During GOP Debate, when RP asked about sick young man audience yells "Let him DIE!".

[Ravi]

You're assuming that saving lives is as simple as spending enough money.

That's a fool's assumption.

At what point is it not worth the cost?

If you say never, then you're either lying or incredibly naive.

You're assuming I assumed something I didn't assume.

There is no blanket decision, things can only be decided case by case.

You shouldn't say things if you don't assume them.

Regardless, we agree that it should be a case by case decision. And in saying so, we are both implying that sometimes the decision is to let him die.

Unless of course you come back again and say that you didn't say what you said.

I think we agree.

I don't think letting people die simply because they don't have insurance is a valid way to treat people. Apparently Ron Paul and his teapees think it is perfectly fine.

 

[Ravi]

Line item tax forms?

There's lots of things I don't want to pay for..and things I do. If it's to save someone's life..I am in.

If it's to build a missile defense system which doesn't work..I am out.

That's um..like Direct Democracy.

My issue is with people that CAN have insurance but choose not to. Others that can't afford it should be responsible for it SOMEHOW. I can't afford to pay other people bills, so why should i be made to? There are alot of people out there that could afford some type of insurance but just don't do it because they KNOW they'll be treated anyway and they're not forced to pay. They'll just file bankruptcy later. I've been through bankruptcy and was very surprised at how easy it was!!!

Exactly. If I make the necessary sacrifices so I can pay my insurance, why the fuck should
I pay for someone who CHOOSES not to? I didn't get to drive the newer car, live in the fancier house, party every weekend, or whatever they chose to spend the money on rather than looking out for themselves and/or family.

But none of you all support making them pay a penalty for not having insurance.

The choice seems to be:

You don't have insurance, therefore you die.

or

You don't have insurance but we save you and charge you a penalty.

 

[dblack]

In Paul's rambling response, his initial response was that he made a bad choice and should pay the consequences......this is where the Tea Baggers cheered loudly.

But the assumption of the OP, and presumably the idiot in the audience, is that paying the consequences mean dying in an alley somewhere. That's nonsense. "Paying the consequences" means the person who made that decision will find themselves dependent on the good will of his community.

 

[dblack]

I don't think letting people die simply because they don't have insurance is a valid way to treat people. Apparently Ron Paul and his teapees think it is perfectly fine.

Why would you assume that?

 

[strollingbones]

did the gop do anything about abortion while in office? seems neither party wants to curtail a major business

 

[Sallow]

Line item tax forms?

There's lots of things I don't want to pay for..and things I do. If it's to save someone's life..I am in.

If it's to build a missile defense system which doesn't work..I am out.

That's um..like Direct Democracy.

My issue is with people that CAN have insurance but choose not to. Others that can't afford it should be responsible for it SOMEHOW. I can't afford to pay other people bills, so why should i be made to? There are alot of people out there that could afford some type of insurance but just don't do it because they KNOW they'll be treated anyway and they're not forced to pay. They'll just file bankruptcy later. I've been through bankruptcy and was very surprised at how easy it was!!!

Exactly. If I make the necessary sacrifices so I can pay my insurance, why the fuck should
I pay for someone who CHOOSES not to? I didn't get to drive the newer car, live in the fancier house, party every weekend, or whatever they chose to spend the money on rather than looking out for themselves and/or family.

I'll put the question to you then.

Line item tax return?

Yes or no?

 

[OODA_Loop]

But none of you all support making them pay a penalty for not having insurance.

If paying to insure your own health and survival is not a self-motivator .......a payment penalty will be ?

 

[Sallow]

did the gop do anything about abortion while in office? seems neither party wants to curtail a major business

Actually..the Tea Party put of a plethora of legislation related to abortion. From making it harder to get to taxing it.

 

[manifold]

I don't think letting people die simply because they don't have insurance is a valid way to treat people.

I agree. Any case by case decision necessarily involves a lot more than simply whether a person has the ability to pay.

Apparently Ron Paul and his teapees think it is perfectly fine.

Only if you have a hyperactive partisan imagination.

 

[rightwinger]

A question for the bleeding heart utopianites: At what point is it ok to just let him die?

I would have to say at the same point it is ok to let you die if it happened to you

And what point is that?

Decisions to stop care are made every day. They are usually made on the basis of having a decent chance of recovery after the procedure, age, other medical conditions etc

It shouldn't be made on the basis of how much you can pay

 

[Ravi]

I don't think letting people die simply because they don't have insurance is a valid way to treat people. Apparently Ron Paul and his teapees think it is perfectly fine.

Why would you assume that?

Why? Because no charities have stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for peoples medical care.

 

[rightwinger]

I also edited my comment above to add that it shouldn't be up to me to pay for his medical bills, and that something has to be put in place for him to somehow pay it back (community service?).

People should also not be put in jail for not having insurance. But, something has to be put in place that would push these people to pay it back somehow, and if they ignore their responsibility to pay that bill, there has to be something in place to make sure taxpayers aren't going to be stuck with the bill.

Line item tax forms?

There's lots of things I don't want to pay for..and things I do. If it's to save someone's life..I am in.

If it's to build a missile defense system which doesn't work..I am out.

That's um..like Direct Democracy.

My issue is with people that CAN have insurance but choose not to. Others that can't afford it should be responsible for it SOMEHOW. I can't afford to pay other people bills, so why should i be made to? There are alot of people out there that could afford some type of insurance but just don't do it because they KNOW they'll be treated anyway and they're not forced to pay. They'll just file bankruptcy later. I've been through bankruptcy and was very surprised at how easy it was!!!

Sounds like grounds for a health insurance mandate

 

[OODA_Loop]

It shouldn't be made on the basis of how much you can pay

The emotional nature of the issue allows the results of a willfull decsion to not make your personal health care your ultimate responsibility and shift that responsibilty onto those who are responsible ?

 

[manifold]

I would have to say at the same point it is ok to let you die if it happened to you

And what point is that?

Decisions to stop care are made every day. They are usually made on the basis of having a decent chance of recovery after the procedure, age, other medical conditions etc

It shouldn't be made on the basis of how much you can pay

So what about a billionaire who wants to spend his own money for a really expensive procedure that only stands a slight chance of extending his life? Should he be denied?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why? Because no charities have stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for peoples medical care.

Factually incorrect.

 

[WillowTree]

My issue is with people that CAN have insurance but choose not to. Others that can't afford it should be responsible for it SOMEHOW. I can't afford to pay other people bills, so why should i be made to? There are alot of people out there that could afford some type of insurance but just don't do it because they KNOW they'll be treated anyway and they're not forced to pay. They'll just file bankruptcy later. I've been through bankruptcy and was very surprised at how easy it was!!!

Exactly. If I make the necessary sacrifices so I can pay my insurance, why the fuck should
I pay for someone who CHOOSES not to? I didn't get to drive the newer car, live in the fancier house, party every weekend, or whatever they chose to spend the money on rather than looking out for themselves and/or family.

But none of you all support making them pay a penalty for not having insurance.

The choice seems to be:

You don't have insurance, therefore you die.

or

You don't have insurance but we save you and charge you a penalty.

no, he should be responsible for his bill after his recovery. every means available to recoup the funds should be put into play including court and lawsuits. no more write offs. so if you choose not to have insurance then you choose to have your wages garnished until you pay your bill. if we let you die you can't work,, no good in that.

 

[Ravi]

Why? Because no charities have stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for peoples medical care.

Factually incorrect.

Who?

 

[Full-Auto]

I don't think letting people die simply because they don't have insurance is a valid way to treat people. Apparently Ron Paul and his teapees think it is perfectly fine.

Why would you assume that?

Why? Because no charities have stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for peoples medical care.

At the risk of you continuing to be a whiny bitch. Those that can not pay have opportunities to apply for hals burton and other such grants.

You make it sound as if the person receiving care shouldnt have to attempt to put forth any effort.

 

[del]

Why? Because no charities have stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for peoples medical care.

Factually incorrect.

Who?

st jude's hosp, shrin ers, lions club and that's jst off the top of my head

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why? Because no charities have stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for peoples medical care.

Factually incorrect.

Who?

I can think of many in my community....most religious based.....clinics and doctors pro bono time.