I put this in FQ because I’m seeking a factual answer to this question.
How do people wounded in mass shooting events, and the families of those killed, gain financial recompense to be made a semblance of whole again? Obviously, no amount of money can bring back the dead, but surely just suing the shooter would be like getting blood out of a rock.
They often don’t.
Aside from ordinary things like life insurance, there are two vehicles:
Some States have special funds for victims of certain types of tragic events. Sometimes a State legislature will even craft a one off bill in response to a specific tragedy. It obviously isn’t guaranteed though.
GoFundMe campaigns and etc. Remember that there are enough mass shootings in America that not every one is newsworthy enough to attract enough attention to raise the kinds of money needed to provide a significant financial benefit to a lot of victims.
Ohio has a state fund for victims of crime, and some insurance policies will cover such claims, but I believe it’s relatively rare.
What about medical costs? In America does getting shot at school or the mall throw you deeply in debt? Even kids at a school? And kids from poor families? How will those people ever afford it? Are there special funds for such things?
That was the main point of me asking the question; I should have specified that.
It can. That’s why people set up GoFundMe drives.
A lot will depend on whether the person has health insurance, and just how good that health insurance is. Medical bills are a significant cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S., and even if you have “good” medical insurance, if you or a family member wind up needing critical and/or long-term care for injuries suffered in a shooting, you may still wind up on the hook, personally, for significant costs, through deductibles and co-pays.
Yes.
Even with health insurance a major injury like that suffered by people in mass shootings can leave a family deeply in debt or bankrupt.
Yes.
They won’t. They’re basically screwed. Because America can be stupid and cruel at times.
A few.
This is why GoFunMe and the like have a lot of users. Unfortunately, not everyone who attempts on-line fund-raising is successful. Also, because the government views such donations as income, the recipients have to pay taxes on the donations.
Say what? So if your child gets shot at a school, and you crowd fund the required, $25k, you now have to pay taxes on that?
But, like a poor family might be saving to get an education for their child, so they can rise from poverty, (isn’t that the American dream?) But now a school shooting has thrown them into further poverty from which they’ll never escape. Their kids won’t get that education, they will never be able to save for retirement or stay off welfare. What hope do they have left?
What a system, you think you’ve learned the worst of it…yet somehow it manages to get worse!
The other huge factor is lost income. Good insurance, at least, often has an out of pocket maximum that is steep but not impossible–until you combine it with thr impact of 3 or 6 or 12 months of loat income, or a permanent reductiom in income due to disability or even just the damage all that time off did to your career.
Yes.
The government views it as income, therefore, the recipients have to pay income tax on it.
A lot of recipients don’t know that, though, so they spend it… then the tax bill comes due and people have gotten into a lot of legal (and financial) trouble after penalties are imposed on them for failing to pay taxes on this income. Which can run to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Or, potentially, jail time.
Yes, it’s all horrible.
Out of sheer curiousity elbows, are you from the US?
This is not true. (at least, not in the U.S.)
“If the organizer’s intent was to raise funds to cover the costs of life events, medical expenses, etc. and no one received any goods and/or services in exchange for their contribution, the income would be considered a gift. Gifts are not considered income. For example, if an organizer wants to raise funds for the college expenses of a child who lost a parent, the contributions to the campaign would NOT be taxable.”
mmm
No. I’m a Canadian.
But no matter how familiar we are with your curious and oddly formed medical system, there seems to always be disturbing and unsettling sides to it that continue to be revealed.
Actually so am I and I completely agree with the rest of your post. To have to pay out of pocket for health care is just unfathomable to me.
Why should mass shootings be any different?
If you’re walking through the forest and a tree falls on you, or you slip over a cliff, you are on the hook for expenses. I was going to say “or cross the street and get hit by a car”, but at that point the driver’s insurance is liable. But if he does not have sufficient insurance, you again are on the hook. If you’re walking through a park and a tree falls on you, maybe you can sue the city Parks Department.
I wonder to what extent for example, the parents can sue the Uvalde school board and their police for the slow response? I’m imagining a horrible court case that degenerates into dueling autopsies over whether more prompt action would have saved the child’s life. Based on what little we’ve heard of the recent Highland Park shooting, suing the shooter or his father (who co-signed his firearms license application) would be a waste of time because they don’t appear to have much.
But… this is one of the factors that turns the USA into a litigious society - medical bills. (The famous McD’s coffee case was filed because the owner of the franchise refused to help the victim with $20,000 in medical bills from a spilled cup of coffee.)
IIRC the rule in the USA is - health insurance or not, a hospital is obliged to do what they can to save a person’s life to the point where they are medically stable. Beyond that, I doubt any hospital is going to seek out the bad publicity to say to a mass shooting victim with world-wide news coverage “OK, time to get out - your situation is stable, you figure out how to buy and change your own bandages, and handle your own bedpan.” (There was a scandal a decade or two ago when one hospital on the west coast was allegedly dumping itinerant patients on skid row in their hospital gowns.)
And just to point out one aspect of the fine medical system in the USA - the costs of those patients unable to pay help inflate the already high costs for paying patients.
In too many ways, we privatize enormous profits and socialize enormous costs in the US. These are generally externalities where the bills should be directed elsewhere.
But they aren’t … for … reasons.
[/hijack]
Or if you develop cancer.
There’s no reason why highly publicized shitty luck should be different from ordinary shitty luck in terms of who gets sick with the health insurance bill.
But the initial hospital stay is just the first thing, and maybe the least important. You just don’t pay. But the physical therapy, the reconstructive surgeries, the skilled nursing care. No one will get bad publicity for refusing those.
Even then, that’s not the worst of it. Debt sucks, but bankrupty and living with no credit for a long time sucks, but it’s managable. The crisis is when you lose your income, and can’t pay mortgage, rent, or utilities. This is on a much shorter timescale, and it really doea literally put you at the mercy of others to avoid literal homelessness.
I think people who oppose a social safety net tend to think that worthy people have friends and family who are willing and able to help you, and if you don’t have that, you must not deserve the help.