They think this is funny?

brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
edited September 2011 in A Moving Train
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.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young













Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    nice. *insert shaking head emoticon here*
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • GrandmaGrandma Posts: 259
    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.
  • risk should continue to be a freedom. You are posting a guy or maybe two laughing, from the audience, at a debate.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
    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.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • 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
  • Thanks mum and dad
    you had me in australia
    not in the USA
    where your society dosnt give a fuck about you
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    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?
  • Again, it was like 2-3 people in the audience. If you did this to a different group this would already be locked.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    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
  • 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!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    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? :?
  • pandora 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.

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • hostishostis Posts: 441
    it may have its faults and not be perfect, but its at times like this I love the NHS in the UK....
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    pandora 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
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    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."
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,194
    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.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    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.... ;)
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    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.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    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.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
    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.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    brianlux wrote:
    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.


    honestly I believe this calloused attitude you think of is created by a society that constantly tries to differentiate the populace. We are always separated into groups, but rarely are all groups together called Americans. Everyone needs to be part of a social class or ethnic group. Also, when we have our political leaders constantly pitting the poor against the rich you start to have people dehumanizing their opposition. The rich are this big glob of bastards and the poor are this big glob of lazy
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,194
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    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.

    Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

    Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.
  • 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.



    Not sure if you are being rhetorical or not with you last statement, but the article you linked goes on to state:

    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.


    So, no, I"m pretty sure he wasn't laughing.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Go Beavers wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:

    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.

    Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

    Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.

    well it isn't a pass. It is a contract you voluntarily went into knowing how the system of insurance works. However, when someone forcefully takes Medicaid payments from your check and gives it to people like this fellow who have been irresponsible, well that is a whole other matter. Yes both have a large cost but one is to a company that gets paid to do it, the other is to the nation at large who is forced to do it.
    Do you at least acknowledge there is a difference there?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    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 don't understand how you people just don't get it. Being responsible shouldn't mean spending $200-300 a month on insurance. And then you still have to pay a little out of your pocket to go see a doctor? Co-Pays? That is disgusting. This is your HEALTH we are talking about!! Man, you Americans are fucked up. When I was watching that debate I couldn't believe the responses. And these are the people you want to lead your country??!! No wonder America is on a downward spiral...
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,194
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:

    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.

    Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

    Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.

    well it isn't a pass. It is a contract you voluntarily went into knowing how the system of insurance works. However, when someone forcefully takes Medicaid payments from your check and gives it to people like this fellow who have been irresponsible, well that is a whole other matter. Yes both have a large cost but one is to a company that gets paid to do it, the other is to the nation at large who is forced to do it.
    Do you at least acknowledge there is a difference there?

    I see the choice involved, but to me it's perceived choice. Pull back far enough, and we're all paying for everyone else's health care. With that being the case, why don't we all put our money in one pot and go with a single payer system?
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    brandon10 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 don't understand how you people just don't get it. Being responsible shouldn't mean spending $200-300 a month on insurance. And then you still have to pay a little out of your pocket to go see a doctor? Co-Pays? That is disgusting. This is your HEALTH we are talking about!! Man, you Americans are fucked up. When I was watching that debate I couldn't believe the responses. And these are the people you want to lead your country??!! No wonder America is on a downward spiral...

    why don't you tell me what I don't get. What don't you get about the freedom of choice and the idea that the government has no right to tell me what charity I am forced to give to...If they want to make healthcare a right for all Americans and pay for it, that is a whole other ball game. But they better start with an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing affordable, quality healthcare for all.
    Also, I love how you lump me in with you people. I was answering the question the same way the people should have and ron paul did at the debate. If someone can afford to get covered and choose not to, why should the state pick up the bill? The debate about whether or not a single payer system is not the focus here. And this may shock you, but I think the only way moving forward that healthcare costs can get under control is through a single payer system. But thanks for asking how I felt about it...if anyone knows the risks and makes a free choice I would want them to deal with the consequences of their choice. They knew the risks, why should they be bailed out because they chose not to buy insurance. There used to be, and I think Wisconsin might still be or it could have changed recently, states where you didn't need insurance to drive a car. But you most certainly had to pay if you got in an accident. Should the driver be bailed out by the state because they were reckless? Or should they be held accountable for the choice they made?

    And you are right it is your health, and you should respect it enough to buy yourself insurance if you can afford it ... If you cannot, well that is a different discussion.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Go Beavers wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:

    Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

    Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.

    well it isn't a pass. It is a contract you voluntarily went into knowing how the system of insurance works. However, when someone forcefully takes Medicaid payments from your check and gives it to people like this fellow who have been irresponsible, well that is a whole other matter. Yes both have a large cost but one is to a company that gets paid to do it, the other is to the nation at large who is forced to do it.
    Do you at least acknowledge there is a difference there?

    I see the choice involved, but to me it's perceived choice. Pull back far enough, and we're all paying for everyone else's health care. With that being the case, why don't we all put our money in one pot and go with a single payer system?


    actually I agree with you. Probably for different reasons :lol:
    Single payer system is a cost savings to many people, but before we as a country can afford that stuff, we need to change are spending priorities. I would love to see a single payer system, but there are consequences to that choice as well. Keep in mind, and like it or not, healthcare is about 1/6th of the economy here in the states, and many of the medical advances and devices can be attributed to the money that flows through the system...it is a hard thing, it isn't as simple as moving to a single payer system tomorrow and everything is perfect...there is a lot to consider.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    Well it seems you get it somewhat. And if Obama had any balls, then maybe a single payer system would be what we are talking about. But instead we keep talking about insurance companies. There should never be a middle man between you and your health. And I can tell you from a bunch of health experience here in Canada over the last year, I am very lucky to be Canadian.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
    brandon10 wrote:
    Well it seems you get it somewhat. And if Obama had any balls, then maybe a single payer system would be what we are talking about. But instead we keep talking about insurance companies. There should never be a middle man between you and your health. And I can tell you from a bunch of health experience here in Canada over the last year, I am very lucky to be Canadian.

    It certainly sounds like you folks to the north have health concerns of your citizenry much better handled than here in the US! Maybe can learn a few things from you. I've always thought it a crime that in a nation as wealthy as we (still!) are that anyone should go without proper medical care or go hungry. Not that everyone should get a free ride- there should be incentives for people to be productive (or even better yet, useful)- but to go hungry or not get basic care- I don't understand that.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













Sign In or Register to comment.