Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Audience At Tea Party Debate Cheers Leaving Uninsured To Die


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:12 PM

Freedom has it's costs, apparently... :dunno:

http://summify.com/s...-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.



#2 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:13 PM

Aren't you psyched to immigrate! :funny1:
:undecided:

#3 Mind Left Body

Mind Left Body
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,794 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:16 PM

I saw this. Nice huh?:rolleyes:

#4 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,186 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:17 PM

Heard this yesterday. Welcome to America. :sad:

What a bunch of ignorant fucking tools.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:18 PM

Cradle to Grave'd

#6 elder

elder
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,388 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:19 PM

But wait a minute.... this healthy guy who decided against buying insurance, was he financially capable of buying insurance? And if he was, but did not choose to spend his money on insurance, would he then foot the bill for his medical care?

Sorry, I'm all for the help for those in need, but if you have the means but decide to not to spend it, instead take the govt gift, well then I have issues with this.

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:22 PM

But wait a minute.... this healthy guy who decided against buying insurance, was he financially capable of buying insurance? And if he was, but did not choose to spend his money on insurance, would he then foot the bill for his medical care?

Sorry, I'm all for the help for those in need, but if you have the means but decide to not to spend it, instead take the govt gift, well then I have issues with this.


Exactly. The question is loaded in the first place. And was asked to get the response that it did to play that well veiled emotional card on an obscured talking point.

#8 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:22 PM

Aren't you psyched to immigrate! :funny1:
:undecided:


It *is* a little scary, that way... Medical insurance is one of those things that is a high priority for us to get secured right away... Of course, if I can spend 153 days of every year in Ontario, I can keep my benefits here... Altho I think it is improbable that I will be up here for that length of time every year.

#9 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:23 PM

Exactly. The question is loaded in the first place. And was asked to get the response that it did to play that well veiled emotional card on an obscured talking point.



A politician's specialty, methinks! :wink:

#10 elder

elder
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,388 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:31 PM

Wow. This thread already got moved?

Are we close to July again? Needing to keep the boards pristine for all the new lurkers? Joker and Dan aren't even here yet.

lame.

#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:34 PM

A politician's specialty, methinks! :wink:


Uncle Fester isn't your typical politician.

#12 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 02:16 PM

Wow. This thread already got moved?

Are we close to July again? Needing to keep the boards pristine for all the new lurkers? Joker and Dan aren't even here yet.

lame.



Quick on the draw'd. :cowboy:

This is my first foray into P&R, I do believe! :lol:

#13 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:11 PM

It makes me sad to think of anyone dying but the moderator did make it clear that the man could afford health care, and choose not to get it. would that be accurate?

if your health isn't at the top of your priority list, what is? aside from food and shelter, what's more important than insuring your own health and well-being? It's one thing if you can't afford it (and health care should be affordable to all. how the country/states go about helping to create that, I'm at a loss) but it's another if you can afford it and choose not to get it, thus gamble with your own life.


i don't deny it SUCKS to drop hundreds on health insurance (sometimes more: 1.2k a month, as in the case of my brother, with a family of 6) but it sucks to spend 2k on a mortgage, and every other bill that we pay. if we can afford cell phones/butts/shows/:pimp:/cable/home computers... can we not afford to insure ourselves? isn't it our responsibility to do so?

I just see Paul's larger point that all are allowed to choose what to do with their lives, their money... choose to smoke, choose to suntan, choose to drive without seat belts, choose to spend money on things other than health care, choose to die.


edit: my point speaks only to people who can afford it and choose not to get it

#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:16 PM

....but it isn't the governments job to provide you with free goods and service because you failed to make them a priority.

Liberty means that you are free to choose how you live your life (as long as you are not imposing on someone else or hurting them for your benefit). You are free to take risks. But liberty also comes with something else; responsibility for yourself and the risks you take. Without one, you can not have the other.

#15 bitrush

bitrush
  • VibeTribe
  • 273 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:18 PM

I just see Paul's larger point that all are allowed to choose what to do with their lives, their money... choose to smoke, choose to suntan, choose to drive without seat belts, choose to spend money on things other than health care, choose to die.


We all lose when humans are allowed to do dumb things.

#16 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:19 PM

Not sign'd.

#17 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:25 PM

We all lose when humans are allowed to do dumb things.


"if we are only free to make good choices, we're not really free." ron paul

I see your point, but with or without govt intervention, we will continue to do dumb things. how many dumb things would you like the govt to regulate/outlaw?

smoking, tanning, drinking, gambling, motorcycle riding, destructive eating habits that lead to obesity (outlaw fast food)...

#18 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:32 PM

....but it isn't the governments job to provide you with free goods and service because you failed to make them a priority.

Liberty means that you are free to choose how you live your life (as long as you are not imposing on someone else or hurting them for your benefit). You are free to take risks. But liberty also comes with something else; responsibility for yourself and the risks you take. Without one, you can not have the other.


agreed

waiting for deadshow dan to come in and make a counter argument that may get me to rethink my position :lol:

(((staying open to all sides)))

I do struggle with the discussion because right now it's a philosophical one. But the reality of watching someone (who made a foolish, naive mistake by assuming he would escape the need for expensive health care), die because he doesn't have access to the system, well, it does make me shudder. I don't know what the answer is.

#19 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:35 PM

in advance, i already know the guy is a tool. and i haven't watched this. just came up on my fb feed. but there might be something worth debating within it



#20 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:38 PM

I do struggle with the discussion because right now it's a philosophical one.


Yup. Which is why Paul is fighting an uphill battle. He is pursuing something that goes beyond a new government policy on this social/economic issue or that one.

He is looking for a fundimental philosophical change to how people view their role, an the governments role in our lives.


All I know, CC, is that asking the government to step in and regulate itself and others better when it is clear that there is too much regulation (and usually in ALL the wrong areas...) seems self defeating. 80-90+ years of self defeating purpose.

#21 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:47 PM

this is what i fear will happen. though seemingly good to encourage health changes in the name of better health, requiring them? will the state start requiring them? i get chills thinking about who dictates our personal habits.

http://www.anh-usa.o...-went-national/