Leave Uninsured To Die

José

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
414
Points
180
This is the "dark side" of the so-called american individualism.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
It mostly just tough talk generally from people whose life experience is rather limited.

There's a lot of that BS going on.

Usually it's little boy and chickenhawks who talk about how hard thing ought to be.
 

Defiant1

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,579
Reaction score
1,178
Points
290
How does one die just because they are uninsured?
 

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago

Defiant1

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,579
Reaction score
1,178
Points
290
How does one die just because they are uninsured?
It seems you miss the point. The point being the crowd cheered. We all know that ill and injured receive immediate care at emergency rooms, at an enormous cost to local government.

Maybe these bleeding heart stories could be turned into a reality show. At least the surviving families could be paid in healthcare insurance.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
First it was Radical Paul supporters that cheered and said let him die. He is far from mainstream, far from a Republican and is a complete nutjob! I am ashamed of him and his supporters!

The audience at the tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die!

What is America becoming? :eek: (As if we didnt already know)

Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Oh stop with the melodramatic indignation please. It is readily observable, that while some ONE in the audience yelled yes, Paul said no. His point was that it is not the role of government to ensure people a risk free existence.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
First it was Radical Paul supporters that cheered and said let him die. He is far from mainstream, far from a Republican and is a complete nutjob! I am ashamed of him and his supporters!
And all this time I thought neo-cons were shameless. I think you've grown!
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
people said YES! to people being left to die.

Paul had no answer to what else but "let them die" as a solution.

Your party has had two debates and in both of them people cheered death.

Take a look at yourselves and who you have become.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
First it was Radical Paul supporters that cheered and said let him die. He is far from mainstream, far from a Republican and is a complete nutjob! I am ashamed of him and his supporters!

The audience at the tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die!

What is America becoming? :eek: (As if we didnt already know)

Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Oh stop with the melodramatic indignation please. It is readily observable, that while some ONE in the audience yelled yes, Paul said no. His point was that it is not the role of government to ensure people a risk free existence.
In his opinion that is not the role of government (not that anyone can ensure people of a risk free existence, some believe government can mitigate the risk to individuals and that is a proper role). As others have differing opinions and in my opinion we are fortunate this limited government school is the opposite of a silent majority (a loud minority).

The question on nearly all threads comes down to this:

What is or should be the role of the Federal Government?
 

Iridescence

Rookie
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
281
Points
0
Location
US
Beyond the article and more about 'everyone must be insured' I am wondering a bit WHY. Many Americans who go see their doctors just go... for things that could be addressed at home and with a little wisdom. Of course America needs her doctors and her children need to be able to be treated by they doctors accordingly, but the truth of the matter is that it is still a business, necessarily. The system is set up so that there is a price to pay for optimum health if one has to seek it out and find it through the assistance of others. For every single person to be required to get healthcare insurance seems quite, um, communist. Of course there are always pros and cons... :eusa_whistle: 'we' just usually don't know what they are until after the facts.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Beyond the article and more about 'everyone must be insured' I am wondering a bit WHY. Many Americans who go see their doctors just go... for things that could be addressed at home and with a little wisdom. Of course America needs her doctors and her children need to be able to be treated by they doctors accordingly, but the truth of the matter is that it is still a business, necessarily. The system is set up so that there is a price to pay for optimum health if one has to seek it out and find it through the assistance of others. For every single person to be required to get healthcare insurance seems quite, um, communist. Of course there are always pros and cons... :eusa_whistle: 'we' just usually don't know what they are until after the facts.
I suppose even the most ardent anti-communist would embrace a communist system of HC when faced with watching a loved one die or suffer because they could not pay. Now, I admit that maybe hyperbole, but the fact remains health care is expensive, it does create a financial burden on many working Americans and some illnesses can put some families into abject poverty through no fault of their own.

The issue is how to mitigate the cost of health care and one way is to reduce the incidence of disease and injury. Of course this comes down to the question above, what is or should be the role of the Federal Government?

I fall on the side of universal preventative health care paid for by the taxpayers. Health centers across our nation providing educaton, innoculations, and regular physical examinations to catch disease early, making treatment more effective and less expensive (in terms of cost and misery).
 

Iridescence

Rookie
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
281
Points
0
Location
US
[quote\] I fall on the side of universal preventative health care paid for by the taxpayers. Health centers across our nation providing educaton, innoculations, and regular physical examinations to catch disease early, making treatment more effective and less expensive (in terms of cost and misery). [\quote]

We don't disagree. I am more supportive of the healthcare facilities educating their patients and I have come to the point of questioning why hospitals don't do a better job at educating even/especially the short term patients. Health Access is one that I have heard the most complaints about locally and it bothers me because I initially heard when Health Access first became available it was staffed with volunteers and such. Doctors on the low end do not make what many seem to assume. Also, the supplies... they just aren't as attainable to certain facilities as the generalized public seems to think.
 

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
It mostly just tough talk generally from people whose life experience is rather limited.

There's a lot of that BS going on.

Usually it's little boy and chickenhawks who talk about how hard thing ought to be.
It does amaze me on the Ron Paul supporter turn outs. The RP does bad during the actual votes, yet every event his supporters come out like cult followers! Don't these people have jobs?
 

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
It's always the relatively young, employed and healthy that say let him die!

The young don't realize you get old and insurance gets VERY expensive. The healthy don't realize they could be one accident or illness away from losing their job, eventually losing their health insurance and put into the situation where they are "uninsured and left to die!"
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
First it was Radical Paul supporters that cheered and said let him die. He is far from mainstream, far from a Republican and is a complete nutjob! I am ashamed of him and his supporters!
Oh stop with the melodramatic indignation please. It is readily observable, that while some ONE in the audience yelled yes, Paul said no. His point was that it is not the role of government to ensure people a risk free existence.
In his opinion that is not the role of government (not that anyone can ensure people of a risk free existence, some believe government can mitigate the risk to individuals and that is a proper role). As others have differing opinions and in my opinion we are fortunate this limited government school is the opposite of a silent majority (a loud minority).

The question on nearly all threads comes down to this:

What is or should be the role of the Federal Government?
It doesn't have to be a one or the other proposition necessarily but you can look at the options essentially as being on a continuum with freedom one end and security on the the other. You can basically think of ensuring security as reducing risk. Any time government tries to provide one of those things it has to take away from the other. We think of freedom in very noble terms being the 'land of the free' and all, but the reality is true freedom is pretty risky. It would basically be laws of the jungle. The other side for government to provide every imaginable security to avert as much life risk as possible would basically be no freedom. They would have dictate to an extreme what people can and can't do in order to keep them from getting into a risky situation and providing for it would be rather expensive. Not only would you have little legal freedom, you would have little means (money) of exercising the freedom you do have.

Admittedly, which is better to have, freedom or security is entirely subjective, but I would rather have my freedom. A life not getting to do what you want to do and not being able to do what makes you happy isn't much of a life at all. I don't see the point in a secure existence if it's going to be a relatively miserable existence. Clearly the founders of our country recognized that. Freedom was clearly more important to them than security. That is not to say it was not important to them to ensure security to some extent, but generally only to the extent that it allowed people the ability to exercise their freedom. They created a federal government with fairly limited power. They didn't limit that power to prevent the tyranny of an 'evil' government, imo. I think they limited government power to prevent them from restricting freedom in the name of compassion or what's best for everyone.

To make a long story short, the role of the federal government should be to ensure a basic level of security that allows people to exercise the freedom. That allows them to collect taxes for things like police forces and basic infrastructure, but that is basically the extent of what the federal government should 'do' in answer to your question.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Good grief, how many more threads on this?

Either add some fucking value or add your moronic drivel onto one of the myriad of boring crap that's already going about this bullshit.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
It's always the relatively young, employed and healthy that say let him die!

The young don't realize you get old and insurance gets VERY expensive. The healthy don't realize they could be one accident or illness away from losing their job, eventually losing their health insurance and put into the situation where they are "uninsured and left to die!"
No GHook. It's the people that have a modicum of integrity that insist it is not someone elses obligatin to take care of you. I am one of the younger ones (30), but am also someone that has incured more medical expenses than many will in their life time. It would have been nice not to get cancer and incur all the expenses that come with it. It would have been nice if someone else had just taken care of it for me and my family. But just because what happened to me was expensive does not give me the right to obligate that you now have to be on the hook for it.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top