As much as the crowd reaction, during the recent CNN Republican Debate, to the hypothetical person without health insurance dying angered me, I wasn’t that surprised. The heartless bastards that make up the Tea Party Republicans and who are in love with Randian Ron Paul have been around for many years. A friend of mine asked what did Paul want us to do, put donation jars on the counter of every convenience store and restaurant in the country to help those without insurance. The graphic below is what such a donation jar could look like.
It shouldn’t take too long to help the approximately 50 million uninsured.
I’m hoping one of these days, what passes for the media will do more than let these jokers pass on their talking points.
You wouldn't be so angry if you understood the issue. Ron Paul is a doctor. His son is a doctor. He has never taken medicare payments. He has never taken the government sponsored retirement for congress. His ideas would bring the cost of medical care back to earth where more and more people could afford it. There are doctors now who won't except insurance because they can spend more quality time with the patient. If you want to be critical go educated yourself on all sides of the issue. I have never met anyone after research that didn't agree with Ron Paul.
How do you think I don't understand the issue. I know Paul's plan – that's what the point of the donation jar. His idea of people getting free help that need it out of the goodness of one's heart is a pipe dream. The reason the government needs to be involved is because the government plans don't judge the person needing help – the focus is getting the help. However because the health care system is a for-profit business someone has to pay for that care. Right now insured people and tax payers are paying for the uninsured. Why not move that duty to the government 100% then the so-called "free market" might take effect because with the providers getting paid they won't pass that added cost on to the insured. And the whole notion that being forced to pay for another's health care is "bad" is putting the focus on the wrong issue. The Hippocratic Oath says to do no harm – there is no mention about costs or payments or HMOs. Doctors do volunteer their time for those not able to afford to pay but we have 50 million people – including children not having insurance for one reason or another and you guys talk about liberty? The government has a duty to provide for the general welfare of the citizens and most humans feel the same way – they would never leave a sick person get sicker or die.
Your negative outlook that money must be taken from private workers so everyone can have insurance is the same as saying we must be slaves of the state in order to be cared for. No thanks. My vote and my voice will deny your wish, and you will be left to contemplate your ideological failure. I wish you well.
I dismiss your premiss. No one creates things for free. There are all kinds of costs for participating in society. Those societies that have survived are the ones who kept to the social contract and those that didn't – didn't stay around.
That still doesn't fit the argument that all humans are worth some basic humanity and dignity and even considering that they don't is more than sad for you.
Where are we supposed to get the money to provide health insurance to everyone?
Don't forget, that imaginary person CHOOSE not to get health coverage. If we have to pay for it anyway, why would he want to buy it? You take your chances. There are no guarantees.
We're broke anyway, borrowing trillions upon trillions from China to wage war in the desert. We'll be looking like the USSR after their collapse at the end of the Cold War soon enough.
Only Ron Paul is talking about ending the war and using the money saved for social services. All the other candidates including Obama are for more war, more death, more debt.
That hypothetical person didn't choose to die – most people don't and they think they never will. That is why they call it insurance – cause crap happens. Why should the penalty for a poor choice be death? That seems pretty severe. Even Dr. Paul said the guy should have had insurance. President Obama's latest jobs plan had list a $1 trillion savings from bring the troops home.
cause crap happens….the guy was given the 'choice' and declined. His poor choice was death, why does the government have to take money from you, your mom and everyone else to subsidize this guys stupidity?
Where does the government get this authority? If you make 100 dollars how much of your work are you willing to let the government take from you?
If this guy expects the welfare state to take care of him then we should all expect the state to take care of all of us. Where does that money come from? What line do you draw for moral hazard? If I know i can get others to pick up my medical tab then why don't i go ahead and eat cheese burgers and ice cream daily?
Eventually the system collapses on itself and the people are worse off. Freedom means being responsible for yourself. Humans want to help others and it will happen. Go google Shriners hospital.
Yes freedom means the freedom to be stupid BUT I know for a fact that if the hypothetical person was your loved one you would take care of them in some way and make sure they got the treatment they needed.
The government is better able to maintain a safety net if you make a stupid choice.
No matter how stupid you act you are still my brother and no decent human would let another human die just because one was selfish. That is not how we act in the real world
You have become addicted to government and it's not your fault. Corporatists have made you this way for their benefit. Paul will help us better realize this and put us on a path to change it. A majority of Americans want everyone to be cared for. Problem is govt "care" is a scam.