NationStates Jolt Archive

A US woman who is an overstayer migrant in NZ says she will die if forcibly deported back to her country, because it will mean discontinuing her medical treatment. NZ has apparently said that is not a valid reason not to deport her. If true, this is appalling, so I can't help but wonder whether something is being left unsaid. The way it's reported here suggests a "straightforward" case of utterly inhumane bureaucracy. (link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4381373a11.html))

An American overstayer who uses a dialysis machine 12 hours a day is threatening to stop her own treatment and die in Wellington rather than accept deportation.

The Immigration Service has booked Lana Schmidt on a flight out of Auckland next Saturday, and warned it will force her removal if she resists.

But Ms Schmidt says she has nowhere to go, there are no arrangements for her continued medical care once she gets to Los Angeles, and she cannot get support from the United States Medicare system till July.

[...] She said she had no family she could go to for support in the US, and setting up the dialysis she needed was no simple matter.

Forcing her on to a plane next Saturday was effectively a death sentence.

[...] A letter from Nicola Hay, her Wellington Hospital renal specialist, said discontinuation of her dialysis would result in death within days or weeks.

Immigration Service spokeswoman Helen Corrigan confirmed that Ms Schmidt was to be deported, and said the service saw no reason why this should not happen.

[...] The service told her it was not New Zealand's responsibility to arrange for her dialysis in the US - these were matters for her to arrange with US authorities.

It also asked how she intended to repay the Health Ministry for the cost of her treatment - about $1100 a week - plus the cost of her deportation.

She could try and stay in the airport like in that film "The Terminal", if she doesn't want to go home.

And the problem is?That Ariddia said he was gone for good.

But yeah, it sounds appalling. One wonders why she wouldn't be able to receive a dialysis in the States...

And the problem is?

Most of us consider death to be a problem. I dunno about you.

A US woman who is an overstayer migrant in NZ says she will die if forcibly deported back to her country, because it will mean discontinuing her medical treatment. NZ has apparently said that is not a valid reason not to deport her. If true, this is appalling, so I can't help but wonder whether something is being left unsaid. The way it's reported here suggests a "straightforward" case of utterly inhumane bureaucracy. (link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4381373a11.html))

And the problem is?

I have little sympathy for someone who has put themselves in this position.

as long as they give her enough time to arrange dialysis in the US, they should deport her.

is she so sick that she cant survive the plane ride?

I have little sympathy for someone who has put themselves in this position.
She gave herself kidney failure? :confused:

If it's a matter of waiting for proper medical arrangements to be made, I don't see why they should ship her off now. It won't kill them to wait a few months before departing here, and it will kill her if they do it now.
Besides, I'm fairly sure it's at least a human rights violation.

I have little sympathy for someone who has put themselves in this position.Yeah, that darned women, pulling out her kidneys, they should have her shot.

That Ariddia said he was gone for good.

But yeah, it sounds appalling. One wonders why she wouldn't be able to receive a dialysis in the States...

Dialysis is pretty expensive. Though I do have a hard time believing that nobody would do it just because you don't have enough money. America is pretty cold-hearted and capitalist, but not THAT cold hearted and capitalist.

Either way I completely understand how she feels. I'm an American who's visited New Zealand, and that return flight DOES in fact feel like a death sentence.

She would not elaborate on the case without Ms Schmidt's consent, and Ms Schmidt yesterday declined to give consent.

I wonder why?

I have little sympathy for someone who has put themselves in this position.

Can you clarify this statement, please?

Dialysis is pretty expensive. Though I do have a hard time believing that nobody would do it just because you don't have enough money. America is pretty cold-hearted and capitalist, but not THAT cold hearted and capitalist.

Either way I completely understand how she feels. I'm an American who's visited New Zealand, and that return flight DOES in fact feel like a death sentence.
Actually, yes they would deny it if you don't have enough money.

Actually, yes they would deny it if you don't have enough money.

I don't really know all that much about the system in the US but at what point does a "medic-aid" type system kick in and start to pay for things like this, if at all?

Welcome back, Aridd.;)

I don't really know all that much about the system in the US but at what point does a "medic-aid" type system kick in and start to pay for things like this, if at all?

That system, so far as I am aware, is purely for the elderly, and is continously messed with so that it provides as little actual care as possible. (It only kicks in at sixty five, but my dad hasn't noticed any sudden improvement in his health-care.)

We don't have a universal healthcare system, and what we do have is a jumbled mess of insurance and other schemes designed more to take away as much money as possible rather than actually provide health care. It's disgusting and ludicrous when we could very easily pay for free healthcare for every American without costing our government all that much money, and it would vastly improve so many things...

It makes me so mad to see people who whine about the cost when the cost isn't even a tenth of a percent of our annual GDP. It also pisses me off to see people whining about how it won't do anything or it'll be a beauraucratic nightmare, or how because the one form of government health care they saw in the military didn't work well so it can never work well, and such and such...URGH!

My dad needs a lot of care he's not getting because we can't afford it. Hell, I could use some dental care, and could have for awhile now, but it's being put off for the sake of my dad. And of course now my mom is diabetic which plays hell with everything, and if my dad dies there's no way my mom can keep getting her medicine and they'll never pay for it themselves because they only care about their own fucking proft...

the US government has programs that specifically cover dialysis. if she needs it she will not go without.

it will require her to pay for whatever she can pay for but that's not new zealands problem.

the US government has programs that specifically cover dialysis. if she needs it she will not go without.

it will require her to pay for whatever she can pay for but that's not new zealands problem.

Only problem is that you have to jump though a couple thousand hoops before the program kicks in. Somebody told me they had people die while waiting for the program......

Only problem is that you have to jump though a couple thousand hoops before the program kicks in. Somebody told me they had people die while waiting for the program......

i dont know where that would be, its administered through medicaid. its available in every town and city in the country.

there is no reason for new zealand to allow her to stay in the country. her hardship is logisitcs and financial. why should NZ allow her to stay for that?

lets say shes a Mexican migrant worker and its in America

WWBD?;)

i dont know where that would be, its administered through medicaid. its available in every town and city in the country.

there is no reason for new zealand to allow her to stay in the country. her hardship is logisitcs and financial. why should NZ allow her to stay for that?

I also don't understand why she didn't get the ball rolling with Medicaid the day she knew she was getting deported. I used to work in insurance, and it wasn't uncommon at all to find someone getting preenrolled for Medicaid before they moved to a new state (all states have their own system). Why wouldn't this woman, just in case her appeals failed, have done such a thing?

I also don't belive a hospital can deny you life saving care. There's a minimum amount of care they must provide regardless of your ability to pay.

That system, so far as I am aware, is purely for the elderly, and is continously messed with so that it provides as little actual care as possible. (It only kicks in at sixty five, but my dad hasn't noticed any sudden improvement in his health-care.)

We don't have a universal healthcare system, and what we do have is a jumbled mess of insurance and other schemes designed more to take away as much money as possible rather than actually provide health care. It's disgusting and ludicrous when we could very easily pay for free healthcare for every American without costing our government all that much money, and it would vastly improve so many things...

It makes me so mad to see people who whine about the cost when the cost isn't even a tenth of a percent of our annual GDP. It also pisses me off to see people whining about how it won't do anything or it'll be a beauraucratic nightmare, or how because the one form of government health care they saw in the military didn't work well so it can never work well, and such and such...URGH!

My dad needs a lot of care he's not getting because we can't afford it. Hell, I could use some dental care, and could have for awhile now, but it's being put off for the sake of my dad. And of course now my mom is diabetic which plays hell with everything, and if my dad dies there's no way my mom can keep getting her medicine and they'll never pay for it themselves because they only care about their own fucking proft...

Yeah, I have much the same opinions about the issue. People say it'll be a bureaucratic nightmare clearly haven't dealt much with insurance companies. It's already a tangled bureaucratic mess. Corporate bureaucracy if anything is even worse than government bureaucracy. That's something you sure learn well when you're lower middle class and your dad has cancer. Or had, now, rather.

Welcome back, Aridd.;)

That Ariddia said he was gone for good.


I am. I was never here. Forget you ever saw me. :p

Actually, I've been resisting the temptation to flood this forum with threads, so I'm feeling reasonably proud of myself. ;)

as long as they give her enough time to arrange dialysis in the US, they should deport her.

That's the problem. She's asked for time; it's been denied her. Read the article.


is she so sick that she cant survive the plane ride?

You seem to have misread the article. Or barely to have glanced at it.

the US government has programs that specifically cover dialysis. if she needs it she will not go without.

Not immediately. There are procedures. She would have to wait until July, and cannot survive that long. Have you read the article?

Anyway, I'll leave you all to it now. Was just passing through...

She could try and stay in the airport like in that film "The Terminal", if she doesn't want to go home.

Yeah, except she wouldn't be there as long... unless of course the airport has dialyzers.

A US woman who is an overstayer migrant in NZ says she will die if forcibly deported back to her country, because it will mean discontinuing her medical treatment. NZ has apparently said that is not a valid reason not to deport her. If true, this is appalling, so I can't help but wonder whether something is being left unsaid. The way it's reported here suggests a "straightforward" case of utterly inhumane bureaucracy. (link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4381373a11.html))

Unless she could make a case that lack of access to medical care is cruel and inhumane punishment, NZ has no reason not to deport her. She is not facing execution, or death squads, or persecution.

I do agree that such a lack of access is EXTREMELY problematic, but for policy reasons it would be absurd for NZ's immigration/refugee laws to make lack of access to medical care grounds to grant asylum.

the US government has programs that specifically cover dialysis. if she needs it she will not go without.

it will require her to pay for whatever she can pay for but that's not new zealands problem.
That's disgraceful and almost sickening, no one should have to pay for their health, in fact it's a human right under various UN conventions.

What a crappy situation. It is still New Zealand's right to deport her. She should have been more quick to apply for aid programs in the US. She dug her own grave by do nothing when she should have left NZ.



Good health comes from good genes, good diet, and maintenance. It is not a right.
In my books it is, moreover health is a social and common responsibility.

What a crappy situation. It is still New Zealand's right to deport her. She should have been more quick to apply for aid programs in the US. She dug her own grave by do nothing when she should have left NZ.

That's disgraceful and almost sickening, no one should have to pay for their health, in fact it's a human right under various UN conventions.

Good health comes from good genes, good diet, and maintenance. It is not a right.

A very similar case happened here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7178416.stm)

Also Trollgaard, I'd say it's the height of moral cowardice by society to treat anyone who gets sicks and can't pay for it, who becomes impoverished or homeless as examples of 'personal failure' or 'individual irresponsibility', it's inhumane and takes the 'everyone for themselves' society of America to an extreme. I much prefer a society where we are all constituent units, and 'the mutual development of one is the condition for the mutual development of all'.

That's disgraceful and almost sickening, no one should have to pay for their health, in fact it's a human right under various UN conventions.

I presume you mean:


(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Interesting. Is this woman technically having her basic human rights violated?

In my books it is, moreover health is a social and common responsibility.

Then we disagree.

And it not Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B is healthy. That falls on Person B.

Each individual is responsible for their own health.

Then we disagree.

And it not Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B is healthy. That falls on Person B.

Each individual is responsible for their own health.
In that logic then we shouldn't live in a 'society' at all, because social relations would not be needed, on that logic every person is their own country and does whatever they want, but this of course flies in the face of social consequence and the innate interdependence of humanity.

In that logic then we shouldn't live in a 'society' at all, because social relations would not be needed, on that logic every person is their own country and does whatever they want, but this of course flies in the face of social consequence and the innate interdependence of humanity.

No.

People follow social norms, or can face stigma. People follow laws so they won't be punished. This happened even before modern medicine, and continues to occur.

Health is not anyone else's responsibility other than individual. It is very simple.

Sucks for the lady, though.

About your other post:

There nothing cowardly about responsibility. In fact, having the government assume people can't support themselves is cowardice. Eventually the birds learn to fly on their own, or not...catch my drift?

And I much prefer a society where individuals are responsible for their own lives.

Then we disagree.

And it not Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B is healthy. That falls on Person B.

Each individual is responsible for their own health.

Ergo, if Person A shoots Person B in the face, it's Person B's fault for dying horribly.

General statements are usually flawed.

Interesting. Is this woman technically having her basic human rights violated?
It's only a matter of opinion wether it's a basic human right, there's no legal basis for it, at least not under international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is only advisory.

I am. I was never here. Forget you ever saw me. :p

Actually, I've been resisting the temptation to flood this forum with threads, so I'm feeling reasonably proud of myself. ;)



That's the problem. She's asked for time; it's been denied her. Read the article.



You seem to have misread the article. Or barely to have glanced at it.



Not immediately. There are procedures. She would have to wait until July, and cannot survive that long. Have you read the article?

Anyway, I'll leave you all to it now. Was just passing through...

no she will not have to wait to july

she would have to wait to july to get into a certain program.

no one is denied dialysis in the united states. it might ruin her financially but that is not new zealand's problem.

No.

People follow social norms, or can face stigma. People follow laws so they won't be punished. This happened even before modern medicine, and continues to occur.

Health is not anyone else's responsibility other than individual. It is very simple.

Sucks for the lady, though.

About your other post:

There nothing cowardly about responsibility. In fact, having the government assume people can't support themselves is cowardice. Eventually the birds learn to fly on their own, or not...catch my drift?

And I much prefer a society where individuals are responsible for their own lives.

Why follow social norms? When there is no benefit, what's the point. If any harm that comes to me is my own fault, even if my only crime is getting sick randomly, if society won't do anything for me, why should I do anything for society (ie, follow social norms)?

That's disgraceful and almost sickening, no one should have to pay for their health, in fact it's a human right under various UN conventions.

maybe so but that is also not new zealands problem

Why follow social norms? When there is no benefit, what's the point. If any harm that comes to me is my own fault, even if my only crime is getting sick randomly, if society won't do anything for me, why should I do anything for society (ie, follow social norms)?

then don't

i don't give a damn

Well if she caused the kidney failure herslef(alcohol, drug use ect.) then its her own damn fault. Why is she being deported to the US anyway?

then don't

i don't give a damn

So, if I stab you and you die, it's your fault, right? After all, it's your health.

So, if I stab you and you die, it's your fault, right? After all, it's your health.

No because you stabbed him. If she did this to herself, its her own damn fualt. If he had been running with a knife, blade up and tripped, it would be his fault, and I woulnd't give a damn.

No public hospital will turn her down for dialysis. As for what she needs to do is get herself on early disability. Kidney failure is on top of the list as far as disabilities go. She is not in dire straights when she comes back to the states. There is a way to get things taken care of. My hunch is that she knows this and just wants to stay in NZ where she has made her home.

Hm, a sick testimony to the inhumane country i live in. Not that other country's are much or any better. Humans are, after all, basically bad.

Ahhh, the old 'humans are evil' nihilistic justification for liberalism, refuting too many times too count...

Hm, a sick testimony to the inhumane country i live in. Not that other country's are much or any better. Humans are, after all, basically bad.

No public hospital will turn her down for dialysis. As for what she needs to do is get herself on early disability. Kidney failure is on top of the list as far as disabilities go. She is not in dire straights when she comes back to the states. There is a way to get things taken care of. My hunch is that she knows this and just wants to stay in NZ where she has made her home.

exactly. she wants to stay in nz so she is putting forward this story that is obviously false.

yes it will be rather inconvenient to get her dialysis done until she gets a regular spot at a dialysis center but she wont be denied. she is not facing certain death.

so if NZ has no good reason to let her stay, why should they? she can go home and apply for a visa like anyone else. if she qualifies perhaps they will let her back in.

To emphasize a little more what others have said, this woman's claim is simply false. No hospital would deny her lifesaving treatment. While she was being treated she would have time to apply for Medicaid until Medicare kicked in, assuming that she didn't have means to pay for the treatment herself. She's facing some paperwork, and probably a hospital bill, and probably not the most fun experience since she'll be relying on emergency care, but that's not at all the same thing as facing death.

Ahhh, the old 'humans are evil' nihilistic justification for liberalism, refuting too many times too count...


I am not trying to justify liberlism. I am saying that humans are greedy, selfish,and violent by nature. I'm not just saying that becuase of my religion either. I have no doubt humans have developed some nobel traits, but we are not basically good. If we were, I think we'd all be able to tell.

That Ariddia said he was gone for good.

But yeah, it sounds appalling. One wonders why she wouldn't be able to receive a dialysis in the States...

It's not as if it's not a commonly available procedure.... you can receive dialysis in hospitals and in standalone medical clinics.

That system, so far as I am aware, is purely for the elderly, and is continously messed with so that it provides as little actual care as possible. (It only kicks in at sixty five, but my dad hasn't noticed any sudden improvement in his health-care.)

We don't have a universal healthcare system, and what we do have is a jumbled mess of insurance and other schemes designed more to take away as much money as possible rather than actually provide health care. It's disgusting and ludicrous when we could very easily pay for free healthcare for every American without costing our government all that much money, and it would vastly improve so many things...

It makes me so mad to see people who whine about the cost when the cost isn't even a tenth of a percent of our annual GDP. It also pisses me off to see people whining about how it won't do anything or it'll be a beauraucratic nightmare, or how because the one form of government health care they saw in the military didn't work well so it can never work well, and such and such...URGH!

My dad needs a lot of care he's not getting because we can't afford it. Hell, I could use some dental care, and could have for awhile now, but it's being put off for the sake of my dad. And of course now my mom is diabetic which plays hell with everything, and if my dad dies there's no way my mom can keep getting her medicine and they'll never pay for it themselves because they only care about their own fucking proft...

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/
http://www.medicare.gov/

A US woman who is an overstayer migrant in NZ says she will die if forcibly deported back to her country, because it will mean discontinuing her medical treatment. NZ has apparently said that is not a valid reason not to deport her. If true, this is appalling, so I can't help but wonder whether something is being left unsaid. The way it's reported here suggests a "straightforward" case of utterly inhumane bureaucracy. (link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4381373a11.html))

Beurocracies are like having heartless robots run our lives. Beurocrats care only about the rules and doing things according to protocol, morals, life and death, and other values that makes one human don't matter at all to them.

Hm, a sick testimony to the inhumane country i live in. Not that other country's are much or any better. Humans are, after all, basically bad.

"Bad"? Very vague term. Please elaborate.

Beurocracies are like having heartless robots run our lives. Beurocrats care only about the rules and doing things according to protocol, morals, life and death, and other values that makes one human don't matter at all to them.

And the same applies to corporate bureaucrats.

And the same applies to corporate bureaucrats.

Indeed, it applies to buerocrats in general.

Is there any other source for this news story? The Dominion Post appears to be the only newspaper that's documenting this event, and it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Such as:

-What caused Lana Schmidt to get on dialysis? The article mentions kidney breakdown as while being in a depressed state, so one could suspect alcohol/drug abuse but it doesn't preclude the possibility that she just might have contracted something (like a bacterium or a virus) from her day-to-day activities that led to her kidneys failing, meaning it might *not* be substance abuse.

-Why is she being deported? The New Zealand officials won't elaborate because Schmidt won't let them. I suspect Schmidt is being deported not for any criminal or penal reasons but because a visa expired or something, since the Post explains that Schmidt was in the process of recouping her share of a business she ran with an ex-boyfriend, the one who brought her to New Zealand in the first place.

-Did Schmidt know she was going to be deported? The Post doesn't tell us how long Schmidt knew about her deportation order, but if she knew months in advance that she'd be deported (as would be the case if a visa expired) then I don't see how she couldn't arrange for Medicare to kick in once she arrived in Los Angeles.

The article does seem to take Schmidt's word for everything, because the only reason why we know Schmidt couldn't get on dialysis sooner in L.A. is because Schmidt said so, and some of you have already pointed out there's immediate emergency options she can pursue (something I wouldn't doubt- otherwise, how would ER's operate?). Maybe Medicare information isn't easily accessible in New Zealand, but the Post's piece does seem to wreak of poor fact-checking. I also have to question how much of this situation truly is beyond Schmidt's control, since this article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4346093a11.html) indicates that the cause of her kayaking misadventure (where she had to be rescued) was because she got lost going back to the start of her trek. Now, I understand that even the most meticulous of people in taking care of themselves can still get lost on a trek, but I have to wonder, given previous evidence of an awareness mishap that Schmidt couldn't do it in this instance, especially when there are signs in her story.

The Post's article does appear to be nothing more than a sob story told by someone hoping public opinion can save her from a situation that, while unfortunate, is something she could have avoided. However, before I take New Zealand's side in this, I still have to figure out the reasons for her deportation (to ensure they have a valid reason for doing so) and how long Schmidt knew about the order (so New Zealand can truly say "we did what we could to ensure she could plan ahead and lay a contingency plan for her arrival back in Los Angeles"), because the Post- curiously- does not mention either.

I am not trying to justify liberlism. I am saying that humans are greedy, selfish,and violent by nature. I'm not just saying that becuase of my religion either. I have no doubt humans have developed some nobel traits, but we are not basically good. If we were, I think we'd all be able to tell.
Humans are not innately selfish, they are simply products of their material conditions, ie being in a selfish society makes them selfish etc.

Humans are not innately selfish, they are simply products of their material conditions, ie being in a selfish society makes them selfish etc.

Simply putting someone into a certain type of enviroment does not automatically dictate how they behave.

Simply putting someone into a certain type of enviroment does not automatically dictate how they behave.
Then what does? If material conditions (ie reality) does not control behave, then I assume you believe some abstract concept controls human behavior.

Then what does? If material conditions (ie reality) does not control behave, then I assume you believe some abstract concept controls human behavior.

Genetics has a big hand in the predisposition of humans. Do you not agree?

Genetics has a big hand in the predisposition of humans. Do you not agree?

Maybe to a limited degree, but not to the degree that some people can make ridiculous claims like 'humans are naturally (genetically or otherwise) selfish' or anything so ludicrous as that. That argument generally looses weight when you say look at communalistic primitive relations. The idea that humans are 'naturally' bad and selfish is ludicrous because without human solidarity and cooperation we wouldn't be having this conversation right now in a common language.

Maybe to a limited degree, but not to the degree that some people can make ridiculous claims like 'humans are naturally (genetically or otherwise) selfish' or anything so ludicrous as that. That argument generally looses weight when you say look at communalistic primitive relations.

You bring up an interesting point about how primitive tribes live. That type of coexistence will mute many behaviors simply because of the communal lifestyle of a tribe. In that example I agree with you. I think that is entirely different from the western world in the sense that individualism is encouraged to a large degree. When someone is basically free to do as they please they revert back to Genetics and then the influence of their surroundings.

You bring up an interesting point about how primitive tribes live. That type of coexistence will mute many behaviors simply because of the communal lifestyle of a tribe. In that example I agree with you. I think that is entirely different from the western world in the sense that individualism is encouraged to a large degree. When someone is basically free to do as they please they revert back to Genetics and then the influence of their surroundings.
Your dealing in absolutes, if your referring mostly to America the experience is largely mixed, no country encourages absolute individualism, America more than anything has a history of and continuing culture of government regulation, welfare and dependence on the state, although America has changed alot the remnants of 'New Deal' and it's successors is still around. Apart from a 'Bohemian' culture America also has strong middle-lower-class religious community conditions etc. Maybe for the highest of the bourgeois they are completely individualistic, but most people aren't, either way that doesn't change that they are products of their conditions.

Hm, a sick testimony to the inhumane country i live in. Not that other country's are much or any better. Humans are, after all, basically bad.

I am not trying to justify liberlism. I am saying that humans are greedy, selfish,and violent by nature. I'm not just saying that becuase of my religion either. I have no doubt humans have developed some nobel traits, but we are not basically good. If we were, I think we'd all be able to tell.

*hugs*
Don't fret, little misanthrope, I love you.

Then what does? If material conditions (ie reality) does not control behave, then I assume you believe some abstract concept controls human behavior.

Nothing controls human behaviour.

All humans are capable of any behaviour, from incredible kindness and saintly goodness to the most intense depths of the foul and despicable. It is within us all to be a Stalin or Hitler, it is within us all to be as St Francis of Asissi is reputed to have been.

Our actions are our choices.

Nothing controls human behaviour.

All humans are capable of any behaviour, from incredible kindness and saintly goodness to the most intense depths of the foul and despicable. It is within us all to be a Stalin or Hitler, it is within us all to be as St Francis of Asissi is reputed to have been.

Our actions are our choices.

Most of this is contradictory. So what do you actualy mean?

Our choices control our behaviour?

Or,

Nothing controls our behaviour?

I don't really know all that much about the system in the US but at what point does a "medic-aid" type system kick in and start to pay for things like this, if at all?

Months.

I don't really know all that much about the system in the US but at what point does a "medic-aid" type system kick in and start to pay for things like this, if at all?

Six months. Unfortunately, even at those commercially-created mass centers it runs ~$250 a day. So run that over six months and...well.

Most of this is contradictory. So what do you actualy mean?

Our choices control our behaviour?

Or,

Nothing controls our behaviour?

Nothing controls our behaviour.

All behaviour is choice, and we can all make any choices.

Nothing controls our behaviour.

All behaviour is choice, and we can all make any choices.

And it's more than likely a human will choose to be selfish and benefit themselves.

everyone has a price.