HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:Let me give another topical example. Mr. Julio is admitted to the hospital with a gunshot wound. The police come looking for Mr. Julio. The hospital refuses to cooperate and give information because they believe Mr. Julio is illegal and may be deported if they divulge his location. Is this ok?

was the truck driver an illegal immigrant? can you get that kind of license, as an illegal immigrant? is this relevant to the actual topic we're discussing, or just a way to deflect and confuse the issue?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Just following orders...this excuse is always poor.

I predict the cop will be put through the ringer because that is the politics of the moment. A couple months later, the truth will be in fine print on the back of newspapers or buried in the newsfeed of the HuffPost if the cop was in the right. If he was wrong, they will parade his head on a stick through town square, giving virtual butt pats to each other.

tell me how attempting to pull the phone away from the nurse, then cuffing her and forcibly dragging her out to your car, helps the victim exactly? if you're pro-victim, then what was the benefit to him, in that?

he said he was following orders. you defended him by saying that he was following orders, earlier in this thread. now, it's always a poor excuse.

He was arresting a person obstructing justice and interfering in a police investigation.

Tell me what gives the hospital the right to refuse to tell a police officer conducting an investigation where the victim is.

He believed what he was doing to be correct. He was following what he believed to be a lawful order. She was following hospital policy, which is not law.

i've said it before, and now once more. hospital policy should be based on law, especially in regard to warrants and the like. if that is not the case, the policy needs to be unfucked. if it is not based on law, then she could/should be sued.

is "following orders" a justifiable reason or always a bad excuse?

as far as i know, from the outside, there is no right for the hospital not to tell the officer where that patient is.

so she was doing something wrong, before he grabbed her?

Hospital policy clearly does not follow the law because the law provides exceptions and the hospital policy does not.

She was interfering with a police investigation. That is against the law.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Let me give another topical example. Mr. Julio is admitted to the hospital with a gunshot wound. The police come looking for Mr. Julio. The hospital refuses to cooperate and give information because they believe Mr. Julio is illegal and may be deported if they divulge his location. Is this ok?

was the truck driver an illegal immigrant? can you get that kind of license, as an illegal immigrant? is this relevant to the actual topic we're discussing, or just a way to deflect and confuse the issue?

Just trying to see if you think it is ok for a hospital to obstruct justice because they choose to be an agent for the patient.

Foo wrote:
Hospital policy clearly does not follow the law because the law provides exceptions and the hospital policy does not.

She was interfering with a police investigation. That is against the law.

if the officer was following the law, and the nurse was interfering and obstructing the law, then that is what the district attorney and others will find with the investigation into his actions.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Let me give another topical example. Mr. Julio is admitted to the hospital with a gunshot wound. The police come looking for Mr. Julio. The hospital refuses to cooperate and give information because they believe Mr. Julio is illegal and may be deported if they divulge his location. Is this ok?

was the truck driver an illegal immigrant? can you get that kind of license, as an illegal immigrant? is this relevant to the actual topic we're discussing, or just a way to deflect and confuse the issue?

Just trying to see if you think it is ok for a hospital to obstruct justice because they choose to be an agent for the patient.

i think it depends on the situation, as to how it should be handled.

So sticking to a sheet with three bullet points is probably not good policy.

policy and laws could be bad, sure.

zombie wrote:policy and laws could be bad, sure.

I am not sure the level of dealings you have with companies, but it is a constant battle with their bullshit policies. It is also amazing how quickly they will violate their own policies when it is in their interest to do so.

One of the lines I deliver about once a month, "First of all, I don't care what your policy is, because you don't pay me...".

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:policy and laws could be bad, sure.

I am not sure the level of dealings you have with companies, but it is a constant battle with their bullshit policies. It is also amazing how quickly they will violate their own policies when it is in their interest to do so.

One of the lines I deliver about once a month, "First of all, I don't care what your policy is, because you don't pay me...".

no, i don't have much discussion of policy with any company supervisors or whatever. why would they want to tell you what the policy was at all? what is the need for that? i don't understand.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:policy and laws could be bad, sure.

I am not sure the level of dealings you have with companies, but it is a constant battle with their bullshit policies. It is also amazing how quickly they will violate their own policies when it is in their interest to do so.

One of the lines I deliver about once a month, "First of all, I don't care what your policy is, because you don't pay me...".

no, i don't have much discussion of policy with any company supervisors or whatever. why would they want to tell you what the policy was at all? what is the need for that? i don't understand.

Banks are really good to have policies that fuck you over when they want. Another common one is when you purchase something and they make returns difficult. Insurance is another.

I have bought equipment that arrived damaged and their company policy was to review the damage and then decide how they were going to resolve it (unilaterally) within 60 days. I have done catering where my invoice stated final payment was due on the day of the event, and they said their policy was net 30 (meaning they paid within 30 days of delivery), after the event was over.

Had situations with banks where they suddenly change their insurance policies and try to make you buy more insurance than was initially required.

My bigger point is that you should not assume for a moment that hospital policy is to protect you, it is to protect them.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:policy and laws could be bad, sure.

I am not sure the level of dealings you have with companies, but it is a constant battle with their bullshit policies. It is also amazing how quickly they will violate their own policies when it is in their interest to do so.

One of the lines I deliver about once a month, "First of all, I don't care what your policy is, because you don't pay me...".

no, i don't have much discussion of policy with any company supervisors or whatever. why would they want to tell you what the policy was at all? what is the need for that? i don't understand.

Banks are really good to have policies that fuck you over when they want. Another common one is when you purchase something and they make returns difficult. Insurance is another.

I have bought equipment that arrived damaged and their company policy was to review the damage and then decide how they were going to resolve it (unilaterally) within 60 days. I have done catering where my invoice stated final payment was due on the day of the event, and they said their policy was net 30 (meaning they paid within 30 days of delivery), after the event was over.

Had situations with banks where they suddenly change their insurance policies and try to make you buy more insurance than was initially required.

did it arrive damage, as fault of the company, or as fault by postal service or someone else along the way? the not paying you when they said they'd initially pay you is kind of fucked up. it feels like if you some kind of contract with them, then they have to pay you or you can take action against them?

and the same goes for banks changing their insurance policies, after already coming to a deal with you.

Foo wrote:My bigger point is that you should not assume for a moment that hospital policy is to protect you, it is to protect them.

and laws are only policy, with more authority and power behind them.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:policy and laws could be bad, sure.

I am not sure the level of dealings you have with companies, but it is a constant battle with their bullshit policies. It is also amazing how quickly they will violate their own policies when it is in their interest to do so.

One of the lines I deliver about once a month, "First of all, I don't care what your policy is, because you don't pay me...".

no, i don't have much discussion of policy with any company supervisors or whatever. why would they want to tell you what the policy was at all? what is the need for that? i don't understand.

Banks are really good to have policies that fuck you over when they want. Another common one is when you purchase something and they make returns difficult. Insurance is another.

I have bought equipment that arrived damaged and their company policy was to review the damage and then decide how they were going to resolve it (unilaterally) within 60 days. I have done catering where my invoice stated final payment was due on the day of the event, and they said their policy was net 30 (meaning they paid within 30 days of delivery), after the event was over.

Had situations with banks where they suddenly change their insurance policies and try to make you buy more insurance than was initially required.

did it arrive damage, as fault of the company, or as fault by postal service or someone else along the way? the not paying you when they said they'd initially pay you is kind of fucked up. it feels like if you some kind of contract with them, then they have to pay you or you can take action against them?

and the same goes for banks changing their insurance policies, after already coming to a deal with you.

In business, everyone knows where the leverage is. You don't take action against your customers unless you want to lose customers. Am I gonna lose an annual $10k catering job because they aren't a fast pay? Of course bot, I am the little guy so I eat shit and like it. That is reality.

As for the damage, at some point it appears that the box was strapped to a dolly and crushed the refrigerator a little in the process. It was a countertop merchandising fridge, and was mostly glass that was broken when I got it. You could see the strap marks on the box.

Again, the bank has the leverage most of the time. In one instance, they bought additional insurance in my name and sent me a bill. I was fortunate enough to have the money to simply pay back the loan, but not everyone does of course.

Policies are for them, not for you. Claiming that hospital policy was about the patient was a lie.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:My bigger point is that you should not assume for a moment that hospital policy is to protect you, it is to protect them.

and laws are only policy, with more authority and power behind them.

We can establish HMF policy, we cannot make laws. See the difference? Literally anyone can make policy. Only lawmakers can draft laws, which must be approved by and elected official, and then by the courts. Policy has no checks and balances, nor do they take rights into account.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:My bigger point is that you should not assume for a moment that hospital policy is to protect you, it is to protect them.

and laws are only policy, with more authority and power behind them.

We can establish HMF policy, we cannot make laws. See the difference? Literally anyone can make policy. Only lawmakers can draft laws, which must be approved by and elected official, and then by the courts. Policy has no checks and balances, nor do they take rights into account.

i see that we don't make laws, anymore than we make hospital policy. and both hospital policy and laws can potentially help us or hinder us.

if the need for warrant or consent from the victim was not about law, then what was it? are you arguing that that was only hospital policy and nothing else?

Is the primary function of a hospital to help people or to make money?

Foo wrote:Is the primary function of a hospital to help people or to make money?

that doesn't feel relevant to this instance. how does insisting that you, as a nurse in charge of the patient, need a warrant to draw blood from that patient, make you money? does it not do anything to help or protect the patient?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Is the primary function of a hospital to help people or to make money?

that doesn't feel relevant to this instance. how does insisting that you, as a nurse in charge of the patient, need a warrant to draw blood from that patient, make you money? does it not do anything to help or protect the patient?

Why dodge? Are motivations not relevant?

I am saying we need to quit pretending hospitals and nurses are not profit driven. It is a farce.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Is the primary function of a hospital to help people or to make money?

that doesn't feel relevant to this instance. how does insisting that you, as a nurse in charge of the patient, need a warrant to draw blood from that patient, make you money? does it not do anything to help or protect the patient?

Why dodge? Are motivations not relevant?

I am saying we need to quit pretending hospitals and nurses are not profit driven. It is a farce.

because it only serves your agenda. but i think that hospitals have the pretense of helping people, while often doing whatever they can to make money.

and you dodged what i asked. thanks for that.