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...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you.

The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%.

What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering.

Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you. The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%. What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering. Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!

This thread has very little to do with Paul. It was the audience that was cheering this guys death.


How many doctors pay their own way through school? Most of them can only afford medical school by taking out loans backed up by the government. Going to public schools also helps keep costs down (thanks to government funding). Government funding accounts for about 36% of medical research. Should we cut that off? How about the FDA? Do you really want the government to stay out of it entirely?


He wasn't inferring anything. He was asking a question. A perfectly reasonable question, as Paul doesn't want the government stepping in to help the guy. The question is pretty much inevitable at that point.


How many cancer patients can a church help? How about AIDS medication that costs $10,000+ a year? What if the church or other charities can't or won't help. Do we just leave those people to die?

Again people playing with words to make them fit their needs. At no point did I say catholic charities should handle health care. I did say that catholic charities is an organization, within our society, that helped me, a member of society, with a crisis. I don't care if you feel it better to pan handle for the funds, than use catholic charities.

Your medical bills are your responsibility not mine or your neighbors unless I or your neighbor care to help you. It's not our governments responsibility to handle our personal affairs.

It is my responsibility to care for myself and if I can't I need to make the nessacary arrangements through whatever means I can. I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help. In return I offer to help them help others. Pretty simple when you actually think about it.

Support who you want to support, help who you want to help not who the government says needs help! I also give to the local Baptist church's food pantry, maybe foodstamps should be thing of the past as well. Then maybe the young mother will not be using yours tax dollars and mine to buy ho-ho's for her six kids at the local gas/conivence store with them. Have a nice discussion.

So you prefer to pay for them all out of your paycheck? Or would you prefer to support the organizations that would in your opinion help those that need it most?

If we continue with this attitude of everything for everyone, . . .

the end result is a society that has no responsibility for itself. You do what you do and give all your compensation to the government and they decide who gets what and when. Medical care and all. I sure as hell don't want that do you?

Well, now I know what to do if I get cancer. Stand on a corner and collect change. That should take care of the bills.


Most people are barely getting by as it is. Then you get hit with a huge medical bill. What are you supposed to do? Die? I'll keep asking that until you answer it.


Pretty simple if you don't think of it too much. I would say that your case was very unusual. No church can make a habit of paying large medical bills on a regular basis. You can't expect the church or other charity to come through and help every sick person out there. So what do you suggest for those that don't receive charity?


There are about 40 million people on foodstamps in this country. You want to cut that off too? If you had your way the churches would be flooded with sick and hungry people. Far too many for them to handle.

Do you have any idea how much of your income goes to supporting government and it's activities? From the 40+ cents a gallon in federal taxes we pay on gasoline to the yearly property tax to the friction $5 I pay in federal taxes on my cable bill. Taxes taken after taxes eat a large percentage of our take home pay. If you and I and everyone else had that money in our pockets each and everyone of us would be better of and better prepared to give aid when one is in need. Can you give thousands to help your neighbor? Most can not, however shrinking government to a small percentage of what it currently is would reduce the funding required to maintain it. That alone increases the available funds for charity work because it puts more money in your pocket your neighbors pocket and my pocket a $14000 hospital bill may not be disastrous if my pay was nearly double. I may have been perfectly able to pay it without any help.

And as far as $10000 aids meds, how much would they cost if the government was not involved with regulating them?

It's a never ending battle between those that take responsibility and those that do not.

Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

Here in Australia the Government does decide who gets what and when, when it comes to lifesaving medical care. Know what they decided? Everyone, and whenever they need it. Strangely, every country in the world with socialised medicine has decided similarly, and has yet to go broke because of it.

Do you have any idea how much of your income goes to supporting government and it's activities? From the 40+ cents a gallon in federal taxes we pay on gasoline to the yearly property tax to the friction $5 I pay in federal taxes on my cable bill. Taxes taken after taxes eat a large percentage of our take home pay. If you and I and everyone else had that money in our pockets each and everyone of us would be better of and better prepared to give aid when one is in need. Can you give thousands to help your neighbor? Most can not, however shrinking government to a small percentage of what it currently is would reduce the funding required to maintain it. That alone increases the available funds for charity work because it puts more money in your pocket your neighbors pocket and my pocket a $14000 hospital bill may not be disastrous if my pay was nearly double. I may have been perfectly able to pay it without any help. And as far as $10000 aids meds, how much would they cost if the government was not involved with regulating them?

It's a never ending battle between those that take responsibility and those that do not. Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help.

Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

So, if NOBODY offered to help you, then what? Let's make a reasonable extension to this, and suppose that you, again at 19 years young, had a treatable cancer but no way to pay for treatment yourself, and NOBODY offered to help you... Then what? Should you have been allowed to die?

I look forward to your reply to my direct questions... Note that there are two question marks in the above.

In other words, what you seem to be OK with is... Pay for "emergency room stuff", even when it could have been taken care of long before with "preventative medicine" that would have been MUCH cheaper, and with a much higher success rate.

First bold; fuck you, I take responsibility for myself and all of society even those not in a position or without the common sense to take care for themselves by paying into a government system I believe in.

second bold; so now you do expect the government to help people that do need take care of themselves, do you want them to or not? Make up your mind.

Third; you DIDN'T take care of yourself, you were fortunate enough to have an outside organization help you out, not a good example for your own system.

You are so full of shit.

Mama taught me never to argue with an idiot and you sir are!