Republicans cheer for uninsured to die

[dmcowen674]

This is the direction the new Amerika is going.

This is what dominates this forum.

I weep for what was once a great country.

9-13-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die



If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"


"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!"

Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room.

"America has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room, the GOP wants to revisit it, they can."

 

[Lithium381]

I don't WANT him to die, but i also don't want to pay for it if he gets sick. His choice.

 

[Sephire]

ALL Republicans?

 

[Lithium381]

This is the direction the new Amerika is going.

Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room.

"America has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room, the GOP wants to revisit it, they can."

why does a private entity HAVE to expend valuable resources for free?

 

[Fern]

Republicans cheer for uninsured to die

Elsewhere I read that one guy in the audience cheered. Are we now up to claiming it was two so we can justify saying "Republicans" in the plural?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

why does a private entity HAVE to expend valuable resources for free?

Feel free to lobby to have the law changed if you want, be sure to report back on how that goes.

I mentioned this episode in another thread, it was truly horrifying. When you add up the same base cheering for executions and the death of sick people, you end up with a pretty disgusting group of people these candidates are trying to appeal to.

 

[soundforbjt]

Elsewhere I read that one guy in the audience cheered. Are we now up to claiming it was two so we can justify saying "Republicans" in the plural?

Fern

I watched the debate, it was more than one person.

 

[fskimospy]

Elsewhere I read that one guy in the audience cheered. Are we now up to claiming it was two so we can justify saying "Republicans" in the plural?

Fern

It's certainly more than one, you can hear it on the video yourself. While the audience as a whole didn't cheer, it's still easily the most disgusting episode I've ever seen at any debate. Then again, they sort of asked for it by having it be a 'tea party' debate, as that was basically guaranteed to gather together the most ideological and most poorly educated parts of the Republican base all in the same room.

 

[SandEagle]

I don't WANT him to die, but i also don't want to pay for it if he gets sick. His choice.

this is the difference between you and a decent human being. i don't want him to die, but i would pay my share to make sure he lives. i love Ron Paul. he is a true American hero.

 

[SandEagle]

great commentary by Tony Benn from Sicko:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LnY-jy_cE0

 

[Infohawk]

It's interesting how quickly partisan left-wingers will jump to extrapolate from a few Republicans to all Republicans. I guess generalizing is okay if it's Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

It's interesting how quickly partisan left-wingers will jump to extrapolate from a few Republicans to all Republicans. I guess generalizing is okay if it's Republicans.

The only person who did that was our good friend Dave, and I think everyone knows not to listen to him. It was not the whole audience (as I have mentioned repeatedly), but it also wasn't just one crazy idiot.

I mean is it really surprising that this kind of debate would attract this kind of awful person?

 

[senseamp]

why does a private entity HAVE to expend valuable resources for free?

Because of a law that Ronald Reagan signed to force them to do so.

 

[senseamp]

It's interesting how quickly partisan left-wingers will jump to extrapolate from a few Republicans to all Republicans. I guess generalizing is okay if it's Republicans.

Yes, not all Republicans openly cheer letting a guy die. Some are still aware of the PR aspects of openly expressing some of their views.

 

[Fern]

It's certainly more than one, you can hear it on the video yourself.

Not really, as I've said here before my pc has no audio. (You'll notice I rarely post in threads that are about something on YouTube.)

While the audience as a whole didn't cheer, it's still easily the most disgusting episode I've ever seen at any debate. Then again, they sort of asked for it by having it be a 'tea party' debate, as that was basically guaranteed to gather together the most ideological and most poorly educated parts of the Republican base all in the same room.

The polls I read show that TEA Party people are better educated and have more money than average voters.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The polls I read show that TEA Party people are better educated and have more money than average voters.

Fern

This is true, I should have said 'most ideological and most stupid'. I have nothing but contempt for the tea party movement, and not because they are conservative.

That's really missing the point though, which was that the tea party tends to attract terrible human beings... the kind of which would cheer the death of an ill person. Or Rick Perry's history of executions for that matter. I'm unaware of any other debate where a similar situation has occurred. (maybe someone cheering the death of soldiers in a Democratic debate?) They are just awful people caught up in a culture war as an outlet for their feelings of anger and impotence, spidey07 style.

 

[Lithium381]

this is the difference between you and a decent human being. i don't want him to die, but i would pay my share to make sure he lives. i love Ron Paul. he is a true American hero.

So if I chose not to buy food, you would chip in your share to make sure my family and i don't starve? Awesome, i wish i could find four or five people like you and then I wouldn't have to worry about going to safeway and having to buy food.

If i chose not to pay my monthly bill for shelter, you would chip in your share to make sure i had a roof over my head?? I wish i could find four or five people like you and then I wouldn't have worry about paying my mortgage.

Hrm.....so if choose to forgo a necessity I should expect that society will pick up my slack? Communism!!!

Personal responsibility. Get some.

 

[Lithium381]

Because of a law that Ronald Reagan signed to force them to do so.

Weak sauce! I disagree with this.....

 

[Fern]

why does a private entity HAVE to expend valuable resources for free?

I was under the impression it's NOT necessarily free. Rather it's do what's necessary upfront to save the life then worry about the bill later.

I personally know people who needed expensive cancer treatment but lacked insurance or much money. The hospital got them the treatment and arranged payment through some charities. I think they also gave him a good discount too. The point being that even if the person who needed the emergency treatment didn't have insurance or money the hospital may not forced to do it for nothing.

Fern

 

[glenn1]

The transcript is below. The question was specifically about wealthy person declining to get private insurance, and who should pay for it should he need medical care. My POV (and from the way he's laying it out, I think Ron Paul agrees) is that the man should be allowed to pay and should have a right to refuse; if he does so then he should be left to die. If he's in a coma and can't provide consent, the medical care should be provided and billed to the man afterwards; if it bankrupts him, so be it.

Evidently, Democrats and progressives feel that free riding is fine and that taxpayers should always step in to pay for people no matter what. Have fun with that approach when no one gets health insurance anymore because there is no penalty for not doing so.


BLITZER: … you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young 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 for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —

BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

 

[Lithium381]

I wasn't specifically talking about hostpitals, though that is a very popular example. In general, however.

 

[Lithium381]

The transcript is below. The question was specifically about wealthy person declining to get private insurance, and who should pay for it should he need medical care. My POV (and from the way he's laying it out, I think Ron Paul agrees) is that the man should be allowed to pay and should have a right to refuse; if he does so then he should be left to die. If he's in a coma and can't provide consent, the medical care should be provided and billed to the man afterwards; if it bankrupts him, so be it.

Evidently, Democrats and progressives feel that free riding is fine and that taxpayers should always step in to pay for people no matter what. Have fun with that approach when no one gets health insurance anymore because there is no penalty for not doing so.


BLITZER: … you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young 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 for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —

BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

Taken in context, Dr Paul is absolutely right.... for people trying to take this out of context, go suck a bag of dicks

 

[shortylickens]

I'm not too happy with Republicans over the past decade either, but its painfully obvious the OP is trolling hard.

Why do you guys keep debating him?

 

[Jhhnn]

Let me express the general sentiment of those cheering in the simplest of terms-

I got mine! I got my employer paid health insurance, I got my Medicare, so those of you who don't should just fuck off & die! I might piss on your head if your hair was on fire, but I'm not giving up jack shit!

 

[a777pilot]

This is the direction the new Amerika is going.

This is what dominates this forum.

I weep for what was once a great country.

9-13-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die



If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"


"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!"

Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room.

"America has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room, the GOP wants to revisit it, they can."

You are a good person for that attitude. I hope you donate all your wealth to whomever will give comfort and aid to those that are sick. This is not a function of the federal government. These that are sick have families, do they not? There are community efforts and the efforts of the churches and charities, are there not?