It's a story tailor made for the news media. James Verone, an out-of-work 59-year-old, robbed a bank in Gastonia, N.C., for $1. Then he waited patiently for the cops to arrest him. In an interview with a local TV station, Verone claimed it was out of sheer desperation. He needed health care and had no other way to get it than through the free care provided in jail. The story flew across the Web and was picked up by ABC News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Good Morning America and any number of local papers. Not surprising, since it fit perfectly into one of the media's cherished memes. Come see how terrible health care is in the United States! The most expensive in the world, and yet it forces people to take desperate acts to get treatment! Thank goodness for ObamaCare! There's just one little, inconvenient fact missing from all this coverage. Verone had access to free care — outside of jail — and plenty of it. The dirty secret about our health care system is that it is, in fact, very generous to the poor. A recent study from the N.C. Justice Center notes that North Carolina hospitals provided $694 million in free care in 2008. Nationwide, hospitals provide more than $34 billion in unpaid care. Then there are all the private charities, Medicaid, and various other state and federal programs that offer the poor and destitute access to care. A hospital in Gastonia, N.C., — Gaston Memorial Hospital — offers discounts up to 100% to low-income patients. There's also a free health clinic just five miles from where Verone robbed that bank, and many more in nearby Charlotte. If he wanted to travel a bit farther, Verone could have availed himself of the state-of-the-art medical facilities at the University of North Carolina, whose mandate is to provide "medically necessary health care to the citizens of North Carolina, regardless of their ability to pay." That our hapless bank robber apparently didn't know about any of this is excusable. But the fact that not one reporter trafficking this story bothered to point these facts out is an example of gross dereliction of duty or extreme bias — or both.

^That. Simple fact of the matter is, you're better off being broke to get healthcare than you are a working stiff like me. And I work for health care. Granted, I don't know the guy's circumstances, and if he truly WAS denied at every front (which is kind of against the law) it was a brilliant plan. But given that the mandate in NC is the same as the one in MN (and i'm pretty sure everywhere else in the US)- he coulda seen some of the best docs out there on NC's dime.

Honest question: What is "medically necessary"? The description of his condition included, IIRC, growths in his chest (tumors?).

It's not an emergency room condition, right? It requires expensive ongoing treatment (chemo, etc?). At some point I guess you could be close enough to dying to get symptoms treated at an emergency room. Would they attempt surgical removal on an appropriately dire emergency room visit? Or does "medically necessary" cover the proper, normal treatment of a condition like this?

If it does, is the argument against the need for socialized medicine that we already have socialized medicine? I mean, under the system above, you could still go from comfortable middle class to destitute by breaking a leg with no insurance, but at least you'd still get your leg fixed once you were broke...

To 92CelicaHalfTrac's main point, if he really could have gotten proper care for his condition that easily and for low/no cost, it truly is an epic example of terrible reporting.

If nothing else, it does seem like these may be yet another example of everybody talking past each other. One article says a guy had to rob a bank to get healthcare. The counter-article says he could've been made fit as a fiddle for FREE just a few miles from his home. The first is, at best, sensational. The second is, if my impression of healthcare isn't completely unhinged from reality, a glib dismissal that glosses over the issues just as badly as the first one hypes them.

You'd be AMAZED at what you can slide past medical assistance programs. Ask some of my more creative clientele.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Bad reporting, bad decision, uninformed decision made due to ignorance, etc etc etc.

I'm not sure it's bad reporting. They reported what happened and why the guy says he did it. It wouldn't be journalism to add commentary on his decision. And it is news worthy. Woudn't be journalism to ignore it. Stories like this are where the "liberal media" myth comes from.

But, yes, very poor decision on his part I believe. However, the article you posted is much more misleading. It says he had access to free health care at a free clinic. In the first story they report...

"He said he's hoping to receive back and foot surgery, and get the protrusion on his chest treated."

I don't think the kind of treatment he was looking for would be available from a free clinic. I suspect operations to reduce pain would be considered elective and probably very difficult to get without good insurance or a pretty big pile of cash. But I could be wrong. I'm making some assumptions.

ransom wrote: Honest question: What is "medically necessary"? The description of his condition included, IIRC, growths in his chest (tumors?). It's not an emergency room condition, right? It requires expensive ongoing treatment (chemo, etc?). At some point I guess you could be close enough to dying to get symptoms treated at an emergency room. Would they attempt surgical removal on an appropriately dire emergency room visit? Or does "medically necessary" cover the proper, normal treatment of a condition like this? If it does, is the argument against the need for socialized medicine that we already have socialized medicine? I mean, under the system above, you could still go from comfortable middle class to destitute by breaking a leg with no insurance, but at least you'd still get your leg fixed once you were broke... To 92CelicaHalfTrac's main point, if he really could have gotten *proper* care for his condition that easily and for low/no cost, it truly is an epic example of terrible reporting. If nothing else, it does seem like these may be yet another example of everybody talking past each other. One article says a guy had to rob a bank to get healthcare. The counter-article says he could've been made fit as a fiddle for *FREE* just a few miles from his home. The first is, at best, sensational. The second is, if my impression of healthcare isn't completely unhinged from reality, a glib dismissal that glosses over the issues just as badly as the first one hypes them.

I'd say the 1st is an example of the media and their ridiculous fear-mongering.

The second would be the voice of reason.

Is it truly EASY to get a high level of care when you're flat broke? No. But it's doable, and there are many avenues to get it.

This reeks of laziness and someone who figures why not spend some time getting three hots and a cot, his health issues taken care of for free, and then get out just in time to draw social security.

All he's doing is hitting the social security and medicare jackpot a few years early.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Bad reporting, bad decision, uninformed decision made due to ignorance, etc etc etc.

I'm not sure it's bad reporting. They reported what happened and why the guy says he did it. It wouldn't be journalism to add commentary on his decision. And it is news worthy. Woudn't be journalism to ignore it. Stories like this are where the "liberal media" myth comes from. But, yes, very poor decision on his part I believe. However, the article you posted is much more misleading. It says he had access to free health care at a free clinic. In the first story they report... "He said he's hoping to receive back and foot surgery, and get the protrusion on his chest treated." I don't think the kind of treatment he was looking for would be available from a free clinic. I suspect operations to reduce pain would be considered elective and probably very difficult to get without good insurance or a pretty big pile of cash. But I could be wrong. I'm making some assumptions.

The clinic may not be the best example here. However, he's elderly and looks like he's worked hard for a good portion of his life. A clinic could have absolutely at least checked him out for free, given him some meds if that was the best route, or referred him to one of the free hospitals mentioned if it wasn't.

A clinic for the vast majority of serious conditions, should be viewed as a starting point where you get a referral, and not much else.

WAIT! You guys really expect the media not to twist things so that they get the best headlines?

Just think of all the hits they've gotten on this story.

And the politicos are teaching classes to the media types. I seem to remember a healthcare bill where less than 25% of the bill was actually healthcare and Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass it to see what was in it?

carguy123 wrote: WAIT! You guys really expect the media not to twist things so that they get the best headlines? Just think of all the hits they've gotten on this story. And the politicos are teaching classes to the media types. I seem to remember a healthcare bill where less than 25% of the bill was actually healthcare and Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass it to see what was in it?

None of it was actually "Health Care." It was Health INSURANCE regulations.

Can I get a repoast?

Just a quick note on the media and stories like this. Of course they report this. Media in the US, by and large, is funded by advertising and operating for profit. They make more money if more people read, watch or listen to their product. So by nature, the free market dictates they do what they can to attract customers. And, really, that's fine. But it's an exercise in futility to then turn around and expect them to uphold the highest of journalistic standards all the time. It has been proven time and again, and is confirmed on a daily basis that better, more responsible journalism does not directly equate to more business. There are some very good examples of good journalism that has created good business. There are many, many more examples of sensationalism creating good business. Why? Because as much as we deride the media for being overly sensational, we continue to reward them for doing so. That is the trade off in a primarily commercial media environment. The upside is a truly independent voice relative to government. It seems there is simply not enough relevant, sellable news to sustain a high level of journalistic integrity day in and day out. However, when big, important stories do happen, we have a breath of journalism outlets second to none, competing with each other to get the story. “Man Robs Bank for Health Care” is the price we pay to have all that media available.

Oh, and looking at the picture, I thought George Calin already died.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: It seems there is simply not enough relevant, sellable news to sustain a high level of journalistic integrity day in and day out. However, when big, important stories do happen, we have a breath of journalism outlets second to none, competing with each other to get the story. “Man Robs Bank for Health Care” is the price we pay to have all that media available.

I totally agree with much of your post, disagree on the relevant, sellable news content. There's more than enough disatisfaction and frustration in the country to encourage some honest, deep reporting on subjects now virtually ignored.

Where are the graves of Roone Arledge and the execs who put him in charge of ABC News? I need to take a leak.

I dunno. There are some really smart, agressive, bottom line kind of folks in broadcasting. I think it's all been tried. My view is completely local, but even from here, I've seen the focus groups. Deep reporting doesn't test well at all with actual viewers.* After about, no kidding, 45 seconds people get tired of a story and want to move on to the next one. We've seen this again and again. Now, local news- late local news in particular- is a special case. People really do just kind of want to get caught up before they go to bed. So maybe in another day part it would work better. But the Newshour on PBS does a fair bit of deep reporting. I've never seen it do well in the ratings. Frontline on PBS does some really deep reporting and also struggles for audience. They wouldn't survive in a for-profit world.

*There is a whole other science to recruiting people for these things. We don't do much of it anymore because it's expensive, but we used to identify different kinds of people. Some hard core news viewers, some casual viewers and some potential viewers. It's really interesting in it's own way.

oldsaw wrote: .....There's more than enough disatisfaction and frustration in the country to encourage some honest, deep reporting on subjects now virtually ignored....

Almost all of which is fanned by sensationalistic media reporting, done in shallow and non-critical ways...

...oh the irony...

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Hence my reference to Arledge and the ABC execs.

There was a time when ABC, CBS and NBC all competed to show a semblance honest, unbiased reporting. Also, the evening network newscasts attracted advertising revenue because it was an American ritual to watch the news.

ABC's ratings put them behind its' competitors. The grand poobahs took Arledge away from the Sports division and told him to "spice it up" and get more viewers. So now we have the Wide World of Sports applied to serious news.

The end-result sucks, just like the people who consume it.

/rant.......... for now

We're on the same page oldsaw. It's a lot like politics. It's terrible, but the alternative is worse. Until someone comes up with a motivation for great journalism, it will be kinda rare. We're on a continuum between profit and state-run. Neither generates an ideal. Both have their place.

Oh, and it used to be a lot different. Fewer outlets and the business model considered News the "pay-back" for the license from the FCC. It wasn't supposed to be a profit center for the very reasons we're talking about. Now it's the cash-cow. No kidding, talking about local stations here, a lot of them make 50% of their revenue on their late local news. No joke. Even at a local station in a medium-size market, that's a whole ton of money. They're not stabbing in the dark at this stuff.

In reply to oldsaw:

That's interesting; I didn't know about that. I've been wondering how much of (if any) it could be traced back to the undoing of the Fairness Doctrine.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that it may have comprised undue control over the media's internal workings, but I'm also inclined to think that content of the media may need oversight to remain at least as high-grade as the content of a hot dog.

We should, of course, be holding the media to a higher standard via what we choose to read/watch/listen to, but that doesn't seem to be going all that well.

In reply to ransom:

You guys know me pretty well, and I tend to fall to the left of the spectrum. But do you really want the government to have a say in what the media covers or how they cover it?

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Short answer? No. As much as I shudder at the quality of media without oversight, the horror of what would wind up in such legislation if it were written today doesn't bear pondering.

I do wonder what the net effects were of the doctrine when it was in effect, and what directly resulted from its abandonment.

ransom wrote: Short answer? No. As much as I shudder at the quality of media without oversight, the horror of what would wind up in such legislation if it were written today doesn't bear pondering.

You'd probably get the CBC... which hates on conservatives with a passion even though they've been in power for almost 7 years now lol.

ransom wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Short answer? No. As much as I shudder at the quality of media without oversight, the horror of what would wind up in such legislation if it were written today doesn't bear pondering. I do wonder what the net effects were of the doctrine when it was in effect, and what directly resulted from its abandonment.

Be real careful of what you ask for...........

A plethora of sources is confusing, but anyone with a brain can sift through the crap and find some honesty and truth in the leftover stuff. With a state-monitored media, you have no choice.

Ponder this - Do you want the ability to make choices for yourself or defer to them to others?