GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Die

[FlipPro]

A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

The level of fundamentalism has no become toxic folks...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

[cbeast]

Aye Caramba!

[Garrett Burgwardt]

He doesn't necessarily deserve to die (nor does he necessarily deserve to live), but it's immoral to steal from others to pay for his care.

[JBDive]

He doesn't necessarily deserve to die (nor does he necessarily deserve to live), but it's immoral to steal from others to pay for his care.

I don't know if it's "immoral" to steal from others to pay for the sick but it is without a doubt serfdom to steal from the public to build a $700 million embassy in Iraq with a 16,000 square foot ambassador's home that will cost TWO BILLION A YEAR to operate while this fictitious man lays in a hospital on medicare which means he will get substandard care so in essence he is already left to die.

FOLKS WAKE UP! The media is in on the game, the Republican Leadership is in on the Game, The Democrat Leadership is in on the Game (if there is even a true difference in who they are). They air crap comments like this to stir up the uninformed, the uneducated and frankly the morons out there as a distraction so you don't ask why we are spending a Billion dollars on an embassy in Iraq, why we are deploying troops to Djibouti, Yemen, Libya, Somali and probably more than 50 other nations around the world. They don't want you doing your own learning that Bank Of America is on the edge which if it fails will crash the EU and send the US into a certain depression so expect another bailout of bankers who took risk with your money, more so than playing Keno in Vegas.

Want to know why they try to discredit Ron Paul day after day, because he tells the truth unlike 99% of the rest of the politicians, from your local mayor on up.

[cablepair]

He doesn't necessarily deserve to die (nor does he necessarily deserve to live), but it's immoral to steal from others to pay for his care.

steal from others? Are you serious?

I am very saddened by your response. We are human beings not animals, its not survival of the fittest and if you were in that situation you would be thinking differently.

If someone profits so greatly from our country, they start their own business and work there way up and become a millionaire or billionaire, they should not contribute something back to the country that helped make them who they are?

but it's ok for billion dollar a year corporations to destroy the earth, pay less taxes than some mother of 4 who works at walmart and get richer and richer off the backs of hard working lower / middle class Americans.

but if you get sick screw you right? go die right?

We are human beings, our country was founded by Christians. If we ever get to the point where we will refuse to show the love of Christ and refuse to take care of the disabled, and the old I will move.

The notion that you would rather let someone die than pay taxes to have health care for those who cant afford it is absolutely disgusting and revolting.

[Explodicle]

If you like socialized health care, why have it on a federal level instead of at the state level?

Cablepair: didn't Jesus say to give your OWN money to the poor? Fiscal conservatism is not incompatible with Christianity. And who is saying we should allow corporations to destroy the Earth? That's completely irrelevant and misrepresents your opposition.

[deuxmill]

Fuck jesus. I don't give shit about christ , god , or any other divine entity , but leaving a man die is just worst than bestial. Even animals empathies with the dieing but unfortunately a animal has no means to save it's pears. But then again this is coming from one of the most disgusting societies from the 21st century - AMERICAN SOCIETY. The same society that has deployed troops around the world , spends more money on military and aggression wars than any other country , and the same society that is responsible for the most deaths of the 21st century. So yeah let him die .. and use the money to search for Gaddafi and kill a few dozens more people along the way.  Americans are so pathetic that they feel this burning desire to save the Libyans from the "oppression" of Gaddafi or to find a rogue CIA agent turned terrorist and are willing to spend whatever sum it takes but they aren't willing to spend money on sick compatriots. Like I said- PATHETIC. What i actually don't understand is why would anyone pay taxes in such a scheme , unless the majority of Americans are just a bunch of disgusting THUGS.

[Hawker]

To note, Ron Paul did NOT say the person should die, he said the federal government should not be paying for the care nor mandating that he has to buy insurance.

What Ron Paul DID say was that this hypothetical person should be free to make his/her own choice and have to deal with the consequences.  He followed on to give an example before socialized health care became so rampant in our society that at one time local communities, non profit charities and doctors would still help these people and work with these people.

And I am pretty confident in saying that NOT ONE person ever walked into an emergency ward and be referred to a funeral parlor instead of getting life critical health care before socialized medicine started taking hold in the U.S.  I could be wrong but I am pretty confident I won't be.

It is undisputed that the impetus to this legislation came from highly publicized incidents where hospital emergency rooms allegedly, based only on a patient's financial inadequacy, failed to provide a medical screening that would have been provided a paying patient, or transferred or discharged a patient without taking steps that would have been taken for a paying patient.

http://www.emtala.com/history.htm

I think you'll find that charity sometimes covered emergency care but that ongoing or expensive treatment meant that you'd be sent home to die.

[cadillac]

To note, Ron Paul did NOT say the person should die, he said the federal government should not be paying for the care nor mandating that he has to buy insurance.

What Ron Paul DID say was that this hypothetical person should be free to make his/her own choice and have to deal with the consequences.  He followed on to give an example before socialized health care became so rampant in our society that at one time local communities, non profit charities and doctors would still help these people and work with these people.

And I am pretty confident in saying that NOT ONE person ever walked into an emergency ward and be referred to a funeral parlor instead of getting life critical health care before socialized medicine started taking hold in the U.S.  I could be wrong but I am pretty confident I won't be.

Thank you for clarifying viperjbm!  I was beginning to think I watched a different debate with all these posts distorting what Dr. Paul said.  It is so easy to see how a candidate's opinions can be twisted.

[Hawker]

To note, Ron Paul did NOT say the person should die, he said the federal government should not be paying for the care nor mandating that he has to buy insurance.

What Ron Paul DID say was that this hypothetical person should be free to make his/her own choice and have to deal with the consequences.  He followed on to give an example before socialized health care became so rampant in our society that at one time local communities, non profit charities and doctors would still help these people and work with these people.

And I am pretty confident in saying that NOT ONE person ever walked into an emergency ward and be referred to a funeral parlor instead of getting life critical health care before socialized medicine started taking hold in the U.S.  I could be wrong but I am pretty confident I won't be.

Thank you for clarifying viperjbm!  I was beginning to think I watched a different debate with all these posts distorting what Dr. Paul said.  It is so easy to see how a candidate's opinions can be twisted.

Correct.  It was the audience shouting and cheering that the person should die - Ron Paul strikes me as having a decency that puts their boorishness to shame.

[FredericBastiat]

So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:

Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.

He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.

You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?

[deuxmill]

So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:

Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.

He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.

You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?

Sure you can let go but then your just a lazy stupid fuck , and no you ain't legally responsible for the mans death. Whoever got him in that situation is. If someone pushes someone on top of you from a building you can't blame the one that crushed you because he didn't fly the pusher is responsible for both deaths. But if there are some people around you that aren't lazy stupid fucks than they should try to save you.

NOT legally responsible but morally responsible.

[compro01]

And the legal ramifications of frivolous lawsuits could be handled better, I support for instance the "looser pay laws" if nothing else to make people think twice before suing a doctor over a failed procedure, there are risks in certain medical care situations and just because a person is a part of the small percentage that was a victim of the natural risks does not mean people should sue the doctor for it.

Once part 2 became more mainstream, health care costs should start to fall, doctors would need less salary to cover their insurance and become victimized by frivolous law suits plaguing the system today.

you require a reality check on how much malpractice lawsuits cost.

in 2002, approximately 24 billion dollars were paid out as a result of malpractice suits.

Total primate healthcare spending in 2002 was approximately 1,400 billion dollars.

So malpractice suits made up 1.7% of healthcare costs.

Even if you completely eliminated malpractice suits for any reason, you would only save that much.

source: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

[FredericBastiat]

Sure you can let go but then your just a lazy stupid fuck , and no you ain't legally responsible for the mans death. Whoever got him in that situation is. If someone pushes someone on top of you from a building you can't blame the one that crushed you because he didn't fly the pusher is responsible for both deaths. But if there are some people around you that aren't lazy stupid fucks than they should try to save you.

NOT legally responsible but morally responsible.

But is it not true that legal matters are derived from morality (i.e. mores)? To me there appears to be very little difference.

[hugolp]

Flip Pro let me ask you the other side of that question:

Do you think government burocrats should be in the business of deciding who is worth of getting treatment and deciding who is not worth being saved?

[Hawker]

Flip Pro let me ask you the other side of that question:

Do you think government burocrats should be in the business of deciding who is worth of getting treatment and deciding who is not worth being saved?

If someone needs government money for treatment, the government must decide if the treatment is worth doing.  If a bureaucrat is most likely the a person on the board you appoint to do that, then yes.  Otherwise you are committing yourself to a US style system where money is wasted hand over fist.

[FirstAscent]

So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:

Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.

He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.

You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?

That is a really easy question to answer. You hold the rope as long as you can if it's heavy. If it's light, you follow the rope to its end to see if you can address the situation or determine the truth of it.

Very simple.

[hugolp]

Flip Pro let me ask you the other side of that question:

Do you think government burocrats should be in the business of deciding who is worth of getting treatment and deciding who is not worth being saved?

If someone needs government money for treatment, the government must decide if the treatment is worth doing.  If a bureaucrat is most likely the a person on the board you appoint to do that, then yes.  Otherwise you are committing yourself to a US style system where money is wasted hand over fist.

So basically yes, ignoring your stupid emotional cheap-shots, what you are propossing is that someone takes the money of your labour and decides if your mother deserves to receive treatment or she should be left to die. Quite amazing someone can take such an unhuman position.

[compro01]

you require a reality check on how much malpractice lawsuits cost.

in 2002, approximately 24 billion dollars were paid out as a result of malpractice suits.

Total primate healthcare spending in 2002 was approximately 1,400 billion dollars.

So malpractice suits made up 1.7% of healthcare costs.

Even if you completely eliminated malpractice suits for any reason, you would only save that much.

source: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

No you see there is much more to the costs of malpractice suits than just what is directly paid out.  There is malpractice insurance, bureaucratic nightmares of paperwork that costs lots of money to maintain, limitations to what a doctor can and cannot do when undergoing a procedure that may force patients to require many more visits than they might have had otherwise....  looking at the problem skin deep is a very deceptive deflection tactic that apparently is very easily abused to influence people.

ok, we'll look at the whole ice cube rather than the tip of it.

that $24 billion includes both insurance premiums and payouts.

Furthermore, Texas already implemented tort reform as you suggest with stringent caps on lawsuit payouts, back in 2003.

as a result, malpractice lawsuits have plummeted by about 80%.

but despite that, healthcare costs in Texas continue to grow at well above the national average.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gov-rick-perrys-texas-medical-malpractice-law-what-it-does-doesnt-and-might-do/2011/08/02/gIQAlafZJJ_blog.html

That would appear to support the conclusion that malpractice lawsuits are not a major factor in the cost of healthcare.

[Hawker]

Flip Pro let me ask you the other side of that question:

Do you think government burocrats should be in the business of deciding who is worth of getting treatment and deciding who is not worth being saved?

If someone needs government money for treatment, the government must decide if the treatment is worth doing.  If a bureaucrat is most likely the a person on the board you appoint to do that, then yes.  Otherwise you are committing yourself to a US style system where money is wasted hand over fist.

So basically yes, ignoring your stupid emotional cheap-shots, what you are propossing is that someone takes the money of your labour and decides if your mother deserves to receive treatment or she should be left to die. Quite amazing someone can take such an unhuman position.

Your mother is free to use private medicine.  But if she wants the government to pay, then the government has a duty to make sure that the money is spent on effective treatment.  I can't see the case for public funding of quackery when its already hard to finance treatments that are known to be effective.

Forgive me if that seems inhuman or a cheap shot to you.  To me it seems blatantly obvious.