GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die (premium, marijuana)

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by LetsRock

There are private hospitals and charities that pay for medical treatment. Didn't you see the movie "Patch Adams"?

St jude's for children yes.

FREE medical?- Give us a list please, someone could use it here.

[cremebrulee]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

I voted for Ron Paul when he ran for President in 1988
when I was upset with the direction the country was going under the Reagan administration, so I'll start there. Paul holds a lot of the Libertarian views I have (not all) but it's a better track record than any other candidate I know.

This country has taken a path of involving itself in wars of choice at the greatest expense there can be made against
the American People IMO. Not just financially, but the psychological damage it does to a country.

Paul's an educated, articulate man who is decent,
honest, and tells the truth - no spin needed. He
shoots from the hip and I like that. Paul is a renowned author on constitutional rights and it's authority. He knows what's in there. He's not holding up the Declaration of
Independence while reciting the Constitution

Dr. Paul served as a flight surgeon during the Vietnam War
and understands and knows first hand about the tragic loss of war (one of the reasons our military personnel support him).

Paul was/is so ahead of his peers in exposing the Federal
Reserve, knowledge of economics, and our unsustainable path of spending. It shows foresight.
Hindsight, anyone can have.

Paul tells the American People the War on Drugs isn't working, hasn't worked, and if there is any lesson to be learned from prohibitions, we should accept those realities now, and quit throwing more hard earned tax payer money after bad, and perpetuating crime that comes along with it.

Paul repeatedly introduces the "Lift the Prohibition on
growing Industrial Hemp" of which I believe can and
would be the economical saving grace for our country e.g.everything from manufacturing to alternative energy/fuel.

I like a President that believes that less is more of what
we need Being a Libertarian, I want the federal government as small as I can get it. I don't even want to have to wear a pair of glasses to see the list of departments from a distance
I totally agree with him on getting rid of the Dept. of
Education, Department of Energy to name a few.

The things I disagree with him on:

I'm a proponent of single payer/universal health care via a medicare payroll tax. I totally understand how he feels philosophically about corporate medicine and going back to before it existed. We just don't agree on how to get there...

Pro choice vs. Pro life - Paul has brought it up recently,
but it's not an issue I think should ever be a Presidential priority and has never been of political significance to me.

There is no other candidate that I think of that has Paul's
political integrity and frankly, his leadership skills, if
given the chance. Sure, the others may be nice guys/and gals, but I know a lot of nice people. - I want
a leader of our country that takes us in the
direction we need/must go. Ron Paul does that for me.

Ron Paul is fairly religious and I'm an atheist. I like that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn't have to salutate "God Bless America" every time he speaks.

I'm not looking for a Messiah in the White House -
just a Great Mind. Paul has one.

I enjoyed reading this, thanks so very much...I'm very pleased that you are able to look at both sides of the coin, and to boot, list so many reasons why...do you know that most people vote simply b/c that person is they're party? They don't care about the pro's and con's they vote on one issue only....which is really well...I won't say....

How do you think he would be with foreign affairs, even though he would not head it out...

yanno, if people would only realize, we can't have the whole package, there are some wins and some losses...no one is perfect...and you, have made a very credible statement here...thanks so much.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by enemy country

They don't read the Bible or care about what Jesus said. Thats false rhetoric just like everything else about these evil people. All they believe in is mine mine mine......When oh when are the suffered people going to wake up and fight back.

Why am I not a good Christian because I don't see the benefit (in fact, I see the wrong) in allowing federal bureaucracies to take money from some and give to others who THEY feel are deserving?

I do not believe that the teachings of Christ say that.

I donate to the causes that I feel are worthy, and have never donated a dime to a politician.

I do not feel that the government can provide the needs of the poor sufficiently, as is proven by the poverty numbers which came out yesterday.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Yeah these tea bagger blow hard wind bags are all for letting the less fortunate others die but they'd change their spots in a heartbeat if it was one of their family members.
For any who are on the proverbial political fence i hope you noticed the quick knee jerk reaction from the crowd at the prospect of letting the hypothetical guy with no insurance die.
Amazes me how such a cold heartless bunch of whiners can apparently garner so much attention and power in todays American political milieu.
Is this what America will/has become? a nation who's motto is if you dont make it,just die..

These "cold hearted" wind bags of whom you speak are always shown to be much more generous with their donations and charity than are the "good willed" lib/progressives.

In every account, conservative Christians are far more generous than liberal democrats.

We just don't want to force others to pay for your good intentions.

Sayin' ain't doin'!

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

Which you and the rest of the righties want to kill off, and you would replace it with What, hmmm.
Casper

A) Tort reform

B) Intrastate insurance sales

Cost.....ZERO!

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

It wasn't the people in the audience that are a problem, it's the people on stage that were in tacit agreement with those 2-3 or 10 people, that represent the problem.

I fault the Tea party audience for not speaking out against the loud vocal minority who cheered the death of the hypothetical health insurance deadbeat. I'm Not comparing them to Nazis but comparing the situation.

When it was time for the german citizens to "Pay the piper" after WWII, many citizens claimed they never supported the nazi party and the labeling of Jews with stars on their sleeves. The response from the rest of the world was, "But you never spoke out against it"

The fact that the entire audience let the cheering stand unquestioned speaks volumes about the rank and file Tea Party. Acquiescence in the face of injustice is complicity.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

Your right, it was not a major unanimous shout out.
Paul is a doctor and has taken an oath for such. As he stated, folks were never turned away from the hospital
he worked at.

At least Paul was honest about his desire to bring it back to before days of greedy HMO's and corrupt corporate medicine.

Obamacare just gave private health insurance/
pharmaceutical companies free reign
to wreak havoc on our citizens financially under the guise of health care delivery, like they have done for decades.
Compassion/decency never had anything to do with it.
It's simply about profits.

So let me get this straight....a young man of 30 has the means to buy health insurance but chooses not to.

He then gets sick and expects someone else to pay his medical bills?

Ron Paul states the fact that it's his decision because he has the freedom to choose (the left want "choice" as long as it's the choice to kill a baby, but not in any other circumstance) not to carry insurance and people cheer, I would cheer for freedom as well.

Nobody cheered to allow an American citizen to die.

Then, he and other freedom loving American's are bad people?

We are denigrated by the left because of this?

That was the question asked by Blitzer, remember?

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by alphamale

A) Tort reform

B) Intrastate insurance sales

Cost.....ZERO!

You keep throwing out these "Bumper Sticker" solutions but you never validate any of them with facts.



Tort Reform will do next to nothing to lower the cost of health care or health insurance. Texas has already done that on the state level and their health care costs are the same or more than any other section of the Nation.

Interstate Insurance Sales. There are a couple issues here. First is the fact that every state has a commission that legislates the rules that health care providers must observe to operate in that state. These guidelines are there specificly to protect the consumer. To dismantle all those individual state rules then there would have to be one regulating body that would apply to all health insurance carriers in all states. That would be the federal government which has the power of preemption over states. somehow I don't think you and your right wing buddies would find this palatable.
I really believe that "Selling Insurance Across State Lines" is really Republican Code for "Total Deregulation Of The Health Insurance Industry" a long standing Republican Wet Dream.

The second point is the fact that there is a Health Insurance company that sells in all 50 states and has 46 million members. It is called United Heathcare and is the largest Health Insurance provider in the nation and is endorsed by AARP. There is no great difference in the cost of their plans vs any other health care provider operating in a particular state.

Your Bumper stickers may strike a chord among the uninformed but not with those of us who actually dig for the facts.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by cremebrulee

How do you think he would be with foreign affairs, even though he would not head it out...

Ron Paul would do just fine with foreign affairs - a
non over-reactionary President would be a breath of
fresh air.
I think Ron Paul has an excellent strategy and understanding of foreign affairs - much more than I could ever articulate
so here's a link to his views on each specific nation:

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul doesn't just let diplomacy dribble off his lip as
a talking point. He understands what free trade really
should mean, what intervention really should mean, and
what's really in the best interest of us (US)

With all this talk of Paul being an isolationist, I'm
afraid those saying it, actually have it backwards

Who would you rather engage with:
a Nation that wants to trade their
quality hemp manufactured cars/clothes/foodstuffs/fuels
or a country that often times - it's only trade - seems to be weaponry...

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by alphamale

So let me get this straight....a young man of 30 has the means to buy health insurance but chooses not to.

He then gets sick and expects someone else to pay his medical bills?

Ron Paul states the fact that it's his decision because he has the freedom to choose (the left want "choice" as long as it's the choice to kill a baby, but not in any other circumstance) not to carry insurance and people cheer, I would cheer for freedom as well.

Nobody cheered to allow an American citizen to die.

Then, he and other freedom loving American's are bad people?

We are denigrated by the left because of this?

That was the question asked by Blitzer, remember?

Obviously what gets up your's and other's noses is the fact that a well to do citizen chooses not to get health care and when he has a catastrophic health crisis, the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for his irresponsibility.
Well, President Obama dealt with this situation very nicely. It's called the Health Insurance Mandate and is presently contained in the Bill passed called Obamacare. But of course, you and the rest of the tea party are fighting tooth and nail to remove this provision of the health care bill.

You can't have it both ways. You can't rail against the irresponsible and then do everything in your power to recind a law that lays responsibility for health insurance squarely on the individual. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.