Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: loco on September 13, 2011, 11:32:46 AM
-
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.
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.
Though Paul spoke to the larger issue of health care and government-backed health insurance--both pivotal issues in the 2012 election--the audience's reaction has overshadowed the substance of the exchange on the debate podium. And the day after the event, Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered his own criticism of the audience response.
"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald of the audience reaction after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa Tuesday morning.
"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."
The campaigns for Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann did not immediately respond to The Ticket's requests for comment.
Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room. "America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can," Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: "Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html
-
great use of the word "feckless" ;)
-
Thanks for highlighting the critical parts. You should take this to HP, as some of the goofies there can't read.
-
what would jesus do
-
what would jesus do
Yawn.
Its actually a good discussion - i dont see where taxpayers should be on the hook for millions and millions of dollars for a ventillator if this guy is never coming back.
-
Yawn.
Its actually a good discussion - i dont see where taxpayers should be on the hook for millions and millions of dollars for a ventillator if this guy is never coming back.
sort of like when they wanted to take terri schiavo off life support and all the right wing nuts wanted to keep her on
-
sort of like when they wanted to take terri schiavo off life support and all the right wing nuts wanted to keep her on
No - the family in that case said they would pick up the tab. Blacken - FAIL
-
No - the family in that case said they would pick up the tab. Blacken - FAIL
Life support and who pays for it 2006-04-07 / Columns
FROMA HARROP
Most of the fist-waving a year ago was over whether Michael Schiavo had the right to order the removal of his wife's life support. Terri's parents said that they wanted their daughter kept alive, and that if Michael did not wish to care for her, they would.
The parents' view clashed with reality. The reality was that the nurses at a Florida hospice were taking care of Terri, and Medicaid was paying for them. Clearly, the taxpayers also had a stake in these painful decisions, though no one talked about it much.
-
Life support and who pays for it 2006-04-07 / Columns
FROMA HARROP
Most of the fist-waving a year ago was over whether Michael Schiavo had the right to order the removal of his wife's life support. Terri's parents said that they wanted their daughter kept alive, and that if Michael did not wish to care for her, they would.
The parents' view clashed with reality. The reality was that the nurses at a Florida hospice were taking care of Terri, and Medicaid was paying for them. Clearly, the taxpayers also had a stake in these painful decisions, though no one talked about it much.
At the time - but to keep her alive they said they would pay for her. Could have been bs, but its not the same thing.
either way - where are taxpayers responsible for all people all the time no matter what the cost?
-
At the time - but to keep her alive they said they would pay for her. Could have been bs, but its not the same thing.
either way - where are taxpayers responsible for all people all the time no matter what the cost?
i could say i'll give you a million dollars,but i wouldn't hold your breath,people will say anything to get what they want
-
This is exactly why it's impossible to have a program where it's possible to opt out. And if you're forced to buy it, it's probably unconstitutional (IMO). What a fucking quagmire.
-
I agree with Ron Paul. If someone opts out of insurance and loses the bet, it should not be the governments roll to take care of him. Churches can step forward and put some of that tax free money to work there
-
Churches can step forward and put some of that tax free money to work there
This happens now, and often. And I assume you know this but very often the uninsured is not a church member nor a believer.
-
This is exactly why it's impossible to have a program where it's possible to opt out. And if you're forced to buy it, it's probably unconstitutional (IMO). What a fucking quagmire.
how is this an example of why it's "impossible" to have an opt out
You can have the opt out and strictly enforce it without cheering for someones death
and if the opt out is enforced the person still has the option to purchase his own private insurance or get in an employers group plan or go pay for medical expenses out of pocket
how is that any different than what we had/currently have?
If you don't have insurance now what exactly are your options?
-
To put the question in context, this hypothetical involved a person who could have purchased health insurance, but chose not to. If someone like that gets sick and dies, the government didn't "allow" that person to die. The person chose to risk getting sick with no coverage. That's the individual's fault.
Pretty outrageous for CNN to run this as a banner headline without the proper context.
-
how is this an example of why it's "impossible" to have an opt out
You can have the opt out and strictly enforce it without cheering for someones death
and if the opt out is enforced the person still has the option to purchase his own private insurance or get in an employers group plan or go pay for medical expenses out of pocket
how is that any different than what we had/currently have?
If you don't have insurance now what exactly are your options?
Because it's never going to realistically happen. The moment somebody dies of something like appendicitis, it will be all over every fucking news channel around talking about how cruel, evil, and heartless it was to turn that person away just because they opted out.
And I'm not defending the current system, I think I've been more than vocal in our need for health reform. But Obamacare is a monstrosity.
-
n Paul knows something about uninsured men dying without health insurance. Kent Snyder, who was Paul's 2008 presidential campaign manager, died on June 26 of that year without any medical coverage. His hospital bills had accumulated to $400,000 at the time of his passing.
~snip~
So, an aide who was pivotal to the political fortunes and fundraising for Paul wasn't even given health insurance - in his hour of need - by the libertarian Congressman.
By now, almost all BuzzFlash at Truthout readers know or saw how the bloodlust of the Tea Party roared with approval when Paul said that people without health insurance are taking their own risks, and that is the way it should be.
A Pensito Review article from 2008 noted, "Snyder's death and his lack of health insurance has triggered a behind-the-scenes debate among Paul supporters and libertarian activists over whether or not the Paul campaign should have provided health insurance to its staff."
-
which is why we all need universal coverage.
-
which is why we all need universal coverage.
What they need to do is set up a national catastrophic plan of some sort that covers crazy shit, and let people pay out of pocket for the rest.
-
Would Jesus tell an old person struggling to live that they should take a painkiller and die quietly?
-
What they need to do is set up a national catastrophic plan of some sort that covers crazy shit, and let people pay out of pocket for the rest.
i thought you supposted LESS govt?
Do we need another bloated "department of really bad emergencies"?
You ever heard of fema? lol
-
Would Jesus tell an old person struggling to live that they should take a painkiller and die quietly?
That's the funny thing, Obama has gone on and on about this very topic and how he would have panels that would decide this sort of thing, "Live or Die or Take a Pill and Die Quietly and Cheaply". The left media pundits applauded this and the left itself stuffed ObamaCare down the nations collective throat. Which is also strange because the left is now hammering Perry on the HPV vaccine and such.
Gotta love it.
-
i thought you supposted LESS govt?
Do we need another bloated "department of really bad emergencies"?
You ever heard of fema? lol
I want something that can be sold across state lines that is a catastrpophic plan. right now - health policies cant be sold over state lines. I dont want it to be a govt run program, there are plenty of ways to do this.
-
What they need to do is set up a national catastrophic plan of some sort that covers crazy shit, and let people pay out of pocket for the rest.
333366,
You are making progress my friend. A Single Payer system like this is exactly the Most Fiscally Conservative plan than any other and it prevents unnecessary deaths. It is also the most moral thing to do.
-
which is why we all need universal coverage.
Haha....great, you really know nothing about 'universal healthcare', just means universal waiting list...
-
n Paul knows something about uninsured men dying without health insurance. Kent Snyder, who was Paul's 2008 presidential campaign manager, died on June 26 of that year without any medical coverage. His hospital bills had accumulated to $400,000 at the time of his passing.
~snip~
So, an aide who was pivotal to the political fortunes and fundraising for Paul wasn't even given health insurance - in his hour of need - by the libertarian Congressman.
By now, almost all BuzzFlash at Truthout readers know or saw how the bloodlust of the Tea Party roared with approval when Paul said that people without health insurance are taking their own risks, and that is the way it should be.
A Pensito Review article from 2008 noted, "Snyder's death and his lack of health insurance has triggered a behind-the-scenes debate among Paul supporters and libertarian activists over whether or not the Paul campaign should have provided health insurance to its staff."
Are they saying he died because he didn't have health insurance? Wasn't he receiving care if he had hospital bills of ~400,000?
-
Haha....great, you really know nothing about 'universal healthcare', just means universal waiting list...
What insurance policy do you currently have and what is the level of coverage?
-
Churches can step forward and put some of that tax free money to work there
This happens now, and often. And I assume you know this but very often the uninsured is not a church member nor a believer.
Butterbean's correcto!
-
This happens now, and often. And I assume you know this but very often the uninsured is not a church member nor a believer.
Butterbean's correcto!
Its a sad day when people have to beg at Churches and pester their Neighbors for money in order to pay for Healtcare. So this is happening all the time you say? Thanks for making the argument that the current system is a disaster and that we need Universal Healthcare. ;)
-
Its a sad day when people have to beg at Churches and pester their Neighbors for money in order to pay for Healtcare. So this is happening all the time you say? Thanks for making the argument that the current system is a disaster and that we need Universal Healthcare. ;)
No, not the point at all. But okay, who pays for universal health care?
-
Its a sad day when people have to beg at Churches and pester their Neighbors for money in order to pay for Healtcare. So this is happening all the time you say? Thanks for making the argument that the current system is a disaster and that we need Universal Healthcare. ;)
Yes, churches often help those that need help w/medical bills among other things.
It hasn't been my experience that any Joe Blow begging and pestering the church for money is met w/financial assistance to pay all their medical bills though.
Something does need to be done about our healthcare system but existing "Universal Healthcare" systems don't seem to be optimal. What is your suggestion on this TA?
Another thing that needs close attention in my opinion is more vigilance to prevent infections that occur from surgeries and in the hospitals. Thousands die and millions of dollars are spent on stuff like this that is preventable! Obviously mistakes can happen but people dying and losing limbs from infection because someone is lazy really chaps me! Rant over :)
-
No, not the point at all. But okay, who pays for universal health care?
It IS THE VERY POINT! If people are begging in churches and begging neighbors for help in paying for Healthcare all the time as you say, you better believe there is a glaring problem. I know firsthand as I used to work for United Healthcare, one of the giants in the Industry.
Who pays? The Tax Payer. The same way we pay for the military. The way the system is now, you are already paying the highest per capita for less Healthcare than every other Industrialized nation in the world.
Single Payer would generate an overall savings of 400 Billions dollars from what we have now. It is by far the most fiscally conservative system available.
-
Yes, churches often help those that need help w/medical bills among other things.
It hasn't been my experience that any Joe Blow begging and pestering the church for money is met w/financial assistance to pay all their medical bills though.
Something does need to be done about our healthcare system but existing "Universal Healthcare" systems don't seem to be optimal. What is your suggestion on this TA?
Another thing that needs close attention in my opinion is more vigilance to prevent infections that occur from surgeries and in the hospitals. Thousands die and millions of dollars are spent on stuff like this that is preventable! Obviously mistakes can happen but people dying and losing limbs from infection because someone is lazy really chaps me! Rant over :)
Death due to Doctors and/or Medical Malpractice, Iatrogenesis, is the THIRD leading cause of DEATH in the United States, yet you have dumbfuckeries like Ron Poop Paul wanting lax regulation and Major Tort Reform when its obvious the patient needs to be legally protected to the hilt.
Here is a breakdown:In the United States, figures suggest estimated deaths per year of: [
12,000 due to unnecessary surgery
7,000 due to medication errors in hospitals
20,000 due to other errors in hospitals
80,000 due to nosocomial infections in hospitals
106,000 due to non-error, negative effects of drugs
Based on these figures, iatrogenesis may cause 225,000 deaths per year in the United States (excluding recognizable error).[17]
hese estimates are lower than those in an earlier IOM report, which would suggest from 230,000 to 284,000 iatrogenic deaths
These estimates are lower than those in an earlier IOM report, which would suggest from 230,000 to 284,000 iatrogenic deaths.
-
TA can you please provide a link you feel is a good one to read on Single Payer? Thanks.
-
333366,
You are making progress my friend. A Single Payer system like this is exactly the Most Fiscally Conservative plan than any other and it prevents unnecessary deaths. It is also the most moral thing to do.
When can we make progress on hastening your very necessary ( and hopefully painful) death?
-
When can we make progress on hastening your very necessary ( and hopefully painful) death?
Why do you want me to die painfully?
-
TA can you please provide a link you feel is a good one to read on Single Payer? Thanks.
http://www.pnhp.org/resources/pnhp-research-the-case-for-a-national-health-program
-
Why do you want me to die painfully?
Because your so well informed and likable.
-
TA can you please provide a link you feel is a good one to read on Single Payer? Thanks.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
-
Because your so well informed and likable.
Two traits that seem to elude Republicans. It makes sense.
-
When can we make progress on hastening your very necessary ( and hopefully painful) death?
Damn. lol
-
What insurance policy do you currently have and what is the level of coverage?
I have universal healthcare, i.e. NHS, level of coverage is waiting in queues...
-
I have universal healthcare, i.e. NHS, level of coverage is waiting in queues...
Have you EVER had Private Insurance?
-
Have you EVER had Private Insurance?
Sure.
-
Sure.
What was the level of coverage and who was your provider?
-
Insurance is retarded, the monopoly they have is retarded and criminal...we know this.
Anyways, does anyone know how much of the audience was "applauding" during that question? The media at large (CNN,MSNBC etc) make it seem as if every single person in the crowd was doing cartwheels, screaming, holding up signs and applauding when this was said.
I've read on some blogs and such that it was just a small portion of the audience and it was blown totally out of proportion, which wouldn't be at all shocking.
P.S. Fuck David "The Chameleon" Gergan. He has no shame, no pride and no heart.
-
What was the level of coverage and who was your provider?
Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Health Insurance makes everything more expensive. If there were a real market it would not be as expensive.
-
Two traits that seem to elude Republicans. It makes sense.
i like your posts. please keep them up.
-
Freaks on the fringe if you ask me.
-
More Lies.
NYT's Krugman Hears Non-Existent Eruption of Crowd Cheering Death
By Clay Waters | September 16, 2011 | 13:55
Change font size: A | A
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman just can't stop offending of late. Krugman confounded even liberals with his ill-timed blog post on the morning of September 11 decrying President George W. Bush and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as “fake heroes” in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. In his Friday column “Free To Die,” he suggested Republicans would prefer people die for lack of health insurance, using as evidence the dubious claim that the audience watching CNN’s Republican debate “erupted with cheers” at the prospect of a (hypothetical) man dying for being unable to afford intensive care. Has Krugman actually watched the clip?
Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.
But that was then. Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”
I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about -- taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”
And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
But did it really? Erik Wemple, who blogs for the Washington Post, fact-checked the horrified liberal response of commentators like Krugman.
This is how Wemple, not a Tea Party fan, described what happened after debate host Wolf Blitzer raised his inflammatory question (you can watch the clip at the Post).
A few jeers? Yes. Heckles? No question. “Audience” cheers? No way.
The voices that can be heard in the video -- perhaps two or three of them -- don’t constitute an “audience” reaction. There were 1,100 people in the crowd. The episode is the clumsy work of a few loons or meatheads in the audience.
Krugman even grabbed that liberal cliche, “the children.”
So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding “Yeah!”
Think, in particular, of the children.
The day after the debate, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2011/09/16/nyts-krugman-hears-non-existent-eruption-crowd-cheering-death#ixzz1Y8sDnPQi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it really wasn't an "audience reaction"? Shocker the left would portray it as such even in the face of evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if those couple of clowns that cheered were left wing plants and new the questions ahead of time.
-
"A few jeers? Yes."
LOL @ "perhaps 2 or 3 of them".... that was a loud 2 or 3 people!
-
This is exactly why it's impossible to have a program where it's possible to opt out. And if you're forced to buy it, it's probably unconstitutional (IMO). What a fucking quagmire.
As you point out, it is not possible for an medical insurance program to work if people have the opportunity to opt out. This is because, despite the example used above, most folks who choose to opt out will do so because they are healthy and don't feel they need medical insurance. Realistically, all medical insurance plans rely on having a pool of healthy non-users in the plan to offset those who have high needs health issues.
Before I retired, my employer provided my health care coverage. As my employer had a large pool of employees, they were able to be self-insured for medical insurance. I sat on the Benefits Committee. We were charged with the responsibility of making decisions which affected all employee benefits, such as rates and coverage levels. Our rates were sometimes adversely affected by just one or two folks with major medical needs even though there was a large pool of healthy people in the plan.
No matter how big the "pool" is, there must be a certain number of folks paying for coverage who are low users of the benefits. That is just how insurance works, be it medical, auto, homeowners or what have you. Of course, if you are among the wealthy, you could risk paying your own medical costs or simply purchase and "umbrella" plan that only kicks in if there is a catastrophic occurrence. One problem with not having medical insurance though is that all insurance providers contract with physicians, pharmacies, labs and hospitals for reduced rates. If you do not have coverage, you are on your own to bargain for rate reductions.
-
As you point out, it is not possible for an medical insurance program to work if people have the opportunity to opt out. This is because, despite the example used above, most folks who choose to opt out will do so because they are healthy and don't feel they need medical insurance. Realistically, all medical insurance plans rely on having a pool of healthy non-users in the plan to offset those who have high needs health issues.
Before I retired, my employer provided my health care coverage. As my employer had a large pool of employees, they were able to be self-insured for medical insurance. I sat on the Benefits Committee. We were charged with the responsibility of making decisions which affected all employee benefits, such as rates and coverage levels. Our rates were sometimes adversely affected by just one or two folks with major medical needs even though there was a large pool of healthy people in the plan.
No matter how big the "pool" is, there must be a certain number of folks paying for coverage who are low users of the benefits. That is just how insurance works, be it medical, auto, homeowners or what have you. Of course, if you are among the wealthy, you could risk paying your own medical costs or simply purchase and "umbrella" plan that only kicks in if there is a catastrophic occurrence. One problem with not having medical insurance though is that all insurance providers contract with physicians, pharmacies, labs and hospitals for reduced rates. If you do not have coverage, you are on your own to bargain for rate reductions.
Health insurance is a scam. healthy people should not be getting hosed in their youth to pay for older people for all sorts of shit wo limitation.
Older people who can afford it need to pay for their own care and not look to younger people to keep perpetuating this ponzi scheme that is destroying this nation.
-
Health insurance is a scam. healthy people should not be getting hosed in their youth to pay for older people for all sorts of shit wo limitation.
Older people who can afford it need to pay for their own care and not look to younger people to keep perpetuating this ponzi scheme that is destroying this nation.
Tell me this when you are older. Then it will mean something.
Incidentally, I have paid medical insurance premiums most of my adult life and still do. Although I certainly fit the older definition, I am extremely healthy and a comparative non-user of the benefits I pay for. It is because of folks like me that medical insurance has the funds to pay for others who are less fortunate when it comes to health. And BTW, children and young people have been known to have major medical problems which can be astronomical in terms of cost. So don't put the problem solely on we older folks.