But most people who can’t make rent don’t move to the Hampton Inn, do they? Does moving to a hotel and taking cabs around town and giving away furniture tend to (1) bolster or (2) undermine a claim of penury?
I’m guessing you’ve never been broke. I grew up poor and I’ll bet it went something like this (I’ll make up numbers, since I have no information):
People move to shitty hotels when they can’t make rent. They take cabs when they don’t have cars, it’s really weird that you are modelling this exactly backwards in your head.
Weren’t you only a few posts above hemming and hawing about all the assumptions I was supposedly making?
Do notice this: my analysis was based on the Mr. Verone’s statements of his work history, his health problems, and his living conditions as relayed through the article; not this speculation about his motives and his possible future plans (again, entirely speculative) that we see in your post quoted here. Shall I get James Randi on the phone and let him know where to send the million dollar prize?
)
And you know what else, I think your claim that poor people move into the Hampton Inn all the time is a load of hooey. That “I’m modelling this exactly backwards”! As if moving into the shitty old (only $90-a-night! Lobohan must have expensive tastes!) Hampton Inn is what poor people usually do in this situation! Utter hogwash.
I don’t think so, was I?
My guess, and that’s all it is, has the advantage of not being stupid. Your guess, that he stopped living at his house or apartment so he could move into a cheap hotel, doesn’t make any sense at all.
No, moving to a Hampton Inn is what happens when you are desperate and have nowhere else to go. As I said, no one moves to a Hampton Inn when they have options. The only advantage of the Hampton Inn is that it has a very low per day cost. If you only have a small amount of money, you can’t move into a new apartment.
In fact, it’s just the sort of thing a guy so desperate he robbed a bank for healthcare would do.
Mr. Verone engaged in sham criminal behavior because he wants the government to provide for his basic necessities because he isn’t motivated to work.
What I’ve shown is that he has trouble holding on to jobs that don’t really require much in order to be kept around (delivery driver, convenience store clerk); that his allegations are completely subjective, and thus, capable of self-serving invention or exaggeration; that he has at least minimal mental and physical abilities to be independent in activities of daily living (see this stunt, also the fact that he apparently lived on his own without much or any difficulty—he talks about preferring to go to jail and becoming the state’s problem instead of moving in with family members); and that he recent expenditures were not consistent with a claim of an inability to get even a quick office visit with a physician.
All in all, he’s sick of supporting himself and saw a way by which he thought he could force the government (i.e., you and me) to take care of him.
I don’t know the guy from Adam. Maybe he’s an asshole or an honest victim of a shitty system we have.
All I know is that you seem to be angry and not thinking clearly.
As Lobohan noted perhaps this guy is a lazy guy who wants to sponge off society.
The larger message here though is the perverse system of health care we have in this country. If you work and work hard medical bills can still sink you. Even if you have insurance. Some 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and of those 60% 3/4 of them had insurance. (cite)
So, work hard, do the right thing and get screwed. Or, rob a bank for $1 and get free health care.
I hope you can see this is an insane setup.
Naaaa.
They’re all just lazy people who did not plan ahead, and stow away 100K in a savings account in case they ever needed a heart bypass operation or a kidney transplant. Why should we subsidize the poor planners?
And after all, EVERYbody can purchase health insurance, right? right? <crickets>
The guy in the OP should have done what everyone else in the US does who cannot afford healthcare - go to the overburdened emergency room for treatment, at 10X the cost of the treatment he really needed. The cost, incidentally, which is covered by those of you with insurance. Very, very inefficiently.
I’ve got a bad back (have had surgery for it), and I worked at a convience store, and as a delivery driver in college. Neither of those jobs can be done with his back condition.
A huge part of your your job at the quckie mart is to stock stuff. Often heavy stuff. It requires a lot of bending over and lifting.
As a delivery driver (if you can get such a job, I know plenty who are laid off/looking for work as one) also involves lifting stuff. Someone with two ruptured disks cant do either of those jobs.
I’m self employed, and have health care through my wifes job, but I could easily be in that situation. I know healthy people who cant find work at all right now.
And yes, people who live in motels are usually there because the are out of money and have no place else to go. Last stop before homeless.
If he left his apartment and had to stay in a motel, what was he expected to do with his furniture? Pay for storage?
I suggest he read this article on the “Just-World Fallacy” He seems to be suffering from it. In fact, it seems like conservatives in general harbor this belief. They refuse to accept that someone could do all the right things and still get screwed over. The downtrodden individual simply must have done something to deserve their fate. For them to accept otherwise would be to accept that they too might one day end up as desperate as James Verone. It’s much easier just to label Mr. Verone as a bad person and not have to think about such a scary possibility.
One of us made his case by talking about what Mr. Verone alleges and what he has done. Another of us made his case by talking about what he thinks Kimmy_Gibbler believes.
Which of these two approaches do you think is likelier to get at the truth of Mr. Verone’s circumstances?
But hey, you did cast all the right SDMB spells by tarting up your own—wait for it—ad hominem!—with some fallacy talk (complete with a Wikipedia link). Maybe you could Wikipedia argumentum ad ignorantiam too (You comitted a fallacy! Therefore I win!).
But now I’ve gone ahead and found two. So I guess I’m in the lead.
Anyway, if you have any evidence that your speculations are true, do share them. Or just talk about me and cite Wikipedia articles about fallacies.
Hey dipshit. We were just talking about how fucking stupid you are.
Again, your guess is based around ignorance of how the world works. IE, moving to a hotel when you have plenty of money and seeing a lack of a car as a sign of affluence. My guess, and it is a guess, is based on not being a stupid, delusional sack of angry bitchiness. Something, you will understandably, not be able to replicate.
Seriously, you aren’t reasoning correctly. Try to learn from this and become a less shity person.
As it turns out, my work leads me to be pretty intimately familiar with the situations of people claiming disability. And in all my time doing so, I’ve never encountered any claimant—those found to be disabled and those not—who was living at a $90 a night hotel. Because they were too poor to live anywhere else!
But let me ask you, wise Lobohan, where do you derive your considerable expertise in this matter from?
Jesus-fuck, you are dense. You have $300 to your name and just got kicked out of your apartment. No family can or will take you in (or pride forbids it). It’s getting on nightfall, and there is a $90 a night hotel nearby. What do you do?
I find not being a stupid asshole helps me in thinking logically.
“Pride forbids it!” Hey, taxpayers, can you get this one, babe? I’m too proud to move with my sister. Holy shit! Seriously? If conservatives wanted to make those who support health care reform sound patently ridiculous, they need only quote you. You want to redistribute income so somebody’s pride won’t be impaired? And if he’s too proud to move in with his sister, why not too proud to stay out of jail? That’s not pride, that’s mooching.
Also, he didn’t get kicked out of his apartment. He didn’t renew his lease. So, he likely could have negotiated with his landlord a deal to pay half the rent now and the other half after he got back to work. (I’ll allow this is speculative. But certainly no more ridiculously speculative than those poor people living it up at the Waldorf-Astoria for a night or two before homelessness.) He didn’t do this because he didn’t want to go back to work. (He sense of entitlement to leisure forbade it!!) I base this not on speculation of his motives, but on the fact that he could not hold on to his most recent low-skilled employment.
But fuck it. You’re committed to inventing whatever facts you need in order to think you’ve won. I’m resting my case, and I’ll let the readers make there own judgments here on out.
[noparse]http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallacy/[/noparse] takes you to Wikipedia?
Might have one of them thar redirect viruseses or something Kimmy!
CMC fnord!
Might explain those unexplained Ss too!
Christ Almighty, it’s even worse than a Wikipedia link. Random bullshit on blogs counts as a legitimate cite these days?
Surely, you weren’t suggesting the person in the first sentence was you.
I’d still like to know where you got that Mr. Verone had exhausted unemployment benefits and food stamps and was subsequently denied SSI/SSDI. Sounds to me like your jumping to conclusions and making your case based on what you want to believe.
[QUOTE=Kimmy_Gibbler]
He “robbed” this bank because he was denied disability benefits and ran out of food stamps (which are only given for three months to able-bodied adults without dependents) and figured he could force the government’s hand by engaging in sham criminal behavior.
[/QUOTE]
Where’s the sham? He’s been completely up front about why he committed the robbery and feels that he is entitled to medical treatment. Can’t say I disagree with that, but them I’m not eager to kill off the downtrodden. It’s a sad commentary on our society that this guy is willing and reduced to trading his freedom to get it.
It’s a hypothetical, you stupid bitch. I was trying to cover any retard objections you might come up with. As it turns out, you’re less intelligent than I gave you credit for.
Where I come from landlords don’t negotiate. Also, are you aware that the Hampton Inn isn’t a luxury hotel? If so, why are you comparing it to the Waldorf? Is it because you’re a dishonest piece of shit?
I’m speculating. Like you are, but I’m not as dishonest, angry and stupid as you are. So my speculation is at least sane.
Would you mind answering the question from my previous post now?