Tea-party-audience-cheers-letting-the-uninsured-die

[Twister]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/tea-party-audience-cheers-letting-the-uninsured-die/ (video included)

The audience Monday night’s CNN Tea Party Express Republican primary debate was eager to see the death of a hypothetical man who was in a coma and also did not have health care insurance.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer posed this question to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul: “A healthy young, 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living but decides, ‘You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month on health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.’ But something terrible happens, all the sudden he needs it. What’s going to happen if he goes into a coma? Who pays for that?”

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do,” Paul replied. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…”

“Are you saying society should just let him die?” Blitzer asked.

The audience responded with shouts of “Yes!”

“We’ve given up on this concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it,” Paul explained. “This is the reason the cost is so high… We have lack of competition. There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody’s protected by licensing ”

Watch this video from CNN’s Tea Party Debate, broadcast Sept. 12, 2011.

 

[Aardvark154]

So when a healthy young, 30-year-old man who has a good job, and makes a good living decides, is uninsured solely because he does not wish to spend the money for it, ends up having made a horrible choice, (note he is without insurance because he chose to be, not because he was unable to afford it) society should now not just give him medical care (for which everyone who did decide to make that choice has to pay more than they otherwise would) but extraordinary medical care?

You may say that you do not want people to have that sort of free choice in their lives, that people need to protected from themselves, however, given the scenario presented, the response of Representative Paul and the Audience seem perfectly reasonable, and again not this was not a case of poverty, which is an entirely different matter.

 

[alexmst]

In Canada health coverage is paid for by income taxes. If the government gave an opt-out, where an individual's tax bill was reduced by 8% if he not longer wanted health coverage, some people would take it to save the money. If they went into a coma, what should the OHIP position be? Let them die, give them free coverage that everyone else had to pay for....or treat him and give him a bill for the 8% savings for every year he opted out out of OHIP?

 

[Asterix]

So when a healthy young, 30-year-old man who has a good job, and makes a good living decides, is uninsured solely because he does not wish to spend the money for it, ends up having made a horrible choice, (note he is without insurance because he chose to be, not because he was unable to afford it) society should now not just give him medical care (for which everyone who did decide to make that choice has to pay more than they otherwise would) but extraordinary medical care?

You may say that you do not want people to have that sort of free choice in their lives, that people need to protected from themselves, however, given the scenario presented, the response of Representative Paul and the Audience seem perfectly reasonable, and again not this was not a case of poverty, which is an entirely different matter.

What if he was neither? Not a man with a good enough job to afford health insurance but not in poverty either. He should still die?

 

[Aardvark154]

What if he was neither? Not a man with a good enough job to afford health insurance but not in poverty either. He should still die?

While I do have an opinion*, that wasn't the question Wolf Blitzer asked.



* in my books that is still he is unable to afford it

 

[Asterix]

While I do have an opinion*, that wasn't the question Wolf Blitzer asked.

I don't care if it was the question he asked, it is the question I am asking.

 

[Aardvark154]

I don't care if it was the question he asked, it is the question I am asking.

Ok, and you will see that I answered your question.

 

[alwayslooking]

I think Christopher Walken should shake hands with Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann

 

[GG2]

Ron Paul is the most authentic candidate running. He'd get my vote.

 

[danmand]

So when a healthy young, 30-year-old man who has a good job, and makes a good living decides, is uninsured solely because he does not wish to spend the money for it, ends up having made a horrible choice, (note he is without insurance because he chose to be, not because he was unable to afford it) society should now not just give him medical care (for which everyone who did decide to make that choice has to pay more than they otherwise would) but extraordinary medical care?

You may say that you do not want people to have that sort of free choice in their lives, that people need to protected from themselves, however, given the scenario presented, the response of Representative Paul and the Audience seem perfectly reasonable, and again not this was not a case of poverty, which is an entirely different matter.

The response seem perfectly reasonable to you, because you do not care about your fellow human beings. They are just like pigs or chickens to you; , you have no empathy with your fellow humans. There is a word for it: Psychopath.

 

[Cobster]

I was watching it last night and when I heard the cheers, I literally thought "wtf" and I'm sure my eyes opened up a bit more. lol

It's funny, because the ones that did cheer I'm sure weren't exactly agnostics or atheists.
So there irony for me was that a lot of these people are pro-life, yet once that life is out there, it's on its own completely.
It's really like "hey we helped you get out, but once you're a child, young adult, adult, in any of those stages, you're on your own", sorry about your luck but we have money to cut and save $$$ (except for military spending). lol

GOD damn hypocrites. lol

Sociopath is a PERFECT word btw Dan. But he'll try to justify it through some BS Christian based articles, twisted sense of interpretation of the Bible through some spin-off religion (Anglican, Protestant, etc, etc).
It's all about convenience for them. lol.... I call it hypocrisy though.

 

[james t kirk]

Hell, this is not hypothetical, this is reality.

In the USA in 2009 45 THOUSAND people died because they COULD NOT AFFORD healthcare, never mind they opted out of buying it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

 

[Aardvark154]

The response seem perfectly reasonable to you, because you do not care about your fellow human beings. They are just like pigs or chickens to you; , you have no empathy with your fellow humans. There is a word for it: Psychopath.

Well that's quite lovely Danmand and explains so much I'm sure.

Please tell us what is your solution to a hypothetical in which someone who can afford to be insured is uninsured and the rest of society has to pay for them? How is this sort of free will different from Flood Insurance, if "x" does not purchase flood insurance and a disaster occurs should they be paid by the insurance company anyway even though they were uninsured? Their situation also seems tragic to me.

I see Representative Paul's response as rational, that does not mean that I agree with his total libertarian philosophy. May I suggest that if you are so offended, you write to his congressional office and express your feelings. http://www.paul.house.gov/

Further, interesting that no one has compared this to Representative Bachman's remarks about the Texas mandatory HPV vaccination program for sixth grade girls.

 

[Berlin]

Ron Paul

If haven't watched the debate last night , watch at least the whole clip on that subject matter. Ron Paul , not the most eloquent slick debater as always, never meant and said that it's ok for letting " that person " die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Am2bWQRNw&feature=player_embedded

I do appreciate what Ron Paul said during the whole debate.


As for the cheering when Blitzer threw that Q, yeah ... it's rather telling.

 

[DATYdude]

Blitzer should have phrased the question so that person in the coma is Paul's (or any member of the audience's) brother, father, or child. This is why we take the choice of whether to insure ourselves OUT of the individual's hands.

 

[james t kirk]

Blitzer should have phrased the question so that person in the coma is Paul's (or any member of the audience's) brother, father, or child. This is why we take the choice of whether to insure ourselves OUT of the individual's hands.

It wouldn't matter.

I am aware of this American couple who are both in their 60's and basically broke. They are on all kinds of government assistance programs. She has a pile of health problems for which the gov't is largely picking up the tab, but both of them bray on and on about "Obamacare" and "socialism" and all the typical right wing tea party bullshit. Hypocrisy at its finest. The funny thing is that they don't get that they are in fact the people Obama and the Democrats are wanting to help. They truly believe that they are not living off of the system. I'd be willing to bet the farm that a large percentage of Teabaggers are in exactly the same situation.

 

[Aardvark154]

Blitzer should have phrased the question so that person in the coma is Paul's (or any member of the audience's) brother, father, or child. This is why we take the choice of whether to insure ourselves OUT of the individual's hands.

Save for the brother (who presumably to a libertarian viewpoint should be free to make his own choices) the U.S. has already said that children (whose parents are not covered and cannot afford insurance) and the elderly should be covered, I do not know what Representative Paul's view is on that, then again I do not support his candidacy.

 

[alexmst]

In Canada health coverage is paid for by income taxes. If the government gave an opt-out, where an individual's tax bill was reduced by 8% if he not longer wanted health coverage, some people would take it to save the money. If they went into a coma, what should the OHIP position be? Let them die, give them free coverage that everyone else had to pay for....or treat him and give him a bill for the 8% savings for every year he opted out out of OHIP?

The bill for the 8% for every year since he opted out seems the most fair to me. With a government loan if he can't pay it when he recovers. Or he can have the choice to keep the 8% savings over the years and pay instead for the actual cost of his medical issue - he can opt for whichever is less. Of course this situation is why OHIP would never allow one to opt-out of universal health care.

 

[Malibook]

The bill for the 8% for every year since he opted out seems the most fair to me. With a government loan if he can't pay it when he recovers. Or he can have the choice to keep the 8% savings over the years and pay instead for the actual cost of his medical issue - he can opt for whichever is less. Of course this situation is why OHIP would never allow one to opt-out of universal health care.

You have to charge significantly more than what it would have cost otherwise what incentive would there be for anybody to pay.

 

[Malibook]

If someone chooses not to pay and then they require care, then they need to pay the bills.
If they can`t pay the bills and they want the care, then seize their assets and garnish their wages to cover as much as possible.

Should taxpayers also cover cheap idiots who travel without health insurance?