They think this is funny?

brianlux

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audi ... 16817.html

"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."

This is something to laugh about? No matter what you think about government spending, end-of-life decisions are not a laughing matter. (Yes, I know I said elsewhere that anything can be used as humor and gave George Carlin's style of humor as an example but he was also being serious at the same time and made you THINK - he wasn't being flippant about stuff like this.) I hope Mr. Paul wasn't laughing.

catefrances

nice. *insert shaking head emoticon here*

Grandma

Between this and the cheering for the number of executions under Rick Perry watching the crowd reactions to these debates is making me lose all hope in the future of this country.

usamamasan1

risk should continue to be a freedom. You are posting a guy or maybe two laughing, from the audience, at a debate.

brianlux

usamamasan1 wrote:

risk should continue to be a freedom. You are posting a guy or maybe two laughing, from the audience, at a debate.

No, I posted an article and my reaction to it, and my reaction is that no matter what manner of politics are involved, laughing at end-of-life matters shows little respect or discretion.

usamamasan1

you should chastise the audience member instead of painting a picture, like the liberal media does, of an entire group of people. you took the liberal media bait.

most do

ONCE DEVIDED

Thanks mum and dad
you had me in australia
not in the USA
where your society dosnt give a fuck about you

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

you should chastise the audience member instead of painting a picture, like the liberal media does, of an entire group of people. you took the liberal media bait.

most do

Something that the conservative media is innocent of, right?

cincybearcat

Again, it was like 2-3 people in the audience. If you did this to a different group this would already be locked.

pandora

why should it be the governments responsibility? :?

it is the young mans responsibility and when he comes to he'll have a hell of a bill to pay

just like any other debt ... work out a payment plan

even flow - question mark

Why get your knickers in a knot over this. These are the same people who love god, but would go on life support to not die and get to heaven. The same people who like occupation and don't like 911. I could go on and on and on about hypocrisy and how easy it is to pick out. Funny thing that is!

pandora

even flow - question mark wrote:

Why get your knickers in a knot over this. These are the same people who love god, but would go on life support to not die and get to heaven. The same people who like occupation and don't like 911. I could go on and on and on about hypocrisy and how easy it is to pick out. Funny thing that is!

how do you know this of these few people? :?

even flow - question mark

pandora wrote:

even flow - question mark wrote:

Why get your knickers in a knot over this. These are the same people who love god, but would go on life support to not die and get to heaven. The same people who like occupation and don't like 911. I could go on and on and on about hypocrisy and how easy it is to pick out. Funny thing that is!

how do you know this of these few people? :?

ha ha .......... I have lived life.

hostis

it may have its faults and not be perfect, but its at times like this I love the NHS in the UK....

pandora

even flow - question mark wrote:

pandora wrote:

even flow - question mark wrote:

Why get your knickers in a knot over this. These are the same people who love god, but would go on life support to not die and get to heaven. The same people who like occupation and don't like 911. I could go on and on and on about hypocrisy and how easy it is to pick out. Funny thing that is!

how do you know this of these few people? :?

ha ha .......... I have lived life.

you laugh :? you are generalizing and lumping all because of some

just like the couple who laughed ...
then audience was lumped with them ... why?

that would be like a PJ concert when some are texting
or some are drunk and disrespectful or some talk through the show and don't even care
but then all the PJ fans are lumped together and it is said they all do this...
that would be wrong

I wouldn't want to be treated like that because people don't know how I feel or what I believe

life is not this simple ... people are not that basic, we are all individuals

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

"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."

This is something to laugh about? No matter what you think about government spending, end-of-life decisions are not a laughing matter. (Yes, I know I said elsewhere that anything can be used as humor and gave George Carlin's style of humor as an example but he was also being serious at the same time and made you THINK - he wasn't being flippant about stuff like this.) I hope Mr. Paul wasn't laughing.

Society lets people die everyday all around the world through no fault of their own, and somehow this hypothetical man who chose not to have insurance knowing full well the ramifications of that PERSONAL decision and we are supposed to feel worse for him than we do for anyone else we let die on a daily basis. Society chooses to take what others have earned for the betterment of itself and yet Society has allowed holocausts, killing fields, and interment camps. Let us not pretend that society is a well meaning force that does not decide who lives and dies daily through no fault of their own. Why should it protect someone who chose not to protect themselves when it cannot/will not protect those that didn't have that choice? Freedom comes with consequences. I, for one, would rather live with those consequences than live under the thumb/boot of a well meaning "Society."

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

"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."

This is something to laugh about? No matter what you think about government spending, end-of-life decisions are not a laughing matter. (Yes, I know I said elsewhere that anything can be used as humor and gave George Carlin's style of humor as an example but he was also being serious at the same time and made you THINK - he wasn't being flippant about stuff like this.) I hope Mr. Paul wasn't laughing.

Society lets people die everyday all around the world through no fault of their own, and somehow this hypothetical man who chose not to have insurance knowing full well the ramifications of that PERSONAL decision and we are supposed to feel worse for him than we do for anyone else we let die on a daily basis. Society chooses to take what others have earned for the betterment of itself and yet Society has allowed holocausts, killing fields, and interment camps. Let us not pretend that society is a well meaning force that does not decide who lives and dies daily through no fault of their own. Why should it protect someone who chose not to protect themselves when it cannot/will not protect those that didn't have that choice? Freedom comes with consequences. I, for one, would rather live with those consequences than live under the thumb/boot of a well meaning "Society."

I was thinking of this issue of whether or not someone has insurance and how that's seen as being responsible. In a sense, that person would be being responsible for their own personal finances, so they don't have to pay out a big sum if they have something unexpected happen, but the larger group is still buoying the individual. In the Ron Paul example, a 30 year old maybe would have payed in $20,000 in premiums over time. In a coma, that 20,000 would be spent in about 2 or 3 days. The rest of the amount would be covered by everyone else in the group. What's the difference if the group is American taxpayers (if the patient is on Medicaid), or peer who pay into the insurance company? You could argue that people with private insurance are taking less risk with our individual finances, but are still being taken care of by the larger group.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, it was like 2-3 people in the audience. If you did this to a different group this would already be locked.

those bad apples are at it again....

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

"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."

This is something to laugh about? No matter what you think about government spending, end-of-life decisions are not a laughing matter. (Yes, I know I said elsewhere that anything can be used as humor and gave George Carlin's style of humor as an example but he was also being serious at the same time and made you THINK - he wasn't being flippant about stuff like this.) I hope Mr. Paul wasn't laughing.

Society lets people die everyday all around the world through no fault of their own, and somehow this hypothetical man who chose not to have insurance knowing full well the ramifications of that PERSONAL decision and we are supposed to feel worse for him than we do for anyone else we let die on a daily basis. Society chooses to take what others have earned for the betterment of itself and yet Society has allowed holocausts, killing fields, and interment camps. Let us not pretend that society is a well meaning force that does not decide who lives and dies daily through no fault of their own. Why should it protect someone who chose not to protect themselves when it cannot/will not protect those that didn't have that choice? Freedom comes with consequences. I, for one, would rather live with those consequences than live under the thumb/boot of a well meaning "Society."

I was thinking of this issue of whether or not someone has insurance and how that's seen as being responsible. In a sense, that person would be being responsible for their own personal finances, so they don't have to pay out a big sum if they have something unexpected happen, but the larger group is still buoying the individual. In the Ron Paul example, a 30 year old maybe would have payed in $20,000 in premiums over time. In a coma, that 20,000 would be spent in about 2 or 3 days. The rest of the amount would be covered by everyone else in the group. What's the difference if the group is American taxpayers (if the patient is on Medicaid), or peer who pay into the insurance company? You could argue that people with private insurance are taking less risk with our individual finances, but are still being taken care of by the larger group.

I can agree with you. An insurance company that takes in premiums and pays its members claims is doing just that...they are paying for their members...so that is a collection of people who choose to be insured in this example...if you choose to be insured than you understand that your premiums may be going to help other people if you don't need the help at the moment.
But the example wasn't that the 30 year old couldn't get insurance, it was that they CHOSE not to have it, if someone can afford it and doesn't want it that is their choice and the government should not use resources to pay for that individual. So to have this bastardized system of government insurance actually ends up costing everyone more than it should because of selfish choices by an individual. This isn't about the poor, it is about someone who has made a personal choice and needs to live with the consequences of that decision.
It seems as though going back to 1988 and probably prior, everyone comes up with these gotcha type hypotheticals for RP and he continually answers the same way.

unsung

They are the same that booed him when he talked about 9/11. I read on another forum that someone who was there at the debate that viewed this and the impression was that these guys were supporting another candidate in particular.

It's a non-issue of a few knuckleheads.

brianlux

Kudos to everyone posting thoughts regarding the insurance issue- both pro and con. They are good, well thoughtout posts.

My thoughts and comments regarding this story are more centered on the fact that there are people who treat serious issues-- end-of-life issues in this case-- as being funny. My personal feeling is that we have a growing number of people here in America (and perhaps elsewhere) who take a calloused attitude toward the personal suffering of others. Call me cynical on this thought, but I'm old enough and have been around enough and read enough and talked with enough people to honestly believe this to be true. Sometimes I just get fed up with that kind of uncaring, cruel thinking and behavior. I believe the world- America at least- has become a less kind place and I'm speaking out against that.

I've also made attempts to say positive things. Please see my "Positive Steps" post. Thanks.