Dave_In_Norfolk Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheers-idea-of-letting-sick-man-without-insurance-die-video.php Horrible people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Horrible people http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/134087-shouldnt-conservatives-be-cheering/page__view__findpost__p__2234583 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheers-idea-of-letting-sick-man-without-insurance-die-video.php Horrible people And they'd be the first ones looking for handouts if they were in trouble. And it was an obnoxious !@#$ing question, too. "So you think society should let these people die?" No, the point is that it's not "society's" responsibility either way. "Society" is no more responsible for keeping people alive than I am responsible for keeping you from sticking pencils up your nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) And they'd be the first ones looking for handouts if they were in trouble. And it was an obnoxious !@#$ing question, too. "So you think society should let these people die?" No, the point is that it's not "society's" responsibility either way. "Society" is no more responsible for keeping people alive than I am responsible for keeping you from sticking pencils up your nose. It was a great question, IMO. Obnoxious, sure, if you don't have a clue as to how to answer it, without sounding like an ogre. These people want to talk tough, and in platitudes, about it being an individuals right to have insurance or not, but when you ask them a real question, it is an unfair question? Paul slithered around for an answer, but the the sentiment was there...from the audience...let 'em die! And people wonder why there are many who want no part of what passes for a Tea Party...ironic that the Tea Party fan-boys have no problem backing an a-hole like Perry, who mandates every female in Texas has to have an HPV vaccine, not covered by the majority of insurances, at $175 a pop...three rounds, for something they might get? In a state where 70% of full time workers are un-insured. Edited September 13, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheers-idea-of-letting-sick-man-without-insurance-die-video.php Horrible people If you watched the video and actually listend to it, your thread is based on a complete lie. If you created this thread without watching the video then you are just a pure partisan hack lacking character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 It was a great question, IMO. Obnoxious, sure, if you don't have a clue as to how to answer it, without sounding like an ogre. These people want to talk tough, and in platitudes, about it being an individuals right to have insurance or not, but when you ask them a real question, it is an unfair question? Paul slithered around for an answer, but the the sentiment was there...from the audience...let 'em die! And people wonder why there are many who want no part of what passes for a Tea Party...ironic that the Tea Party fan-boys have no problem backing an a-hole like Perry, who mandates every female in Texas has to have an HPV vaccine, not covered by the majority of insurances, at $175 a pop...three rounds, for something they might get? In a state where 70% of full time workers are un-insured. And the crowd was a bunch of !@#$s. Paul was just an idiot for trying to answer the question - it was nothing more than a trap; a question designed for a "yes" or "no" answer, either of which was the wrong answer. Had Paul tried to answer it the way he should have - it's not society's responsibility, that's the whole point - he would have come off looking like less of an idiot. He also never would have been allowed to give that answer, as whoever asked the question would have cut him off with "It's a simple question. Yes or no, Mr. Paul?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 And the crowd was a bunch of !@#$s. Paul was just an idiot for trying to answer the question - it was nothing more than a trap; a question designed for a "yes" or "no" answer, either of which was the wrong answer. Had Paul tried to answer it the way he should have - it's not society's responsibility, that's the whole point - he would have come off looking like less of an idiot. He also never would have been allowed to give that answer, as whoever asked the question would have cut him off with "It's a simple question. Yes or no, Mr. Paul?" you're right ...it is a yes/no question. with paul's answer and stated beliefs, you either mandate all individuals buying insurance or let a critically ill, uninsured patient die. since he wouldn't agree to mandating insurance his answer has to be to withold care. awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I'd let the crap throwing monkey die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 you're right ...it is a yes/no question. with paul's answer and stated beliefs, you either mandate all individuals buying insurance or let a critically ill, uninsured patient die. since he wouldn't agree to mandating insurance his answer has to be to withold care. awesome! Yeah...only, uh, no. It's not society's decision to withhold care anymore than it is to provide care. That's why it's such a bull **** question. That's the whole point... ...not that you're going to get it this time, either. I'd let the crap throwing monkey die Awww...somebody got caught being an idiot, and now somebody's poor wittle itty-bitty feewings were hurt. Go have a cookie and snuggle your binky, it'll make you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Ok, then if there was mandated insurance, the death decision would be ruled by a panel's determination of acceptable care, which wouldn't prevent death. How is that different? I'm guessing that his answer would be a greater role for charitable organizations to fill in for people in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) I'd let the crap throwing monkey die ever wonder if a situation might come to pass where the crap throwing monkey was you? would you feel the same then? Yeah...only, uh, no. It's not society's decision to withhold care anymore than it is to provide care. That's why it's such a bull **** question. That's the whole point... except that it is somebody's decision...usually the attending physician and/or hospital. you're right in that society in the form of the courts rarely gives guidance in such situations and are very unlikely to ever give a mandate to withold care in the instance of a young otherwise healthy accident victim. the default decision of society,therefore, at least now, is to provide the care..don't see that changing regardless of the teabagger selfish, amoral rhetoric. Edited September 14, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I wouldn't cheer about it like it was a football game but yes a person who can afford insurance but chooses to roll the doesn't deserve one ounce of pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) how bout this: the guy did have private insurance but his maximum benefit of $500K is exceeded in 6 months and he's still on a ventilator. he has savings of a few thousand (enough for about 6 hours in the ICU). should the tube be pulled and he be left to die? if not, who should pay? Edited September 14, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 how bout this: the guy did have private insurance but his maximum benefit of $500K is exceeded in 6 months and he's still on a ventilator. he has savings of a few thousand (enough for about 6 hours in the ICU). should the tube be pulled and he be left to die? if not, who should pay? There are private charities and churches that would help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 There are private charities and churches that would help him. um,no. these cases happen. the hospitals/providers usually absorb the costs which are usually subsidized by the gov't in the form of medicaid. for a single such case your may well be talking the entire operating budget of a large church or a small charitable organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 um,no. these cases happen. the hospitals/providers usually absorb the costs which are usually subsidized by the gov't in the form of medicaid. for a single such case your may well be talking the entire operating budget of a large church or a small charitable organization. How often? 100 a year maybe if even that? If the situation gets that bad private charities have always picked up the slack. I see people having fundraisers all the time for people in medical and whatever and the community always responds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Awww...somebody got caught being an idiot, and now somebody's poor wittle itty-bitty feewings were hurt. Go have a cookie and snuggle your binky, it'll make you feel better. Good, I finally got you to admitted you are one of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 i'd bet your estimate is extremly low although the data doesn't come quickly to hand. we have 49 million uninsured. a pretty small percentage have to get critically ill to blow your guess out of the water. how many belljars of coins ones and 5's equates to the cost of 1 ICU day? while admirable, this is largely symbolic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 how bout this: the guy did have private insurance but his maximum benefit of $500K is exceeded in 6 months and he's still on a ventilator. he has savings of a few thousand (enough for about 6 hours in the ICU). should the tube be pulled and he be left to die? if not, who should pay? Things cost money. People die. I am fine with Paul's answer. We must spend more money adding 2 awful years of life to people than I'm sure we spend caring for them in the first 60 years combined. It's idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Things cost money. People die. I am fine with Paul's answer. We must spend more money adding 2 awful years of life to people than I'm sure we spend caring for them in the first 60 years combined. It's idiotic. do you have an advanced directive explicitly stating your desire for no heroic measures?....rhetorical question, don't really want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts