Doublehalf

If the person shouting a non-threatening political phrase is then physically assaulted by members of the crowd, the legal situation changes significantly—but not necessarily for the person who was shouting. In the United States, the First Amendment generally protects peaceful political expression. It does not give other attendees the right to physically assault someone because they disagree with what that person says. There are three separate legal questions: Was the person shouting committing an offense? Did the members of the crowd commit a crime by assaulting that person? Could the event organizers or security personnel be legally responsible for what happened? These questions must be assessed independently. 1. Could the crowd members be arrested? Yes. Depending on the circumstances, people who physically attack the heckler could face assault charges. In New York, for example, a person may commit third-degree assault by intentionally causing physical injury to another person. The precise charge depends on the injuries, the person’s conduct, and other circumstances. The fact that the victim interrupted a political speech does not, by itself, justify physically attacking them. 2. Could the person who was assaulted defend themselves? Generally, yes. Under New York Penal Law § 35.15, a person may use physical force when and to the extent they reasonably believe it is necessary to defend themselves against another person’s imminent use of unlawful physical force, subject to statutory limitations. For example: If someone punches the heckler, the heckler may be justified in using reasonable force to defend themselves. If several people attack the heckler, the threat posed by the group is relevant to what defensive force may be reasonable. If the attacker retreats and the danger ends, retaliating against them generally would not qualify as self-defense. The law does not require someone to passively accept an assault. However, the right to defend oneself is not an unlimited right to retaliate. 3. Could the heckler be arrested too? Potentially, but being assaulted does not automatically make the heckler guilty of a crime. Police would need to consider the heckler’s conduct separately from the crowd’s conduct. For example, if the person shouted a single non-threatening phrase and was immediately attacked, that fact alone would not establish that the heckler committed a crime. States' disorderly-conduct statute requires specific elements, including the requisite intent or recklessness and qualifying conduct. Merely annoying people or expressing an unpopular political opinion is not sufficient by itself.

Can you enlighten us with what the appropriate decibel level is to protest at? Can you show us in the law where it says those that are protesting must do it quietly? and to clarify, anyone who raises their voice at a political event is not doing so peacefully? Or just the ones the crowd doesn't agree with?

How does the law apply to someone protesting at a political event exercising their free speech?

You are really going to dislike this but your logic here is justifying things like what happened to Charlie Kirk... If you just said- no matter what she said or instigated, violent retaliation is wrong full stop, then all would be settled. But saying physical harm was wrong but she had it coming because of things she said can be used to justify all political violence.

I will make problems that I think exist in the current system but there will certainly be many I am forgetting (I look at this from a broader healthcare care/health system and procedural/surgical lens): - Medically necessary care that people cannot afford and in turn going bankrupt. Cost to people on these plans between copyas, premiums, deductibles etc... are astronomical - Deductible system overloads operating rooms and schedules in hospitals at the end of the year "so people can get in their care" before it resets- this is patently ridiculous -Insurance landscape: differing reimbursements for different regions, medically necessary treatment being denied, in network vs out of network, not allowed to pick any physician you want based on insurance, insurance carriers monopolizing specific regions and holding health systems hostage - vendor pricing and contracts being subject to group purchasing organizations for contracts which in turn creates certain devices and products used for surgery not allowable thus if they are purchased they are at exorbitant costs to the hospital. This is a direct example of "the best care" not being given because hospitals are concerned with the bottom line - Health systems buying up all physician owned practices which prevents physicians from being able to operate at certain facilities. You can either pick a doc or a hospital but not both - Nursing shortages, often due to long hours and low wages, many have left the profession. Many that are left are not the best and brightest - tied into the above, because healthcare cost is so high now, many patients treat staff as if they are waiters and waitresses demanding outrageous requests outside of the job responsibilities - Vendors incentivizing hospitals to do robotic surgeries for simple procedures like appendectomies. The result being exorbitant procedure cost to the hospital but they are locked in because of contractual agreements that force them too based on wants and needs of the few - Health insurance being tied to employers is a catalyst for a system of indentured servitude to working. For those that either can't or chooose not to work, open market insurance is outrageous - You have examples of insurance carriers owning and operating the care facilities they provide reimbursement to which should be illegal full stop - There are already long wait times for certain surgical procedures - When government funding doesn't pass health systems are beyond stressed financially. We are already in system of the government subsidizing care but on the flip side we are also getting crushed by the cost of it. We would be better off in a fully capitalistic system than the in between we are in now. We are getting the worst of both sides of the system currently - I can assure you there are already very bad physicians that practice and operate on people and maybe you have already had one without knowing. - new and novel procedures aren't able to be performed for patients that need it until a critical mass of patients are being denied the care and appeal carriers to pay for the treatment. Hospitals won't even adopt certain new treatments because they aren't covered by insurance. You think you are getting great care today but often times that is far from the case and methods being used for some surgeries are far from the standard of care in some cases and way over the top for others

So what's interesting is most medical device companies have worked down the commmison on most of their sales rep jobs that benchmarks many mid tier roles at plan somewhere between $180k-$250k. There are group purchasing organizations that precipitate pricing and entire health systems jump onto those contracts which help to drive down the cost of devices and supplies within the health system for the commitment to buy through specific vendors. So to your point, the price of the coils the facilities are paying for are far lower than you would think due to the contract the hospital has with the vendor. Then they submit for the reimbursement at whatever the carrier sets because maybe in that area they are the major provider. The hospital is still getting a decent reimbursement but the patient is getting hit for more while the rep is making a small percentage due to the lower price of the contract and not making quite as much as you'd think. The one that makes out the most in this whole system are the insurance carriers who dictate what they choose to reimburse the hospital. Many talk about better care here- in an operating room in a hospital in an area where they get low reimbursments or have a lot of Medicaid patients: surgeons know the hospital is struggling and will use "less effective devices or methods" to complete surgery because administrators are coming down on them. So for those that think they are always getting the best care here, they certainly aren't, there is technology hospitals don't entertain because it eats to big a chunk out of their insurance reimbursement.

Whether it's the best can be debated but that isn't the point. The point is there are serious issues with our current system and many people go bankrupt due to the system or can't afford the care so forego care altogether leading to unnecessary suffering. Just because something is "working" doesn't mean we shouldn't make it better.

It's not free if people are paying for it in a taxable form. My initial example showed how in many cases ot would be far less expensive . Working on the responsiveness and level of care should be the goal of solving the issue. how we can put people on the moon but refuse to attempt to solve the healthcare problem is and should be infuriating to us all. It doesn't have to be one or the other as far as system. Just because government funded care has only partially worked in other countries, doesn't mean we can't figure it out here. Are we the greatest country or not after all? The problem with the US is we don't really hold our politicians accountable in my opinion in the way other countries do.

Jimmy- I'm being sincere when I say thank you for giving the most level headed response I've seen on here. While we may not agree on everything- this discourse is much better than the alternative which I too have been guilty of.

This is an oversimplification and disengenuous and you know it. There are insurance carriers denying people authorization to get care for potentially life threatening or life impacting diagnostic testing. Different parts of the country reimburse CPT codes at different rates. Managed care environments exits in regions where insurance carriers with little to know competition drive reimbursement to hospitals down because they can and it bankrupts medical facilities. The amount and significance of the problems with the current system can't be overstated.

Some of this I agree with but some of it is already happening. In numerous instances there are already long waits to get into physician appointments- mainly physicians that specialize in certain areas of medicine. There are also numerous instances when people can't pick doctors that live down the street from them because they are considered "out of network" by their insurance provider. This isn't an outlier either, happens all the time. I do think payment of physicians would need to be worked out which I know some other countries have a system to do this as well as more NPs PAs would be needed which is t a bad thing if they are not lowering standards. More people going to get the care they need and overloading the system is a legitimate concern but ultimately if the infrastructure existed, it would collectively lead to a healthier population across the country and over time o would tho k a byproduct of a healthier population would be less stress on the healthcare system down the line.

Pretend it is a top priority for a moment.

This thread is not intended for mud slinging- we have every other thread on this forum for that. I have some knowledge of healthcare and how care/reimbursements/treatment/insurance plans/ intersect. However, it is still a complex system that I admittedly don't know everything about. my question is- What are the main policy disagreements of moving to this form of healthcare? My understanding is to fund this type of plan taxes would raise to cover this but ultimately, most would pay far less annually than they are now. Take a HDHP like I have- annually I am paying on the realm of $7800 in premiums, a deductible of $4000 with in network OOP max $8000 and non network OOP of $16000 (on top of premiums) I also contribute roughly $6000 to an HSA for the tax benefits. The math I have seen are families with an average income of $150,000, would be taxed around $7000 a year. If someone on an HDHP had reached their OOP in network max, they'd be looking at spending close to $16,000 vs $7000. It would also cut down on all the insurance bullshit that goes on that no one likes and take a lot of the cost off of employers that are also contributing to employee plans. It is true wait times for elective procedures are longer- I've spoken to Canadian physicians and some waits can for an elective procedure can be 6 months but urgent care is treated immediately if one needs to use the Emergency department. There are waits for elective procedures in the US that can also take months. Just to get a kids' tonsils out was a 8 month wait. I'll add that so many health systems and IDNs are struggling financially right now. Mid size IDNs in my geography only have cash flow to allow them to continue to treat patients for 6 days if all incoming revenues ceased. That is a crazy place to be and they are far from alone. What are some other reasons government funded healthcare would be bad for citizens? No system is going to be perfect but is there somewhere we could get to that people by and large would say they could live with it?

Sure I am, when the shoe fits.