Cheering The Death Of The Indigent At The Tea Party Debate

One of the most bizarre moments of last night’s debate came when Ron Paul was asked a question about how he would handle a person who needed immediate medical care but had no money or insurance:

Blitzer asked if under Paul’s libertarian philosophy, a sick man without insurance should be allowed to die in the hospital rather than have the state pay his medical bills. Before Paul could answer that question, shouts of “yes!” and cheering bubbled up from the audience.

Here’s the video:

Paul’s response isn’t objectionable at all, to be quite frank about it. But I’ve really got to wonder about the guys who shouted out “Yea” and those who clapped in response.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Health Care, Quick Takes, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Moosebreath says:

    “But I’ve really got to wonder about the guys who shouted out “Yea” and those who clapped in response.”

    Umm, why? They are the Republican mainstream.

  2. legion says:

    As I’ve said before, the modern conservative – the GOP’s self-selected base – is a sociopathic thug. Someone who simply does not care what happens to anyone else, so long as they get theirs.

  3. Rob in CT says:

    The coherent libertarian response to the free rider problem is to repeal the law that requires ERs provide care to people regardless of ability to pay. From what I can tell (can’t view the video right now, so I’m relying on second-hand accounts), Paul ducked that.

    Without a mandate (or, Reagan forbid, government-provide healthcare insurance), the result will be people not buying insurance for whatever reason and, when they end up in the ER, the costs are passed on the rest of us. That’s the status quo ante-ACA.

    If the argument is that the irresponsible uninsured person shouldn’t be responsible for their poor choice (let’s leave aside misfortune for a moment), then logically that person should go untreated in the ER.

    Right?

  4. WR says:

    Paul said that this guy dying because he didn’t buy insurance is the essence of freedom. And you don’t find anything objectionable about that?

  5. Rob in CT says:

    I think it’s obvious to anyone who has read my posts that I obviously do not favor that approach. But that’s the logical conclusion, is it not?

    Personal responsibility = don’t treat someone who could have bought insurance but didn’t and cannot afford treatment (though how the ER would know what someone can/cannot afford when they’re unconcious & bleeding is beyond me, but hey it’s all just theory right!?!).

  6. tyndon clusters says:

    Doug, you wrote, “really got to wonder about the guys who shouted out “Yea” and those who clapped in response”…

    Whats to wonder about? These are the same cretins who cheered Perry not losing any sleep over potentially executing innocent inmates….these are the same people who are/were “birthers”….who believe Obamacare is Marxist but Medicare is not….these are the same people who think we should cut corporate and personal income taxes of the rich, even though they are paying the lowest tax rates in 60 years and corporate profits are at an all time high…these are the people who think the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was responsible for the housing bubble…the same people who think the Civil War was about states rights and the Tariff Acts and not slavery….these are the same people who think FDR made the Depression WORSE….these are the same people who believe Iraq attacked us on 911….in short these people are the moronic backbone of the Republican party…a flatulent, indolent, ignorant mob which personifies the absolute worst and ugly side of demented, selfish borderline racist thinking….

    I’ve written here before about my grandfather’s brother who worked in the State Dept. in Berlin during the 1930s and would tell stories when I was a young kid of the conversations he had with the common German in the beer halls

    After about 1938, there was no use in trying to have a rational discussion about politics. He said that the mood would change dramatically when any slight criticism of Hitler was offered.

    A glazed, vacant look would overcome them and they would just mouth, “yes, but he has given us hope and jobs.. hope and jobs hope and jobs…” like robots, not thinking at all about what they were saying, just reacting in a mantra of denial and delusion.

    To us New Deal liberals what happened last night .is not surprising at all, merely the true manifestation of where the right wing culture really stands right now…an ossified, fear based, morass of distortion and lies….

    Mr. Mataconis, welcome to the party pal.

  7. doubter4444 says:

    @Rob in CT:
    Wrong

  8. john personna says:

    Paul’s response though was that we don’t need a true safety net. It was that friends, families, and churches should catch who they can, but that’s it.

    (The hoots were recognition that they wouldn’t really catch all.)

  9. Hey Norm says:

    Well…discounting the fools in the audience with tea bags dangling from their tricorns…Pauls answer is still mighty naive, if not objectiionable. Should I have my local shaman perform open-heart surgery on me? And should I have bake sales to help pay for it? Are you saying we should eliminate the law that says everyone shall be treated at an emergency room? I take that back – you are saying we should eliminate thee law that says everyone shall be treated at emergency rooms. Is that really the world we aspire to…where the poor and elderly die in the streets?
    As I said earlier – this is the same as Paul saying the Civil Rights Act is not needed because the free hand of the market will prevent businesses from discriminating…which is just nonsense…a lot of African-Americans got fisted by that free-hand before the Civil Rights Act.

  10. Ernieyeball says:

    I lived in San Francisco when Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army in Feb. 1974. One of the demands made for her release was free food for the poor.
    Upon hearing this, the Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, stated “It’s just too bad we can’t have an epidemic of botulism.”
    Apparently todays Republican Party is finally embracing the Reagan legacy.

  11. Polaris says:

    Why should we be responsible for other people’s bad choices. This is WHY medical costs have skyrocketed. It’s getting to the point where those of the lower middle (and less) classes can’t take personal responsiblity for their own healthcare costs because the costs are being driven by insurance companies and not the patients. Not treating those that can’t pay would be an important first step. If I had a heart attack, I would not expect anyone to help or pay for me. Same in reverse.

    I’ll give you an example of just how ridiculus it’s gotten. I just got back from the dentist and apparently I’ve been grinding my teeth in my sleep. The dentists wants me to stop it and showed me how. His office then wanted to sell me a 650 USD device…..when I could go to the local Wallmart and get a baby’s pacifier for less than 6 dollars that does the same damn thing.

    -Polaris

  12. Rob in CT says:

    @doubter4444:

    How so?

  13. Rob in CT says:

    And thanks for Polaris, for fleshing out the full free-market/libertarian answer.

    I think it’s wrong, and I can explain why, but I think it’s first important to be honest about what you want. So thumbs up for that, Polaris.

  14. doubter4444 says:

    Rob in CT.
    It is WRONG. You said:
    “The logic is not I think it’s obvious to anyone who has read my posts that I obviously do not favor that approach. But that’s the logical conclusion, is it not?”

    “Personal responsibility = don’t treat someone who could have bought insurance but didn’t and cannot afford treatment”.

    But there is a responsibility we have to the state, the nation and to even higher authorities (to quote a classic Hebrew National tag line).
    FDR (though the teabaggers would consider him a commie anyway) said about Lend – Lease: “When a man is drowning, you don’t ask him the to pay you in advance for the rope in your hand. (or something like that).
    But it’s not only immoral not to help when you can, it’s also short sighted and illogical to think that if this guys dies, there won’t be many times the cost in other ways.
    Single wage earner? Family goes on welfare – more than helping him.
    Just crippled instead of dying? – loss of wages, long term welfare, removal from the ranks of employable.
    There are ways, if the “moral hazard” aspect is sooo important to these guys to correct the situation.
    It’s stupid, immoral and illogical to think that we should let people die if they don’t have insurance. And most of all, it begs the single payer, universal healthcare argument – if everyone should be insured in order to get help, then you got to pretty much mandate doing so. If you mandate doing so, then how do you make sure everyone does so? By the government. If the government is involved, then they should set the policies…. it goes on and on from there.

  15. Fiona says:

    In all fairness–the headline on this article is misleading. The individual in Blitzer’s hypothetical wasn’t indigent; he was someone with a good job who decided not to spend $200-300 a month on health insurance, assuming that being 30 and in good health, he wouldn’t need it .

    That said, the jeers, while chilling, were not calls to let an indigent person who couldn’t afford health insurance die, which would have been completely unconscionable. The guy in Blitzer’s hypothetical was clearly irresponsible.

    Paul’s response was completely consistent with his libertarian philosophy. The guy had the means to buy health insurance, but choose not to; therefore the onus was on him to pay for care and not expect the government to pick up the bill. Granted, since per Blitzer’s hypothetical the guy required six months of intensive care, the bills would bankrupt him and someone else would end up picking up the cost anyway.

    This hypothetical illustrates a conundrum for at least some in the GOP. If you don’t support a mandate, a public option, or a single-payer system, there will always be free-loaders–people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. Should we just let those people die if they refuse to pay for insurance? Apparently, a certain percentage of GOPers think the answer should be “yes.”

  16. mantis says:

    Party of Death.

  17. David M says:

    @doubter4444: I don’t think you and Rob in CT actually disagree, he’s just pointing out the logical conclusion of this line of thinking. I’m pretty sure he’s not actually advocating this.

  18. john personna says:

    @Polaris:

    Why should we be responsible for other people’s bad choices.

    Stop right there. Do you think the world is so deterministic? Does the person who decides to get a job, pay health insurance, and save for retirement always succeed?

    This is at core what’s wrong with the conservative argument. Choices do not equal outcomes.

    What you are really saying, if you are honest, is that “we should be responsible for our choices, and our luck.”

  19. legion says:

    @Rob in CT: Yes, that is the logical conclusion. What Paul (and by extension, the Libertarians & Tea Partiers in the crowd) fail to take into account is that whether or not one needs healthcare is not entirely a matter of personal responsibility. There are plenty of things in this world beyond our control – the safest driver in the world may still get slammed by a drunk driver.

    In other words, there is a limit to how much control an individual can exert on the world around them – there is no cap to the damage the world can do to that same person. There’s a difference between a guy who didn’t buy insurance & gets a life-threatening disease and a similar guy who has minor scarring from a a car wreck. You can cheer the second guy not being able to get cosmetic surgery; it’s nobody’s problem but his. But that first guy? That’s a problem that society (and the gov’t) need to care about and deal with.

    The problem is that too many of these people don’t want complex answers to complex problems – they just want some Big Daddy to come along and tell them simple yes/no, good/bad answers for everything, so they don’t have to waste time thinking. That’s why I have no respect for people like that.

  20. Polaris says:

    @john personna:

    What you are really saying, if you are honest, is that “we should be responsible for our choices, and our luck.”

    Yes. Your bad planning is not my problem. Neither is your bad luck.

    -Polaris

  21. john personna says:

    @Polaris:

    Yes. Your bad planning is not my problem. Neither is your bad luck.

    I know a guy who was diagnosed with a bad heart, and given a pacemaker … at age 14.

    What’s your conservative position on that guy? If he didn’t luck into the right parents, with the right health plan, screw him?

  22. john personna says:

    (I think we see the dark underside of “other people’s bad choices.” It’s code, really.)

  23. mantis says:

    That said, the jeers, while chilling, were not calls to let an indigent person who couldn’t afford health insurance die, which would have been completely unconscionable.

    Ok, but doesn’t it logically extend to them? Isn’t that basically what Polaris is saying above? How do we operate a system whereby benefits will be covered only if someone cannot afford to pay for insurance, rather than being able to afford it and deciding not to? How do you determine what someone can “afford?” Do we say that if the least expensive available insurance is not more than x% of the individuals net income, that person can afford it and thus will be left to die of whatever disease if they don’t have it? What would the percentage be? What if the person has no job? What if the sick person in question loses his/her job as a result of the illness? Will they then qualify for covered treatment? Won’t we essentially be condemning people to death or prolonged illness, yet paying for their treatment in the end anyway?

    This hypothetical illustrates a conundrum for at least some in the GOP. If you don’t support a mandate, a public option, or a single-payer system, there will always be free-loaders–people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it.

    That’s why they used to support mandates. They were anti-freeloader. Now they are just pro-death.

  24. David M says:

    The personal responsibility canard is quite amusing to me, as the individual health insurance market is extremely dysfunctional. Those that advocate this “planning”, also usually support repealing Obamacare and it’s much needed insurance reforms that would even start to make this possible.

  25. Modulo Myself says:

    If he didn’t luck into the right parents, with the right health plan, screw him?

    It’s all about teaching people a lesson. Society has to let the guy die, in order for the lesson to be learned. Abuse and loathing, when you are abused and loathed individual like Polaris, is the only form of currency.

  26. Tsar Nicholas says:

    Ron Paul is running for president??

  27. Polaris says:

    @john personna: Sadly yes…or the boy’s parents could ask for help. However, bad luck is bad luck and we aren’t responsible for someone else’s bad luck.

    -Polaris

  28. Fiona says:

    Ok, but doesn’t it logically extend to them? Isn’t that basically what Polaris is saying above? How do we operate a system whereby benefits will be covered only if someone cannot afford to pay for insurance, rather than being able to afford it and deciding not to?

    Per the current GOP, I think both the person who could afford insurance but didn’t buy it (and the whole point of Blitzer’s hypothetical was that the man could afford it but chose not to get it, which is why I took issue with the headline) and the poor person who genuinely could not afford the cost, or the self-employed person who had a pre-existing condition that rendered the cost of insurance essentially unaffordable, would face the same fate. As Polaris, with his Ayn Randian logic would likely say “so sad, too bad.”

    Edited to add, well I was close: “However, bad luck is bad luck and we aren’t responsible for someone else’s bad luck.”

  29. doubter4444 says:

    BTW, Rob, I’m not saying you are wrong!

    It’s the argument Polaris makes that gets me – Of course personal responsibility is paramount, but punishing people for lack of it is the not the governments job, and setting safety nets for the unfortunate is not the same as condoning irresponsible behavior.
    As much as conservatives would like to skew the argument in that direction.

    I think that’s the main problem with the Libertarian philosophy – in a complex world where does responsibility lie?
    It can’t always by with the individual – for example there are those who think the FDA should be abolished. That the “free market” would correct itself if a drug killed a bunch of kids after it was known the company would take enough heat to pull the medicine. (I actually have seen this argument).
    By what mechanism do we evaluate responsibility, and where it lies?
    For all those who complain that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of coddling the citizenry, it takes reminding why the pendulum is swinging in the first place:
    People suck.
    They take advantage and exploit and work for their own interests.
    People in power over another will almost alway (and I’m only saying almost for the fact that Mother Theresa actually existed) exploit those under them as and when and if necessary.
    It’s human nature.
    That’s why responsible people try to limit how power is wielded.
    Why do we have labor unions? Because kids 5 years old used to work for pennies a day. People worked in unsafe and vile conditions and were exploited by others with a modicum of power.
    Have Unions grown too strong? Maybe, but never forget why they exist, and next time you go to your job think about the safety regulations and remember that not so long ago you could have been fired for even asking about safety.
    Have we cedded to much of the responsiblity to the state?
    Yes, probably, but I’ll tell you, I’d rather whine about “freeloading welfare thugs” taking my tax dollars than worry that the medicine I get my kid is untested and could be deadly.

  30. john personna says:

    @Polaris:

    We might be down to considerations of mental health, and distribution of “altruism genes” in the population.

    Basically, you are describing a politics for people who do not feel the pull of responsibility toward their common man. For that sort, “personal” responsibility is the only kind. Any sense that you might feel responsible for a member of your tribe who has had a run of bad luck is right out.

    The thing to remember though, is while you might feel this, you are an element in the wider population. You cannot argue a sense of (dis)connection for the rest.

    They might just be different.

  31. Polaris says:

    I will make my position even easier with this:

    Freedom has to include the freedom to lie down and die (or die in the street from an untreated heart attack or the like) or it isn’t freedom, but a lie bought at the expense of someone else’s freedom.

    -Neil Smith, Pallas (One of his books)

    -Polaris

  32. tyndon clusters says:

    Look, this debate comes down to the old adage that a liberal will give a starving man a fish, while the conservative will charge him for it (at the prevailing free market rate without governmental subsidies of course.)

    Why didn’t someone ask these Republican dolts the following question:

    “A hurricane/earthquake/twister/flood just hit your home state and the guy with the turban at the local 711 is charging $1000 for a bottle of water and $5000 for a battery….do you think this is ok, since he is just capitalizing on the demand and in a free market, shouldn’t he, as a businessman, be allowed to charge the market clearing price without stupid gubmint interference?”

    Now what are they gonna answer? Yes of course, if a thirsty man needs some water to stay alive, he should have to come up with the $1000 or he dies….whats the real difference between this scenario and the question last night?

    Is it the emergency context? I know the wingnuts will point out that there are laws which prohibit this type of gauging, just as there is the emergency room law which mandates care.

    Yet, the morons on the right will be for the former and against the latter.

    Just like they love tax cuts to the rich which don’t add to the deficit, but abhor Obama’s pay roll cut to workers since these will “add” to the deficit.

    Is it any wonder we are fast approaching the USSR circa 1978?

  33. john personna says:

    @Polaris:

    Freedom has to include the freedom to lie down and die (or die in the street from an untreated heart attack or the like) or it isn’t freedom, but a lie bought at the expense of someone else’s freedom.

    But you are going beyond that. You are saying 14 year-olds, who don’t want to die, should take their chance, to save you a few bucks each month.

  34. samwide says:

    Polaris is further proof, if any of you needed it, that a vulgar libertarianism is easy.

  35. doubter4444 says:

    @tyndon clusters:
    Right. And there are those who would say that the answer to that kind of “gouging” should be at the pointy end of gun. You know – standing up for one’s self and all.
    Which is why the hard core teabaggers are really pushing is Anarchy.
    BTW, wasn’t there some troll a few days ago that said he was an Anarchist?

  36. john personna says:

    This is related, and a starting point:

    Behavioral therapist Andrea Kuszewski has a great guest post up at The Intersection blog, looking at what we can (and can’t) learn from the handful of studies that have attempted to link politics and neurobiology. None of these studies have been perfectly well-done, she writes. But, despite being flawed in different ways, they’re coming to some of the same conclusions—conservatives seem to have a more active amygdala and liberals seem to have a more active anterior cingulate cortex. You can shorten that into a headline-grabbing statement about conservatives being driven more by emotions and liberals by logic. But it’s really, really not as simple as that.

    Anyone who argues a political philosophy based on the idea that people are uniform in beliefs and motivations is destined for ruin. That was what broke socialism. Not everyone makes a good socialist. Well, as it turns out (not very surprising) not everyone wants to be a complete libertarian.

    We need to form our politics for a heterogeneous world.

  37. Ben Wolf says:

    Freedom has to include the freedom to lie down and die (or die in the street from an untreated heart attack or the like) or it isn’t freedom, but a lie bought at the expense of someone else’s freedom.

    Tell you what: we have many examples of basket-case countries which practice exactly what you advocate as policy. Show me a single example of a developed, wealthy nation which behaves ths way and I’ll concede your ideas have merit. Show me one advanced society which does not pool its resources for the general good, and where every man and woman is left completely to their own devices.

  38. tyndon clusters says:

    But, Mr. Wolf, why are you daring to compare the U.S. to other countries?

    You must really hate America. I guess you don’t realize WE ARE EXCEPTIONAL and don’t need to emulate anyone else since we are perfect

    Typical liberal, always blaming America first… lol.

    Please don’t try reasoning with 4 year olds, which is pretty much the average maturity level of the the republican party member.

  39. Rob in CT says:

    @doubter4444:

    We’re in agreement. I was pointing out the logical extension of the (absurd) libertarian “self reliance” position on healthcare.

    I see your objection: that the libertarian position is grounded on fundamentally illogical thinking. I was moving past that, to get at the obvious conclusion: if they mean what they say, they must advocate for the repeal of the “must treat anyone at the ER” law and let people die.

    Most of them won’t own up to that. I applaud Polaris for coming right out and admitting it. I find his position wrong (to the point of being reprehensible, really), but I love the honesty.

  40. anjin-san says:

    @ polaris

    The pacifier would probably be a good call for you even without any medical need.

  41. anjin-san says:

    @ tyndon

    The thing that you are missing is that each and every one of the tea bag freeholders in here has several million dollars of gold bullion at hand that was gained by hard work, personal responsibility, and living within ones means. Polaris will simply reach into petty cash and buy the entire 7/11.

  42. doubter4444 says:

    Hey Rob, we do agree, and I did not want it to seem like I was jumping on you for anything.
    And I do also agree with you vis a vis the Libertarian philosophy.
    And while Polaris is refreshing in his callous candor, I still find it difficult to skip by the real world considerations to the “logical” next step, as the step is a doozy.
    What people like Polaris really advocate is Anarchy. Maybe they dress it up in old west terms of self reliance and boot strapping and all sorts of other crap, but in general, it’s the stronger takes the day. That’s why them seem callous – till of course, their kids falls off a cliff and needs to be medivacked off a mountain, or they sue the doctor they mis diagnosed their wife for malpractice.
    Tort reform? Hell yeah!! Unless it’s my kid, my wife, my house.
    Then it’s sue the MotherF@#$s.
    It’s reprehensible and hypocritical, it’s the anarchy of the hove-round crowd.
    It’s the Tea Party. And it’s disgusting.

  43. Franklin says:

    One thing I don’t like about this comment rating thing is that people are voting whether they agree or disagree with you, rather than whether the comment was appropriate and helpful to the discussion. While I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Polaris’ position, his first comment is hidden even though he presents his argument politely.

  44. David M says:

    @Franklin: I think the comment system is working pretty good, as it takes quite a bit to get a comment completely hidden, so it’s usually deserved and rarely more than 1 per topic. I’m plenty happy to abide by OTB’s comment rules regarding profanity, but a string of expletives would be less offensive than “no medical anyone if they can’t pay”, no matter how politely that is phrased. In this case I’m pretty sure some of the downdings Polaris received here were carried over from other similar threads.

  45. Bob says:

    Maybe the response was the disgust of the audience at thequestion and the questioner.

    Maybe people are tired of the assumption that the government should be the safety net and tax the missle class out of its ability to be charitable.

  46. Ben Wolf says:

    @Bob: Why would anyone be tired of a socisl safety net? After forty years of tax cuts you’re still complaining about being overtaxed? There ‘s no pleasing some people.

  47. Jay Tea says:

    Let’s go back to the original question:

    A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

    Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

    The guy made a conscious choice, and it turned out to be a bad one for him. So we should make certain that he in no way suffers the slightest consequences for his choice, and send the message that no one else will have to pay any price for their bad choices.

    He’s actually the smart one. The idiots are the ones who do pay for their own insurance. As above, there’s no reason why they should; they’ll get the benefit of it without having to pay for it.

    J.

  48. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: Right. Because spending six months in a coma and then God knows how many years in rehab can’t be described as “suffering the slightest consequence.” I’m sure all his friends will see that he didn’t have to pay any price for his stupidity, and they’ll all run off to have motorcycle accidents so they can get some of that yummy free intensive care.

    We’d better make sure he dies. Otherwise he’s playing us all for suckers.

  49. Jay Tea says:

    @WR: The guy was spending six months in a coma with or without insurance — and still would have been more intelligent than you. The only question was — does he wake up to face a big-ass bill?

    If he does, then he says “damn, I should have bought insurance.” If he doesn’t, he says “I’m glad I didn’t waste my money on insurance.”

    Back to your kennel, lickspittle.

    J.

  50. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: That’s not that question at all. Geeze, for someone who likes to throw around the word “stupid” as much as you do, you seem to have zero ability to comprehend a sentence.

    The question wasn’t whether or not he should be presented with a bill once he woke up from the coma. It was whether he should be treated or left to de if he didn’t have insurance or the obviousl wherewithal to pay.

    All this time people have accused you of constantly trying to change the subject — maybe you’re just too dim to understand the subject at hand.

  51. Polaris says:

    I will repeat something I said in another thread.

    We as a society are going to have to reach a decision:

    Is healthcare a fundamental human right (like free speech) or isn’t it? {I don’t think it is but many do just to state my opinion up front.}

    If it is, then private business and market forces really should have no place in people’s daily heathcare and the logical conclusion is the government should take over all or virtually all the healthcare industry. (Like it is done in the UK).

    If it isn’t, then the govenment needs to step out and we as a society needs to learn to accept that part of making bad health care choices means letting those that bad bad decisions or even the unluckely die.

    The choice is stark but there it is.

    -Polaris

  52. Jay Tea says:

    @WR: Unlike you, I went back to the source of the discussion, moron. And the question was about who pays for it, not whether he gets treated or not.

    Let me spell it out for you in simple terms: under the law, you can’t deny treatment to someone just because they can’t pay for it. (There, one and two syllable words. I still think I might be overestimating you.) The question is, then not does he get treated; of course he does, that’s the law. The question is, who pays for it.

    If he’d chosen to have insurance, then it would be simple: his insurance company would. But he chose not to. So the question is: does he get stuck with it, or do we?

    Your own stupid paranoid fantasy about how “Republicans want people to die” doesn’t fit here. Or anywhere else.

    Back to your kennel, lickspittle.

    J.

  53. David M says:

    @Jay Tea: What part of “cheering to allow people without insurance to die” don’t you understand. That was the entire point of the post, and the idea that “Republicans want people to die” really does seem to fit.

    Also, in this scenario, there’s no chance we aren’t stuck with the costs. None. Most of us have the common sense see that he’s not going to end up paying the bill.

  54. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: Right. The people shouting “Let him die!” and cheering at the debate don’t exist. Blitzer’s question — should he be allowed to die? – and Ron Paul’s answer that this is what freedom is all about don’t exist.

    You can lie all you want, but you’re lying about things people saw and heard two days ago. It just makes you look pathetic.

    By the way, you might want to check out the title of this thread. It’s not “cheering having to pay for hospital care at the tea party debate.”

  55. mantis says:

    The choice is stark but there it is.

    Your choice is inhuman.

  56. mantis says:

    Let me spell it out for you in simple terms: under the law, you can’t deny treatment to someone just because they can’t pay for it.

    Wrong. Under EMTALA, “participating hospitals” (those that receive government funding) cannot deny emergency treatment on the basis of ability to pay.

    They are free to let people go without treatment of life-threatening diseases all they want, as long as it isn’t an emergency.

    Your use of simple words does nothing to mask your ignorance of the subject at hand.

    So the question is: does he get stuck with it, or do we?

    That’s not the question at hand. Your attempts to change the question at hand only reveal your own recognition that you are a bit worried about being part of the Party of Death. Embrace it, dipshit, or move on. Nobody’s buying your dissemblances.

    Your own stupid paranoid fantasy about how “Republicans want people to die” doesn’t fit here. Or anywhere else.

    Despite them pimping and cheering death at every turn, I guess.

  57. Jay Tea says:

    @mantis: You mean, how I attempted to hijack the subject by going back to the original question? How dastardly of me. I’m so diabolical. Better report me to to the latest Obama “tattle on the haters” website.

    J.

  58. David M says:

    @Polaris: There really are other choices than completely private and government run (NIH). The rest of the world is basically proof of that, and I’m not sure why you think the government running things is the next logical step rather than the government requiring reasonable regulations for the benefit of it’s citizens.

  59. mantis says:

    You mean, how I attempted to hijack the subject by going back to the original question?

    Two questions were asked, and the audience’s reaction to the second question is what has people appalled. You pretend only the first question exists.

    Actually, you acknowledge the second question when you claim that medical treatment must be provided. This is not at all true. After that has been shown, you revert to pretending only one question was asked.

    None of this is surprising. You are unable to make arguments without lying. When you run out of lies, you change the subject, as you have done in your last comment:

    Better report me to to the latest Obama “tattle on the haters” website.

    Considering you were one of the people knowingly spreading birther lies here and elsewhere, a phenomenon that persists even now among your wingnut brethren, it’s clear that a campaign website combating those types of despicable smears is still necessary. So please, spare us the next time the Queen of Internment tells you to be outraged about something.

  60. Polaris says:

    @David M:

    There really are other choices than completely private and government run (NIH). The rest of the world is basically proof of that, and I’m not sure why you think the government running things is the next logical step rather than the government requiring reasonable regulations for the benefit of it’s citizens.

    Actually there really aren’t as Europe is discovering the hard way by trying to balance it’s books. Oh sure you can borrow and close your eyes for a few decades and pretend that unhinging medical costs from the market (and thus inflation rate) won’t have any bad effects, but eventually that bill will come due.

    If you make medicine part of the open market in a capitalist society, then some people will not be able to afford medical treatment and thus go without. That’s basic in treating medicine like any other commodity (and service) and thus reflects it’s price.

    If you do think that medical service is a right, then it should have no price tag at all, and the only way in insure that is to totally nationalize the industry.

    Anything else will get people squished and invariably the ones that get squished the worst will be the working poor.

    -Polaris

    Edit: Basically the rest of the world is fubaring this question as well, just not as badly as we are (which isn’t saying much).

  61. An Interested Party says:

    The choice is stark but there it is.

    A choice that won’t be made anytime soon, as there are enough people out there like you to deny our country from instituting a true universal health care system but, at the same time, there are far too many people who depend on government help for their health care to ever allow for the removal of government from the equation…

  62. WR says:

    @Polaris: It is definitely true that if a right wing government takes power and decides their only priority is to shovel money at the banks that made terrible gambles and nearly destroyed themselves and the rich people who are their patrons, then there is little left over to pay for anything else, including health care. Why you choose to think that’s a good thing is beyond me, but then you cheer the deaths of people as long as they’re poor and you don’t know them, so it’s a pretty safe bet you’re missing a couple of the genes that allow human beings to socialize.