Tea Party Cheers For Death of Uninsured Man

[Vihzel]

Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die - YouTube

I'm not very familiar with the beliefs of the Tea Party. Can someone please explain this one to me? Is this just an isolated belief by the few members in the Tea Party audience or is it a belief of the Tea Party in general?

 

[keale18]

The more the tea party exposes their stances on issues the better.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The more the tea party exposes their stances on issues the better.

Unfortunately, this sentiment is not inclusive to the Tea Party.

 

[OstrichSaK]

They were cheering the freedom for the man to make his own decisions without the government intervening to tell him how to live his life.

 

[Vihzel]

They were cheering the freedom for the man to make his own decisions without the government intervening to tell him how to live his life.

Why did they yell out "YEAH!" when Blitzer asked Paul if he thought that society should just let him die while in a coma?

I guess it would be a bit different if all healthcare companies were required to provide healthcare to any individual who wanted it. What happens if a man who has had several previous preexisting conditions is denied healthcare from every company he has applied to and has a serious issue and must go to the hospital but due to the lack of healthcare, he can't afford to pay the costs? Is the Tea Party going to enforce that healthcare companies give healthcare to the individuals who want it, regardless of any preexisting conditions?

 

[OstrichSaK]

Why did they yell out "YEAH!" when Blitzer asked Paul if he thought that society should just let him die while in a coma?

I think they were more yelling about how the question started out: 'Should society just let him die' as in... is it's society's decision that should be forced upon someone. Ron Paul gets cut off right after that but he goes on to say that that's the ultimate sign of a free society when someone has the ability to make those decisions for themselves regardless of how those who 'have their best interests in mind' see it. He then talks about free care that is volunteered and care that is volunteered and those willing to offer their help rather than be forced by law to offer it at the expense of those who may not be able to afford it. I can get the idea behind it but 1) I don't know who the guy is yelling 'YEAH' nor do I know his political affiliation and to assume anything based on him blurting out a word would be ignorant and 2) I can't believe how big of a deal the media is making over one bonehead shouting 'YEAH' and the saddest part is this is the most coverage Ron Paul has gotten during this entire process when he makes some REAL good points and brings up some REAL good questions. Instead of attempting to answer the questions he has or thinking outside of the box it's easier for the media to try to make him or the Tea Party out to be raging lunatics. Pretty sad example of why our government is SO screwed up.

 

[Vihzel]

^ That is WHY I'm asking the questions that I did in my original post. I'm really taken aback by those people who yelled "YEAH" (it was more than one... at least one male and female) with the smattering of applause and was really curious as to if the Tea Party in general believes that any human in dire need should be left to die because he/she didn't have healthcare. That thought kind of scares me in the case that we have a leader who believes the same thing... so I just want to make that clear for me in terms of understanding more about the Tea Party.

 

[Sue7M3]

They were cheering the freedom for the man to make his own decisions without the government intervening to tell him how to live his life.

Sorry, but that's untrue. They were cheering because when Ron Paul was asked if society should just let him die because he can not afford healthcare. He said yes, if you can't afford it, tough, you don't deserve help from society. THAT'S what they cheered.

It was sickening.

 

[OstrichSaK]

You did a ninja edit after I clicked so I'll attempt to address your other topic as well...

...must go to the hospital but due to the lack of healthcare, he can't afford to pay the costs?

I think this is the meat of the problem here. Why do you think healthcare costs are SO high? Elective procedures are SO much less expensive comparatively because people actually research them. A good example is my wife had Lasik eye surgery quite a few years ago. When that procedure came out it was substantially more expensive than it is now. Prices came down and down and down while the prices of most other things continue to sky-rocket. Why is that? I'm glad you asked. In a word: competition. Before she had any work done she called around and researched quite a bit including shopping price. Now, while I wouldn't shop something as critical as eye-surgery based solely on price if there were several options that all came highly recommended and the only difference was cost, what would you base your decision on? Price. If someone else was footing the bill would you put forth the effort to see if the cheaper options did as good of work or would you even call around to get prices? How many people with health insurance do you think call around to see what General Practitioner has the lowest office visit fees, exam prices or shop the price on the procedures they need? People w/o health care shop around these sorts of things because it comes out of THEIR pockets. We don't have 'grocery insurance' but if we did do you think people would compare prices of similar items or would they fill their carts with lobster and steak?

This is just a tiny example but you can imagine how this has been going on for decades and how it affects health care costs. There are many other factors but the lion's share of them are adversely affected by the implementation of health care. There are audio recordings of the idea of health care being presented to President Nixon and it was presented as a way to make lots of money and guess who is now better off now that health care is considered a must have? Not the people with health care or without it that's for sure. The health care system is broken big time and health care in any shape or form is not the answer. It's part of the problem.

Funny you mention he can't afford to pay the costs. Over a quarter of all bankruptcies filed last year were due to medical expenses. Of those, over 70% had health insurance. I'm sorry but I don't see this being the answer when so many people are being let down by this false sense of security while insurance companies profit hugely off of this purchasing of false sense of security. Forcing someone to pay into this broken system or paying for it out of tax dollars only serves to exasperate the problem.

Is the Tea Party going to enforce that healthcare companies give healthcare to the individuals who want it, regardless of any preexisting conditions?

If you think the Tea Party wants to force anything down anyone's throats I think you need to study the Tea Party's stance on this topic a little more rather than just trust what the media says about them.

^ That is WHY I'm asking the questions that I did in my original post. I'm really taken aback by those people who yelled "YEAH" (it was more than one... at least one male and female) with the smattering of applause and was really curious as to if the Tea Party in general believes that any human in dire need should be left to die because he/she didn't have healthcare. That thought kind of scares me in the case that we have a leader who believes the same thing... so I just want to make that clear for me in terms of understanding more about the Tea Party.

So one or two whackos shout and it's discussion worthy when it paints Ron Paul or the Tea Party in a negative light but dozens shout and applaud Perry regarding executions and that's cool? I actually thought the reaction regarding both was comical and it amazes me how some can read SO much into something so silly.

Oh noes! They're going to let the kid die! C'mon man. Study history and see that life wasn't so bad before the advent of health insurance. It's not the answer and in fact it's the causation of most of our broken health care system.


And... just so we're clear... why are we saying it's the tea party that shouted? What proof do we have of that again? I still don't know how this conclusion was drawn. I can agree that either way anyone who cheers the death of another human is a moron at best.

Sorry, but that's untrue. They were cheering because when Ron Paul was asked if society should just let him die because he can not afford healthcare. He said yes, if you can't afford it, tough, you don't deserve help from society. THAT'S what they cheered.

It was sickening.

Because you don't have the RIGHT to medical care. That's Ron Paul's stance. You clearly didn't watch the debate or you would see his explanation behind his stance.

THE MAN IS A DOCTOR FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Do you really think that his goal is to let everyone die? Again, watch the entire debate and listen to his entire stance you will see that not forcing health insurance onto someone does not mean you want them to die. Not only does he give several examples of how the young man who may have made a terrible decision can get help but lots of people got care before health insurance was invented so how is that possible? People are far to dependent on the government to take care of them and that's Ron Paul's stance and that's the Tea Party's stance. It should also be noted that Ron Paul is a Libertarian running on the Republican ticket.

 

[mike114]

Sorry, but that's untrue. They were cheering because when Ron Paul was asked if society should just let him die because he can not afford healthcare. He said yes, if you can't afford it, tough, you don't deserve help from society. THAT'S what they cheered.

It was sickening.

Ron Paul has NEVER made the claim that I emphasized in your statement. He's been practicing medicine since the 60's and he always provides examples of what we as a society did to help those in need. And guess what???? It didn't involve the gov't mandates, yet somehow those in need got the treatment they needed.

At least be honest in your disagreements with Dr Paul and stop trying to smear the man. He is the only honest man up there telling things you don't want to hear.

 

[Sue7M3]

I know all about Ron Paul. His kid is even more sickening than he is, wanting to abolish the Civil Rights Act among other things.

Healthcare SHOULD be a basic right, not something you only get if your bank account is big enough. People may have gotten care before health insurance was invented but I assure you the mortality rate was probably a lot higher and the average lifespan lower.

I don't know where you get forcing health insurance on someone from the example of someone who is uninsured getting injured and needing help. It makes absolutely no sense, The example everyone cheered about was of someone without insurance needing help, and when Paul was asked if he deserved help, he said NO. He said if he can't afford health insurance, he should die, and the Tea Party cheered.

"Let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth." Edward Kennedy

 

[mike114]

The example everyone cheered about was of someone without insurance needing help, and when Paul was asked if he deserved help, he said NO. He said if he can't afford health insurance, he should die, and the Tea Party cheered.

"Let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth." Edward Kennedy

All of Ron Paul's Answers from the CNN Tea Party Debate - YouTube

Go to the 4:00 mark of this video, and then tell me EXACTLY where Dr Paul says NO and that the man should just die. I'll be waiting.

And then you quote a man who would never allow himself or family to ever be put on a waiting list like you and I will have to when we will need medical attention in the world of Obamacare.

And since healthcare is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

 

[Gmash]

So one or two whackos shout and it's discussion worthy when it paints Ron Paul or the Tea Party in a negative light but dozens shout and applaud Perry regarding executions and that's cool? I actually thought the reaction regarding both was comical and it amazes me how some can read SO much into something so silly.

Oh noes! They're going to let the kid die! C'mon man. Study history and see that life wasn't so bad before the advent of health insurance. It's not the answer and in fact it's the causation of most of our broken health care system.


And... just so we're clear... why are we saying it's the tea party that shouted? What proof do we have of that again? I still don't know how this conclusion was drawn. I can agree that either way anyone who cheers the death of another human is a moron at best.

You are right, the insurance industry is the root of the problems in our health care system. That's why we need a single-payer system like every other civilized country in the world. Take the profit motive out of health care and watch the costs drop.

 

[Frisco]

This is a pretty "hot" subject, along with a video that seems to provoke much of that "heat."

Approaching it with a cool head in the discussion will keep this thread open, and more posts from being edited or removed.

Remember, please, address the subject at hand and not fellow members.

 

[nlsme]

What I noticed from watching the debate, and this part in oparticular, is that NOBODY answered the question. The question is who pays when someone who needs critical care does not have major medical. The answer is everybody. The law is, and will continue to be, that if you are in need of emergncy life saving care, NO hospital is allowed to deny you that care. IF someone receives this care without having inscurance, or the ability to pay it out of pocket, they file bankruptcy. However, the hospital then "eats" that cost. Well, they have to make it up elsewhere, so they raise their rates on everybody else. You shouldn't have the "choice" on not accepting that cost. So, there are really only two choices. One, a single payer solution where EVERYBODY pays into a system that is not for profit. Or, "Obamacare" (a misnoamer if ever there was one, for it wasn't the plan HE wanted), wich is nothing more than a system that takes that "choice" of paying your fair share away (a good thing), but lines the pockets of the inscurance companies (a bad thing). I personally dislike the fact that Obama caved to the Republicans on EVERY issue that has crossed his path, so it really gets to me when the Republicans call him out as being too far left. If anything, he needs to stand up for the Democratic principles that he ran on, and that got him elected.

 

[RiverOfIce]

The fact is simple, almost every republicans care about themselves and how the world effects them. They will fight to the end to stop the government from helping a poor person with a serous medical issue, but just jump right on in when a woman wants an abortion.

The republican party has always been like that.


The bottom line, the republicans only care about themselves, unless someone would like to point out 1 major issue in the last 20 years that the republicans have not acted in their own self interest.

 

[Vihzel]

You are right, the insurance industry is the root of the problems in our health care system. That's why we need a single-payer system like every other civilized country in the world. Take the profit motive out of health care and watch the costs drop.

That seems quite reasonable. Unfortunately, there are people going to cry "Socialist!" like it's the worst thing in this world.

 

[Frisco]

That seems quite reasonable. Unfortunately, there are people going to cry "Socialist!" like it's the worst thing in this world.

Well, it may depend on what we mean, and how far we're willing to go when we say, "take the profit out of health care."

Pharmaceutical industry? Doctor's pay? Hospital research budgets (yes, some make a profit from those monies)? Medical supply industry (huge!)?

Do we want the government, those bumbling morons.. I mean federal employees who are notorious for waste in every endeavor they now run (military, agency construction and management, transportation/roads, etc) to run the health care industries as well?

I don't know, folks. Something tells me we'd be seeing something far worse than what we now have. This is not the U.K. or China, etc, it's the U.S. where $79 toilets are morphed into $790 toilets by government contractors crossing the palms of politicians with silver.

 

[Vihzel]

I guess it would be good to see why we spend so much more % of our GDP on healthcare versus other countries where it's universal healthcare.

 

[Frisco]

I guess it would be good to see why we spend so much more % of our GDP on healthcare versus other countries where it's universal healthcare.

I don't know. That is interesting.

I'd also be interested in seeing independently compiled data on the relative quality of health care from country to country with their varying systems.

I honestly don't know where the best is in the world, but I'd lean toward the U.S. in most areas of that care, from what I've seen. But what I've seen is just anecdotal, and not much in depth at all as to data.

 

[BiggestManEver]

And since healthcare is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

Since having a Police force to protect you from unexpected ills is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

Since having fire protection for your possessions is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

Since having public schools since you didn't have the foresight to save up for a private one is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.



Free preventive health care should be a right. It will reduce costs for everyone. Nip problems in the bud BEFORE they become "emergency room" problems that bankrupt people.

 

[RiverOfIce]

And since healthcare is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

Sorry, edit it.

Lets see here off the top of my head. "Act for the releif of sick and disabled seamen" passed both houses in 1798, and sign by john adams, then president. It was originally brought up at a meeting with Alexander Hamilton. It was Thomas Jefferson that vastly improved the bill and it was Albert Gallatin, the treasury secretary that enforced it.

Adams and Jefferson never liked each other, and disagreed on everything. But on taxing sailor and using the money to enforce healthcare, they where totally in agreement.

James Madison, 4th president and father of the consitution, said at a meeting, "If men where angels, no government would be necessary." Alexander Hamilton replied that " men are not angel and the government was needed to restrain the passion of men." Thomas Hobbs agreed, he was the guy that came up with the "unalienable rights", stating that if the government did not enforce the concepts of the first principle, it would be, as he put it, "vigilantism", or the "war of everyone against everyone."

The first principle was created to insure our liberty and freedom, created by Hobbs, simply states this;

The rule of law is a First Principle that mandates that the law governs everyone
The First Principle of unalienable rights recognizes that everyone is naturally endowed by their Creator with certain rights
Equality is a First Principle that recognizes that all persons are created equal
The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed
The First Principle of limited government means that the protection of unalienable rights is the legitimate purpose and limit of government requires the government to be strong enough to fulfill its purpose yet limited to that purpose.

The unalienable rights simply stated, "all men are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Frisco]

Pro & Con Arguments: "Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?" PRO Right to Health Care

1. All Americans should have a right to health care because the Declaration of Independence states that all men have the unalienable right to "Life," which entails having the health care needed to preserve life.
2. Health care is a right for all Americans because the Preamble of the US Constitution states its purpose is to "promote the general welfare" of the people. Just as all Americans have the right to an education, they should have the right to health care because they both "promote the general welfare."
3. Health care is a human right. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including... medical care."
4. All Americans should have the right to health care as do citizens of other nations. The United States is one of the few, if not the only, developed nation in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. [1]
5. Ensuring that all Americans have the right to health care will decrease health care costs by allowing people to receive regular and preventive medical care and not wait until they are chronically ill to seek treatment when medical costs are much higher.
6. Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, thus allowing them to contribute to society for a longer time. The cost of bad health and shorter life spans of Americans suffering from uninsurance amounts to $65-130 billion annually. [2]
7. Lacking health care can lead people to suffer from anxiety, depression, sickness, and stress, and other symptoms that affect not only individuals, but families and communities of that individual as well.
8. Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance. [3][4]
9. Guaranteeing the right to health care will encourage entrepreneurship, which is good for job creation. Currently people are afraid to start their own business for fear of losing the health insurance provided at their existing job.
10. Health care should be a right because it will promote equal opportunity by decreasing the number of people who are economically disadvantaged in society due to bad health and medically-related financial trouble.
11. Health care services are crucial to the functioning of a community, just like trash and water services, and should therefore be guaranteed like these services are to all Americans.
12. The right to health care should be considered a civil right. People should not be discriminated against for being sick. Americans who are ill should not have to make the choice between financial ruin or paying for the medical treatments they need to stay alive.
13. Coverage of all Americans would best counter or contain the spreading of epidemics such as the H1N1 flu (swine flu) or smallpox.

CON Right to Health Care

1. Health care should not be a right because it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to happiness or free medical services.
2. Health care should not be considered a right because the Preamble of the US Constitution states that its purpose is to "promote" the general welfare, not to provide it.
3. Health care should not be considered a right because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights lists people's rights that the government cannot infringe upon, not services or material goods that the government must ensure for the people.
4. It is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. Diseases and health problems, such as obesity, cancer, stroke, and diabetes can often be prevented by individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles.
5. No one should be entitled to health care because it is a service and a material good that a person must pay for to obtain.
6. Guaranteeing everyone health care will lead to longer wait-times for patients to receive diagnoses and treatment of illnesses, as is the case in Canada and the UK, potentially denying patients with chronic diseases timely medical care. [5]
7. Providing a right to health care is socialism and is bad for economic productivity. Socialized medicine is comparable to food stamps, housing subsidies, and welfare--all of which is charity. Distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity.
8. A right to health care is unadministratable because it is too ambiguous what kind of treatment and services should be guaranteed.
9. Guaranteeing health care as a right will lead to an increase in demand for health care that will decrease the quality of care because health care professionals will be overstretched.
10. History has shown that granting health care as a right would lead to greater government deficits. Every time the government intervenes in health care, such as with Medicare and Medicaid, there is a greater redistribution of wealth and greater government spending.
11. If health care is considered a right, then government bureaucrats will be making health, life, and death decisions that should be up to the patient and doctor to decide.
12. Allowing health care coverage to be driven by the free market without government intervention increases competition and the incentive for providing higher quality medical technology and service.
13. Providing health care to everyone is a huge expense and may result in tax increases thereby futher harming the economy and individual pocketbooks.
14. Guaranteeing health care for all Americans will lead to a problem known as "moral hazard," meaning that people will take riskier actions because they know that if they get hurt, they are guaranteed health care coverage.

From: http://healthcare.procon.org/#pro_con

 

[Stuntman]

I didn't see where there were cheers for the death of an uninsured man. What I saw was that the guy said that the uninsured man knew the risks of not having health care and it is his right to risk being uninsured.

My understanding of the U.S. is that obtaining health care coverage is the responsibility of the individual. Unless that changes, the rest of U.S. society should not be responsible should that individual chooses to not get or neglects getting health care coverage for himself.

In contrast, in Canada, basic health care coverage is provided by the government. Individuals (that are Canadian citizens) cannot choose to not have basic coverage, or do individuals run the risk of neglecting to get this coverage. Individuals can choose to obtain extended coverage that covers certain things over and above basic coverage.

Home insurance is optional in both Canada and the U.S. If someone chooses not to purchase it and his house burns down along with all of his belongings, the rest of society in Canada or U.S. is not responsible for rebuilding his house and replacing his belongings and money.

This particular debate revolves around whether or not that responsibility for obtaining health insurance should rest with the individual or the government. Do you want the individual to put himself and possibly his family at risk? Do you think that individuals should keep that responsibility or should that responsibility fall upon the government? My impression of the cheers is that those people feel that this individual is given the choice, made a poor choice and the government should not simply compensate people for making a poor choice that resulted in a bad outcome for that individual.

 

[Vihzel]

I think the issue is whether or not we would let an uninsured man die if he suddenly needed medical attention to save his life or save his life and pass along the costs to others since he had no medical care. So basically...

Life vs. Cost (or Choice... whatever you'd like to call it)