GOP Audience to Uninsured: DIE QUICKLY

[Jomtienbob]

Unbelievable audience response to Wolf Blitzer's question to Ron Paul on what to do with uninsured who get sick.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 59354.html

Alan Grayson was right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 59383.html

[RichLB]

Ok, apparently I will be the lone voice of dissent here. It seems unreasonable to me that if someone wishes to take a risk, whether it be at the roulette wheel or with his health, that taxpayers should be responsible for covering his losses. I suppose, from a societal position, it makes sense to eliminate that choice from a person - specifically a mandate for universal health insurance (as is the case with car insurance, home owners insurance, etc.) The other option, as heartless as it may be, is to allow the risk taking individual to bear the burden on his own for rolling craps with his health.

[Gaybutton]

as heartless as it may be, is to allow the risk taking individual to bear the burden on his own for rolling craps with his health.

That's easy to say if you already have good health insurance. What about the people who can't afford it, especially now with the huge unemployment problems? I don't see any justification at all for a country that boasts of having the best health care in the world for that care to be available only for those who are rich, can afford health insurance, or work somewhere at which health insurance is provided. I don't see it as reasonable to impose a death sentence on people on the basis they are poor. And even with insurance, many still have to lay out the cost and wait for the insurance company to reimburse them. What do you do if you have that kind of health insurance, but don't have enough money to lay out?

Many other countries provide free health care for their citizens. Why can't the USA do the same? Yes, it would mean higher taxes. I would be willing to fork over more taxes if it means health car is available to all citizens (even those of us who live outside of the USA) and taken out of the hands of HMOs.

My heartlessness would come into play, however, when it comes to illegal aliens. I don't see why people who are in the USA illegally should be given free health care unless it's a life or death emergency. If I was a citizen who can't afford insurance, but I was really sick, it would behoove me to go out and commit a petty crime and get myself arrested. When prisoners have health care available to them that law abiding citizens can't get, I'd say something is really wrong.

[RichLB]

Many other countries provide free health care for their citizens. Why can't the USA do the same? Yes, it would mean higher taxes. I would be willing to fork over more taxes if it means health car is available to all citizens (even those of us who live outside of the USA) and taken out of the hands of HMOs.

GB, you make a good case for mandated universal coverage - as Obama originally wanted until the Tea Party Express derailed it. I'm not even sure such coverage for everyone would result in higher taxes.

And, I see your point concerning the poor or children of risk taking parents. I don't have a good answer for that. However, I side with Ron Paul on the issue that was presented to him (ie, a middle class man of 30 who thinks his good health will last forever and elects not to insure himself). Why should MY tax dollars be used to cover his voluntary risk?

Paul's argument that we have strayed a long way from accepting individual responsibility resonates with me. I feel sorry for those folks who were so foolish to sign up for those ridiculous mortgages only to discover that the balloon payments were coming due and they didn't have the money to cover it - hence their homes were foreclosed. We liberals like to blame the nasty bankers for not educating these folks, but why is it the financial institution's fault some people were too stupid to read the contracts they signed?

[Gaybutton]

Why should MY tax dollars be used to cover his voluntary risk?

I agree with you, but what's the alternative? Do we just let these people die or go through life with a debilitating disease? I agree it isn't right that your tax dollars should have to cover people who made those kinds of mistakes, but I can't see that the solution is to just write them off the list and refuse to treat them. I also think it isn't right for our tax dollars to be spent the way most of it's being spent now in the first place.

[Jomtienbob]

"why is it the financial institution's fault some people were too stupid to read the contracts they signed?"
RichLB

First of all, because in the words of Romney, "Corporations are people, my friend", (unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees) however when you are a corporation, you can easily go into bankruptcy and have your debts discharged, and in most instances emerge healthy again. Lehman and Bear Stearns failed, but Goldman and many other investment houses continued to pay their debts. (The geniuses who ran these companies into the ground kept their millions in golden parachutes ) GM, Chrysler, and the big banks were bailed out, yet other companies went along paying their bills. Courtesy of the last revisions of the bankruptcy laws mere citizens no longer have the same option.

Oftentimes banks make bad loans to businesses, and due to bankruptcy process are ordered by the courts to write down or even write off entire loans, and the companies re-emerge healthier from the process. (GM, Con Edison, Chrysler, Catterpillar Tractor to name a few).

Because those financial geniuses (bankers) were trained in identifying risk, they knew those people would likely not pay. Fully aware they then packaged the risky mortgages into Collaterized Debt Obligations and paid Standard & Poors and Moody to rate this junk as AAA, and then mixed up B grade (more risky) mortgages with some A grade, again paying the raters to give A ratings (fraud). They sold this junk to banks across the globe and these banks then took out Insurance swaps with AIG. When these mortgages went sour, and AIG could not make good on the swaps, it then cost us, the taxpayers nearly $1 Trillion to bail out the banks across the globe, and credit for most of America has been non-existent since that time.

This than led to the Depression we are now in, with outrageously high levels of unemployment, further causing more people to default on their mortgages, and further declines in real estate values for all.

I have no sympathy for these bankers who make all those big bucks, and made bad loan risks. In my humble opinion, it is high time to bail out Main Street.

[Jomtienbob]

Why should MY tax dollars be used to cover his voluntary risk?

I agree with you, but what's the alternative? Do we just let these people die or go through life with a debilitating disease? I agree it isn't right that your tax dollars should have to cover people who made those kinds of mistakes, but I can't see that the solution is to just write them off the list and refuse to treat them. I also think it isn't right for our tax dollars to be spent the way most of it's being spent now in the first place.

"The individual mandate for people to purchase insurance coverage is meant to ensure that taxpayers aren't left on the hook. But the law that Paul and others may find equally problematic -- at least in this instance -- is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires that care be provided to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay. "

From Huffington Post article about Ron Paul's uninsured ex-campaign manager who rolled up $400,000 in medical bills. Only he had rich friends who could kick in to help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 61812.html