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!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.
You can watch the exchange below via CNN-- the clip begins at the 23:30 mark:
VIDEO AT LINK PROVIDED
Paul disagreed with the audience on that front. "No," he responded, noting he practiced medicine before Medicaid when churches took care of medical costs--a comment that drew wide audience applause. "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."
Paul voiced support for legalizing alternative health care and argued that the reason medical costs have skyrocketed is that individuals have stopped taking personal responsibility for their health care.
Though Paul spoke to the larger issue of health care and government-backed health insurance--both pivotal issues in the 2012 election--the audience's reaction has overshadowed the substance of the exchange on the debate podium. And the day after the event, Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered his own criticism of the audience response.
"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald of the audience reaction after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa Tuesday morning.
"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."
The campaigns for Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann did not immediately respond to The Ticket's requests for comment.
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, moreover, 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. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can," Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: "Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers."
Long what we all knew, but disgusting nonetheless. I thought they couldn't get lower than those purple heart bandaids they wore mocking a War Hero at the 2004 Republican convention. Guess I was way wrong.
Oh, also Alan Grayson was right.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Its like that insulin and diabetic question that often comes up with libertarians. They always say: "Well, a decent person would share his insulin", but in reality we see something waaaay different. This behaviour was exhibited because they thought it was "their party", their little kneejerk circle where they could cheer the deaths of "poor losers" and masturbate to their social-darwinist fantasies.
Whoop-de-fuck. As if it was news to anybody - prophets of extreme individualism evangelize a complete lack of empathy towards others.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
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.
I don't see why the taxpayers should pay up for someone who willingly chose not to pay for insurance. It doesn't say the guy couldn't afford health insurance, it clearly states he decided not to buy one so why should society not say fuck him in return if he's that stupid. It's like the greedy idiots who decided not to pay into their own unemployment funds "because it is too expensive wahhh" and then come around to bitch about how they aren't eligible for the dole once they got laid off.
Now if it was a guy who couldn't afford health insurance the audience's reaction would have been disgusting. But this guy willingly chose to gamble he wouldn't need insurance so why exactly shouldn't we laugh at his stupidity any less than we laugh at the retards who chose not to wear seatbelts "because I won't need one, it's uncomfortable" etc and then die as they get thrown into a tree.
It shouldn't be free, and it's not like "the taxpayers'" representatives have no recourse either - once the guy's healthy, either charge him the money straight up, or garnish his wages until he's paid off the treatment.
Letting him die is both callous and wasteful. At the very least, it's unlikely the man is a total net loss to society, so presumably "the taxpayers" have a shared interest in getting him healthy and back into the workforce.
Alternately we could just institute the death penalty for all cases of negligence that lead to death.
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
What is Project Zohar? "On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it."- RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
What this article is telling me is that Ron Paul is saner than Ron Paul supporters. Daaaaamn.
edit: I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Major candidates need to have their shit together enough to organize campaigns and have an at least sort of consistent ideological platform. But still, WOW.
Phantasee wrote:Rick Perry is right: if the Republicans are going to take up the label of "pro-life" they better apply that across the board.
Good point, it sickens me that republicans are (speaking broadly of course) against abortion, yet quite happily put criminals to death, and have a rather cold view of uninsured people. I would love to sit down with one of them and ask them to explain that little nugget.
On the other hand, fair play I suppose to Paul for not just playing to the crowd and saying he would not turn away an uninsured patient. The fact that even a few people in the audience though that way would suggest a deep illness in America's psyche.
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?
- Raw Shark
Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.
Phantasee wrote:Rick Perry is right: if the Republicans are going to take up the label of "pro-life" they better apply that across the board.
Good point, it sickens me that republicans are (speaking broadly of course) against abortion, yet quite happily put criminals to death, and have a rather cold view of uninsured people. I would love to sit down with one of them and ask them to explain that little nugget.
It's not difficult. Tim Kreider put it best, I think.
None of us can quite reconcile the creepy dissonance between conservatives' deep concern for fetuses and the comatose and their apparent indifference to the poor, or civilian casualties in Iraq. Well, actually, I'm affecting naiivete for rhetorical purposes here; I think I understand the disconnect very well. Embryos and the brain-dead are abstract and blank, passive objects on which to project their vague sentimental notions of innocence and lavish their tacky, simple-minded, misplaced love, sort of like pets (hence the bunnies). Actual human beings, by annoying contrast, are complex and flawed and dirty, full of wrong opinions and bad behavior. Fundamentalist Christians just aren't up to the daunting challenge of loving real people--in other words, they aren't grownups. Hence the profund, weepy love they profess for their invisible friend Jesus, a guy they never met who died two thousand years ago.
Björn Paulsen
"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe
Uraniun235 wrote:It shouldn't be free, and it's not like "the taxpayers'" representatives have no recourse either - once the guy's healthy, either charge him the money straight up, or garnish his wages until he's paid off the treatment.
Letting him die is both callous and wasteful. At the very least, it's unlikely the man is a total net loss to society, so presumably "the taxpayers" have a shared interest in getting him healthy and back into the workforce.
Alternately we could just institute the death penalty for all cases of negligence that lead to death.
It should be free to the patient, dumbass, because those who need it most are the ones who can afford it the least. What you are proposing leads to debt slavery; that guy remains poor for the rest of his life due to a disaster outside of his control.
The american "healthcare" system is extortion, plain and simple. And don't say "lol go get insurance", health insurance is completely worthless. Why? Because insurance scammers companies will constantly and fraudulently look for ways to avoid paying for anything while still happily taking your money. In fact, it is so bad that those who are "insured" are in fact worse off than those who couldn't or wisely didn't buy worthless scam insurance; if insurance doesn't compensate you for things you bought it for in the first place, then you not only are effectively uninsured but are even poorer thanks to premiums.
Go fuck yourself.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Julhelm wrote:I don't see why the taxpayers should pay up for someone who willingly chose not to pay for insurance. It doesn't say the guy couldn't afford health insurance, it clearly states he decided not to buy one so why should society not say fuck him in return if he's that stupid. It's like the greedy idiots who decided not to pay into their own unemployment funds "because it is too expensive wahhh" and then come around to bitch about how they aren't eligible for the dole once they got laid off.
Now if it was a guy who couldn't afford health insurance the audience's reaction would have been disgusting. But this guy willingly chose to gamble he wouldn't need insurance so why exactly shouldn't we laugh at his stupidity any less than we laugh at the retards who chose not to wear seatbelts "because I won't need one, it's uncomfortable" etc and then die as they get thrown into a tree.
See above, jackass. Health insurance in the US is legalized fraud; the dollars that bought it would have been better used as toilet paper and kindling. I like your False Analogy, by the way - seatbelts actully work to reduce injury and fatalities.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Eulogy wrote:
See above, jackass. Health insurance in the US is legalized fraud; the dollars that bought it would have been better used as toilet paper and kindling. I like your False Analogy, by the way - seatbelts actully work to reduce injury and fatalities.
And in the US, health insurance works to get you some manner of treatment without going bankrupt. Rage about it being legalized fraud all you want, but a fact is a fact. Americans apparently prefer lower taxes in favor of public health insurance, so deal with it. If I lived in America I would make damn sure I could afford some health insurance as you never know when you might need it. The guy in the hypothetical question willingly opted not to get one so it's exactly like the guy who doesn't wear the seatbelt because "I won't get into an accident". It's a whole other matter when we deal with people who genuinely cannot afford health insurance, but that's not the guy in the example. He chose not to get one.
Everyone with a job in the US pay a revenue tax, right ? So, you take a percentage of the money from the revenue tax, and you use it to pay for vital healthcare for everyone (even the rich). Taa-daa, problem solved !
Eulogy wrote:
See above, jackass. Health insurance in the US is legalized fraud; the dollars that bought it would have been better used as toilet paper and kindling. I like your False Analogy, by the way - seatbelts actully work to reduce injury and fatalities.
And in the US, health insurance works to get you some manner of treatment without going bankrupt. Rage about it being legalized fraud all you want, but a fact is a fact. Americans apparently prefer lower taxes in favor of public health insurance, so deal with it. If I lived in America I would make damn sure I could afford some health insurance as you never know when you might need it. The guy in the hypothetical question willingly opted not to get one so it's exactly like the guy who doesn't wear the seatbelt because "I won't get into an accident". It's a whole other matter when we deal with people who genuinely cannot afford health insurance, but that's not the guy in the example. He chose not to get one.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. My mom had health insurance and still went bankrupt after major medical issues. I had health insurance and when I was in the hospital they denied all my claims saying it was a "preexisting condition", so I ended up with a $250,000 bill hanging over my head. So yeah, fuck off.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Eulogy wrote:
See above, jackass. Health insurance in the US is legalized fraud; the dollars that bought it would have been better used as toilet paper and kindling. I like your False Analogy, by the way - seatbelts actully work to reduce injury and fatalities.
And in the US, health insurance works to get you some manner of treatment without going bankrupt. Rage about it being legalized fraud all you want, but a fact is a fact. Americans apparently prefer lower taxes in favor of public health insurance, so deal with it. If I lived in America I would make damn sure I could afford some health insurance as you never know when you might need it. The guy in the hypothetical question willingly opted not to get one so it's exactly like the guy who doesn't wear the seatbelt because "I won't get into an accident". It's a whole other matter when we deal with people who genuinely cannot afford health insurance, but that's not the guy in the example. He chose not to get one.
They don't, you are wrong, you are also contemptible, go sob into your beer a little.
See, the American public wants universal healthcare. Study after study has shown that Americans want universal healthcare, but object solely to terms that have been propagandized against. What is happening is that the American political elite is disconnected from this by their beholden state to the health insurance industry, and so universal, single-payer healthcare is not something that more than a few will go to bat for or even support. That said, your system is opposed to suicide prevention hotlines, even if we go with your mind-numbing assumption of perfect rationality on the part of the actors involved, such that you can say that he rejected the purchase of health insurance with perfect information about what that meant. After all, the suicidal have made their choice. Clearly, we should not interfere with this choice by providing them with sympathetic ears to talk to and offer help. Deal with it, lollers.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
Since the American system actually costs more per head, adopting a system that worked like a real country would actually allow them to make taxes even lower.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Anecdotes aside, surely this cannot be the norm, or americans wouldn't still be so adamant about treating healthcare as a commodity rather than a right. Somebody obviously gets some value for money out of their health plans so at least by buying insurance you have a chance that you may get treatment compared to zero chance of treatment if you don't have one. So the guy in the OP is still a retard for chosing not to buy one if he can afford it. I'd take 20% chance over 0% chance any day.
But why should I give a shit? I live in a country with a functioning healthcare system and I'm fine with paying more tax than americans.
Julhelm, even if American health insurance did work as it should, your argument only stacks up if you are reading the OP article without any context.
Julhelm wrote:
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.
I don't see why the taxpayers should pay up for someone who willingly chose not to pay for insurance. It doesn't say the guy couldn't afford health insurance, it clearly states he decided not to buy one so why should society not say fuck him in return if he's that stupid.
The thing is, to these kind of people there isn't a distinction between 'choosing not not buy health insurance' and 'too poor to get insurance' - why, that lazy bum should get on his bike and get a job! Then he'd be able to afford all the health insurance he wants, for is this not America, where any poor boy can work his way up to be President? By ignoring this context, you misunderstand the meaning of what was being said.
EDIT: Julhelm, have you ever had to deal with insurance companies? Car insurance after an accident - anything like that?
Last edited by evilsoup on 2011-09-13 06:07pm, edited 1 time in total.
And also one of the ingredients to making a pony is cocaine. -Darth Fanboy.
A quick question? Is that ensure like what we have here? I mean, in Venezuela you get a discount (two actually) every paycheck. It goes like this:
One if for "social security", or public health care and pensions. It's supposed to help finance a little bit the public hospitals and at the same time help to fund the pensions every person gets when it turns out 60 years old. Since only public employees get a retirement payment (they keep earning their last salary, with annual adjustments of course), this discount is very important for people that worked on private industry (most people) since no matter if you worked on a business for 40 years, they have no obligation with you after you are let go... Two things only with this, pensions are always payed very late (even whole years late) while the money is used to generate interest for greedy officers, and the public health system doesn't work at all and is collapsed with no supplies and personel.
The other one is a "Housing" discount, meant to help with funds to housing credits. Both are about 3% of your salary, but you are discounted only half of it, the other half is covered by the businesses where you work. After you pay this one for a year you get the chance of ask for a approximately 70.000 bucks loan on some bank to buy a house and pay it back in 20 or 30 years. However two things affect this: Houses here are at a minimum of 170.000 bucks, and that no back gives this credits easily.
[signature]Insert cliche or funny statement here. [/signature]
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.
I don't see why the taxpayers should pay up for someone who willingly chose not to pay for insurance
The diabetic should've brought the insulin to the elevator/bought it earlier/thought about the possible consequences...
Yeah. It is all well and right, but when faced with an idiotic situation, a human system would disallow death and try to cure idiocy (even if by MANDATORY health insurance of ALL), an inhumane system would leave everyone to stand or die alone.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Can we at least avoid the cheap shot of claiming that advocates of individualism and Republicans in general share the view that people should be left to die and that cheering a person's death is acceptable? Rick Perry and Ron Paul both disagreed with the audience, and Andrew Sullivan outright criticized them, and as far as I could hear it was only a few who cheered and laughed at the actual suggestion (idiots, nuts and trolls are present in any large crowd). Most of the positive reaction there was applause at the (dubious) idea that it isn't the government's job to take care of that and that instead churches should fund healthcare. I say this despite not supporting either Rick Perry or Ron Paul.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Julhelm wrote:Anecdotes aside, surely this cannot be the norm, or americans wouldn't still be so adamant about treating healthcare as a commodity rather than a right. Somebody obviously gets some value for money out of their health plans so at least by buying insurance you have a chance that you may get treatment compared to zero chance of treatment if you don't have one. So the guy in the OP is still a retard for chosing not to buy one if he can afford it. I'd take 20% chance over 0% chance any day.
But why should I give a shit? I live in a country with a functioning healthcare system and I'm fine with paying more tax than americans.
"I've got mine, fuck you!" Did you even read one of the five articles I linked?
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Baal, there is some social security in America, but I believe there are no state-funded hospitals or anything of the like. Doctors are required to help anyone in an emergency; but for anything that won't cause imminent death, I believe that they will check with your private insurance company (which works like car/house insurance, complete with entire departments dedicated to screwing you over on technicalities) - if you aren't covered, then sorry, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I can't speak for any inefficiencies/corruption in the Venezuelan system.
And also one of the ingredients to making a pony is cocaine. -Darth Fanboy.
Eulogy wrote:
See above, jackass. Health insurance in the US is legalized fraud; the dollars that bought it would have been better used as toilet paper and kindling. I like your False Analogy, by the way - seatbelts actully work to reduce injury and fatalities.
And in the US, health insurance works to get you some manner of treatment without going bankrupt.
Except it won't do that.
Oh, sure, it's good if you need your appendix or gall bladder out, but if you can't cancer, even with insurance, there's a very good chance you'll wind up bankrupt. There were special deals cut for states/Feds to cover people on dialysis, with hemophilia, or HIV because the private companies just wouldn't cover the real costs and the alternative was letting people simply die for lack of money. A major injury - extensive burn, quadriplegia, etc. - will likewise bankrupt you even with insurance.
People in the US getting major illnesses, or one requiring extensive long-term treatment, are frequently astounded that their health insurance is inadequate.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Julhelm, even if American health insurance did work as it should, your argument only stacks up if you are reading the OP article without any context.
The thing is, to these kind of people there isn't a distinction between 'choosing not not buy health insurance' and 'too poor to get insurance' - why, that lazy bum should get on his bike and get a job! Then he'd be able to afford all the health insurance he wants, for is this not America, where any poor boy can work his way up to be President? By ignoring this context, you misunderstand the meaning of what was being said.
Yeah, but the CNN guy who put forth the hypothetical question isn't a teabagger, is he? So that line of thought shouldn't apply to his statements, right? Or maybe he's a teabagger and his question is really about a lazy poor bum, but that's not what the quoted text says. It just says the guy decided against buying insurance.
EDIT: Julhelm, have you ever had to deal with insurance companies? Car insurance after an accident - anything like that?
Absolutely. I've had to claim insurance for my dog once and for my car twice. All three times it worked with no issues at all. Never a problem. I guess insurance companies here actually work as advertised. I knew about the rescinding asshattery by US insurance companies since before but I certainly did not believe that kind of behavior is the norm.
-- Asuka