|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die
By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket
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...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audi … 16817.html
what is so disturbing is the audiences cheerful response ..that an uninsured person with a serious health condition should be left to die..
What should happen then? Are the responsible people in our society supposed to pay for someones irresponsibility? I know the answer is probably a resounding yes, but it isn't the way its supposed to be. Take responsibility for your bad decisions and know better next time. If there is a next time.
No, people should be forced to pay into a system when they're young and have illusions of immortality, since they will be sure to eventually use it.
Social Security and Medicare work the exact same way, except the benefits don't hit until you're much older.
People should be forced? I think that's where you and I should part ways.
You're forced to pay taxes, much of which goes to support wars and other programs that you were forced into consenting to pay for. At least with health insurance, I know I'll be taken care of if something bad happens to me; wars are destructive.
Besides, how does it work otherwise? By the time people get old enough to start to need healthcare, or if something unexpected happens when they're younger, they're not in a position to pay for it out-of-pocket.
Are you aware that we collectively pay almost double that of the Netherlands per person for medical care, and don't cover everyone and have generally worse outcomes?
My question is, why wouldn't you want to? I cannot fathom why many conservatives don't bat an eye at paying taxes to bomb countries that never attacked us while simultaneously begrudging medical care for the poor. And argue against a miniscule increase in taxes for the wealthy while advocating cuts in social programs.
It boggles my mind.
Studies have also shown that early intervention saves money not spent on the really big expenses when disease is left untreated.
Because our medical system is free, people go to the doctor before they become seriously ill.
I can well imagine those same people in America leaving the doctor as a last resort.
There are many federal/state programs already in place to insure kids. That question can't be taken seriously.
The audience was carefully selected to include only hard core Tea Baggers who have the Second and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution and/or Ayn Rand quotes tattooed on their backs.
Stacie: What did people do the 150+ years in our country BEFORE government decided that helping people was in their political interest to gaining votes? Families and communities looked after their own! But, oh yeah, government IS your family - "cradle to grave". Right?
Think about this: If the governments desire was truly to help the uninsured, they could have simply spent LESS than 1 trillion dollars to fix and fund medicare / medicaid / social security, then modify the regulations to put those currently uninsured into the systems; but instead they had to cram 1400 pages of control and MORE regulation down our throats at a cost of 13 trillion. The answer is that Medicaid, etc. is a failed system due to bureaucratic redundancies and government waste.
It has never been about helping people - it is about forcing as much of the people as possible to be dependent of government. No government program has been structured to get people independent of government. Then anyone with ideas to make people responsible for themselves and their own actions is demonized. ... Go figure!
What did people do! Generally they died in the comfort of the bosom of the family from diseases that now would hardly merit time off work.
If you could afford it you might pay the guy you paid to cut your hair to cut off your leg and hope that septicaemia didn't set in.
I'm beginning to think there is some evil in the Tea Party, which was the audience.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/kar … aving-sick
Just let someone die because they made a wrong choice? All of us make a bad choice at times.
And Ron Paul thinks the churches should pay for medical care for everyone! How rich does he think they are? Hospitial stays cost thousands upon thousands now.
"And Ron Paul thinks the churches should pay for medical care for everyone! How rich does he think they are?"
Yeah, that's something that's struck me, too. A LOT of churches and religious organizations are struggling financially right now (as are many secular charities), and even the rich ones don't necessarily have enough money to get everything done that needs to be done. One of my nephews goes to Catholic school and his building doesn't even have air conditioning yet, despite being in a state where temps of 90+ aren't unusual in the first and last weeks of school. They've also had to lay off a bunch of teachers lately due to budget cuts, and the quality of lunches has always been noticeably lower than what my other nephew (who goes to public school) gets.
Most of the civilised world believe we are our brothers keeper. In Australia we have had free health care for more than 40 years, as have many other countries.
The difference is that we know a country is only really strong when it protects it's whole population.
Money is NOT everything. Australians don't complain when we spend a million dollars saving a child with the public purse, we celebrate.
The "American dream" should bring itself up to date and join the modern view that a country is only strong when it supports it's weakest link.
I can think of quite a few reasons being an Australian, but why is America the only developed nation that doesn't have a heart is the question I would be asking.
We pay tax so that we can live in a well serviced society with decent infrastructure for all.
That includes the people who need medical help and don't have insurance cover, which many of them are denied through circumstances beyond their control, and you could become one of them if you live a long life.
In the UK, we have had the National Health Service for 64 years, which entitles everyone to free medical care, no matter what their financial status. The service is not perfect, but at least anyone ending up in hospital is treated equally, whether they are a homeless refugee or the Lord of the Manor. In the USA though, I think there is still a very strong class system, where if you can't support yourself, then you don't matter. It is such a shame that the richest country in the world, and one of the most Christian cannot or will not care for everyone is society. But the Americans are free to adopt whatever system they like, and it seems that for the most part they don't want medical care for all. I may be wrong, but I think the American view goes back to the Protestant work ethic of the Puritans, where everyone should provide everything for themselves, which is fine, if you are able to do so. Unfortunately, there will always be those in society who cannot do this for whatever reasons.
Don't know what it's like in Australia, but where I'm from we sure as hell don't need the government to tell us to help people, we step up and do it on our own in one form or another. The tea party isn't against helping people in need, it's against the government forcing us to pay for whomever the government decides needs the help. We can make that decision on our own as most of the people in my neck of the woods are a hell of a lot smarter and caring than the morons in Washington, who only want to buy votes by pretending they actually care.
I have talked to a great many people who have immigrated to America. Ask them what America is all about and the nearly universal answer is: money.
Most of the audience members were tea party people from around the country. I couldn't even watch it after about 20 minutes. Their ideology about 'America' is missing something rather huge, America is made up of people, humans.
What a nauseating reality that people would cheer such a statement.
We already do.
I remember last year, When David Cameron announced in the House of Commons, that welfare benefits would be withdrawn from the most vunerable in society, and that social housing will no longer be considered a right, as it has been in the UK for over a hundred years. It was a devastating day for the poorest in society. After this, the Conservatives were cheering and patting Cameron on the back. I must admit to feeling ashamed to be British that day. When an old Etonian, from a very wealthy background is pleased with himself for punishing the ill and the poor in society, I no longer recognise the country I am living in. I do wonder, if this government continues, if the National Health Service will continue for future generations.
I feel for you Holmes. I never imagined I would see the day this happened. They will have a hard time doing away with National Health though.
I know quite a few working English folk, and they are not that easy to push around.
I hope your government regains it's decency and re-instates what they so hastily removed.
What the Tea Party fails to realize is that care is never refused in America. Many hospitals take care of people regardless of insurance. When my husband had an accident he was medivaced to a hospital that refused to allow me to give them my insurance information until his final day in the hospital. That was one week. One week of care that they had no idea if they would be reimbursed for or not. Their reason? They said they didn't want to jeapordize the level of care. They didn't want any of the staff to know who could pay and who could not.
People, no matter their status, will recieve care. Who foots the bill? Those of us that have insurance. The system is off kilter and needs to be set on a reasonable and viable course. I don't necessarily support the Health Care Plan as it has been enacted. But the Tea Partiers that don't support some type of system for universal health care are forcing my insurance premiums to spiral out of control.
If they would use their brains, and not give into their emotions; they might just understand this.
Very good point.
To add to that: Because this scenario only deals with conditions when they're urgent, there's no opportunity to reduce costs via prevention or early intervention, to earnest's point.
Exactly, but emergency care is not the only care the uninsured are afforded. I know many people who schedule and receive expensive procedures that are uninsured. This foolish notion that America has people lying in the streets dying without care needs to be addressed.
People get care. Not only do those of us with insurance pay for the portion of care that goes unpaid; the uninsured who pay their bills do also. They pay, on average, three times more than I do. Refusal to create universal health care leaves the burden on the few.
In the recent Tea Party debates Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul ganged up on Rick Perry's foolish statements about Social Security, his record as Texas governor and his position on several issues.
Romney attacked Perry aggressively on his characterization of Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and his declaration that Social Security is unconstitutional. Perry's unsuccessful effort to walk back from these statements from his book published last year left him "looking dazed" according to Steve Duprey, GOP national committeeman from New Hampshire. Fresh polls may show that Romney has displaced Perry as the leading GOP candidate.
Michelle Bachman flogged Perry for his executive order as governor which required the vaccination of 12 year old girls to prevent a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer. Again on the defensive, Perry acknowledged that his executive order was a mistake and that if he had it to do over again he would go to the legislature.
Libertarian Ron Paul questioned Perry's record as governor, claiming that taxes in Texas doubled under Perry.
Meanwhile, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty threw his support behind Mitt Romney.
I hear there's an operation you can have that instantly turns you into a republican...
They remove your soul.
On the other hand you can become a democrat by having an out clinic procedure where...you guessed it,they insert a republicans check book.
there's also a political neutering quick fix,but it's to yucky to describe and kinda snip snip Oops!Then they give you a teleprompter...Hmmm,is this the pot thread?
Gawker's reporting that Ron Paul has some personal experience with this question - apparently, his campaign manager died of pneumonia in 2008 while uninsured due to a pre-existing condition that made his insurance premiums unaffordable:
http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-cam … -uninsured
an attempt to bring truth to this situation
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … ore-176432
I didn't watch the debate, but it sounds like the usual media crap and spin on a 60 second answer that doesn't give an a true answer...then you've got either the crazies of Paul's supporters acting like idiots or they were plants for the oppostition.
Ron Paul is intelligent and compassionate and if you heard a long version and understood the proper role and actions of free market thinking, proper uncorrupt economics and constitutional alignment for governments in coordination with the people and businesses, you would not be having such a thread as this
That article doesn't answer the question of what he'd do under those circumstances, though.
As far as I know, most states have laws on the books requiring hospitals to treat patients who come into the ER even if they can't pay, but that forces other patients to pay for people who can't anyway, in the form of higher bills for their own expenses. Doesn't it make more sense to get everybody paying into the system, like the British and Canadians do, so people can get free health care whenever they need it and don't put off visiting the doctor until it is a bona fide (and expensive) emergency?
In Ron Paul's magical free market world, I guess the regulations requiring hospitals to treat all patients would be repealed, so what then? Hospitals get to turn poor patients away at will? Hey, it's cheaper for the rest of us, but in what universe is that morally okay?
It is disturbing that we have a party like the Tea Party in American Politics. They care little or nothing for the poor of our country and that's sad. Their party has also made unrealistic pledges that they will never raise taxes. Remember Bush and his read my lips no no new taxes. And the tea party will have to change their mind also. It won't work. Not ever.
We organise at a local government or council level, which is mostly funded by both state and federal government. The free health care seems to have survived with less funding dollars than many other systems despite it's weaknesses.
I don't know anyone unworthy of free health care.
I don't know what neck of the woods you are from, but many in Australia seem to believe the cost is controlled better with free health care because people go to the doctor for even minor illnesses, and standard testing allows for preventative intervention that may have otherwise gone undetected until serious and very expensive.
Australia has unemployment of less than 5% and a buoyant economy, but we do allow our government to decide who gets free medicine and they decided on everyone, rich or poor, with or without private hospital cover.
The same with low income earners.. they are topped up so they don't suffer poverty.
This seems to get them back to work a lot sooner.
I like the way we do it, it's fair. I have paid a lot of tax in my time, but Believe a lot of it was pretty well used by the various governments we have had in the last 40 years.
"I like the way we do it, it's fair. I have paid a lot of tax in my time, but Believe a lot of it was pretty well used by the various governments we have had in the last 40 years."
I think a big part of the problem in the US is that for the last 20 or 30 years at least we've had one party that's actively working to sabotage pretty much every single government program not directly related to the military. When you can't rely on funding from year to year, let alone administration to administration, of course you're going to do your job inadequately and inefficiently. Then, of course, the Republicans get to crow about what an awful job government does some more, which gives them an excuse to cut more funding, which makes performance even worse, and so forth.
The Brits had Thatcher, I guess, but in general, Aussies, Brits, and Canadians don't seem to do this type of deliberate sabotage.
If the objective is truly to get all people insured, why didn't this administration simply allocate several BILLION dollars to fix medicaid, then tweak the requirements to cover ALL uninsured? Instead, they spend SEVERAL TRILLION dollars to implement regulations that their OWN STATISTICIANS say will still leave 4 million uninsured?
Why NOT fix medicaid and add the uninsured to it? It would be a LOT less expensive!
The problem is that as soon as the government gets involved in anything there is always lots of waste and bureaucracy with tons of forms to fill out and process and everything costs three times more than it needs to just to pay for the processing of the paperwork. If we let government run healthcare, we will all be waiting in long lines for substandard treatments which will be paid for by those of us who actually work and pay our taxes.
There is no such thing as a free ride in this world. Somebody is paying for all that "free" healthcare I keep reading about. If you're not paying for it yourself then you are freeloading off someone else's dime and hard work. And people from countries where they have free healthcare fly to the U.S. all the time to get treatments unavailable or not provided by their "free" coverage.
We have the best care available anywhere, and I don't believe anybody in this country needs to die in the streets unless they want to. I lived on those streets once with no money and not very many resources. I went to hospital emergency rooms more than once during that time and was never turned away even though my pockets were empty.
You may believe that you have the best health care in the world, the WHO disagrees with you placing the US in 37th position and 54th in fairness of financial contribution.
A lot of these "superior" treatments that people fly to the US for are not provided by other countries because they don't work!
Ah, the WHO, they are one of the many organizations I donate to every year to support all their good works. Since you aren't specific about which treatments don't work, I really can't agree or disagree with you. All I can do is speak from my own personal experience.
Dude, have you ever dealt with a private insurance company? Talk about waste and bureaucracy!
LOL, yep, I deal with insurance companies all the time. I have insurance for my home, and my vehicles, and since I'm a small business owner I also have insurance for my company and medical insurance for my employees. Heck, I even have useless medical insurance for my pets, a total waste of course, since it doesn't really cover the routine things which is where all the expenses are, but I got it anyway because my daughter insisted that her "babies" be "protected" in case of a catastrophic injury.
by Don W13 months ago
Donald Trump said he will deliver:- "good coverage at much less cost"- "a much better health care plan at much less money."He also said:- "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford...
by trish10488 years ago
For or against?Personally, I hate the idea. The government needs to stay out of my personal life. I like my freedom of choice.
by Silver Rose8 years ago
I don't normally get involved in political debates, but had to wade into this one. Some foolish American magazine has made the following comment:"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,, Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election...
by Judy Specht23 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.