September 13, 2011

"The last two Republican presidential debates have been some of the most macabre on record."

"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."

88 comments:

rhhardin said...

Allowed by the state to die.

Private charity in one form or another, which the state has now displaced, is the American tradition.

Duncan said...

Should patients whose medications have been delayed by the FDA for years or have never been developed because of $1 billion in regulatory compliance costs per drug be allowed to die?

Andy R. said...

Perhaps we've settled the debate now about whether conservatives are stupid or evil.

SGT Ted said...

Since the State is broke, no, it shouldnt be paying anybody elses bills.


This is the problem with letting liberals and leftists pick the questions at a Republican debate.

bgates said...

wv: "Talking Points Memo".

Oh, wait: "tedium". Same thing.

Rumpletweezer said...

You wouldn't remortgage your house to get your 98-year-old Aunt Mary a new hip, but you would demand that the insurance company (or the government) pay for it. Yep, makes perfect sense.

Scott M said...

Private charity in one form or another, which the state has now displaced, is the American tradition.

Exactly what I thought when I heard the audio this morning. Followed closely by the fact that the unfortunately deceased would be used by everyone he knew as an example to their friends/relatives/co-workers that having AT LEAST catastrophic coverage is the minimal one would want to do as a responsible adult.

In other words, aggregated out over society, it would organically fix itself and most people that didn't want health insurance would carry catastrophic. All without the nanny state's involvement.

Monkeyboy said...

I had to laugh at the comment over there quoting the "are there no poorhouses" section of A Christmas Carol. Scrooge was avoiding any personal responsibility for his fellow man by basically saying "hey, I pay my taxes to support government programs."

The passage means the opposite of how they are using it.

EDH said...

Did someone mention Macabre?

Dr. Phibes, Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The correctly non-macabre way to shrug off other people's deaths is to gather 3,000 or so and have them killed by terrorists. Then it becomes not an existential threat and, what the hell, look at all the people who get killed in car wrecks.

Hagar said...

This was mostly that a number of the people in the audience at a Republican debate will have a large problem with CNN and Mr. Blitzer.

It does not necessarily mean they would object to paying for such a patient through some sort of tax-funded welfare program.

AprilApple said...

The left love to cast the right as cold-hearted. Meanwhile, where socialized health care exists, the care is often so bad, people do die in state run hospitals, waiting for state run decisions on the state's watch.

SPImmortal said...

"Perrhaps we've settled the debate now about whether conservatives are stupid or evil."

It was a libertarian themed question given to a libertarian, in order to feel out how far he is willing to take his ideology in a practical matter.

So I guess we've answered whether you are stupid or evil (you're stupid).

Calypso Facto said...

"Before Paul could answer that question, shouts of 'yes!' and cheering bubbled up from the audience."

Who knew that one guy could voice the opinion of the whole silent "audience" and then the entire national "Tea Party"?

It's so handy when someone gives you the hook for your predetermined narrative. Even if you have to stretch the truth a little to make it fit.

SPImmortal said...

"The left love to cast the right as cold-hearted. Meanwhile, where socialized health care exists, the care is often so bad, people do die in state run hospitals, waiting for state run decisions on the state's watch.
"

No, that doesn't count if their programs kill people, because !intentions!

SPImmortal said...

"Who knew that one guy could voice the opinion of the whole silent "audience" and then the entire national "Tea Party"?

It's so handy when someone gives you the hook for your predetermined narrative. Even if you have to stretch the truth a little to make it fit."

Remember when the press filled days worth of headlines when some guy at a McCain/Palin rally said "Kill him" about Obama?

Or when Tea Party activists spit on black lawmakers and called them n---rs.

Oh, that never happened? Never mind then.

PatCA said...

Actually, people cheered at the mention of personal responsibility; a few shouted "yes" when Blitzer asked if we should let the man die.

But it's campaign season! Hyperbole alert!

What's mystifying is why the Repubs keep setting themselves up as punching bags for the state-run media. A crafty plan to make the media look like partisans, or just stupidity?

Carol_Herman said...

They've been horrible. They are showcases TO FAILURE!

And, if the republicans are lucky, then no one is tuning these debates in.

Shanna said...

It was a libertarian themed question given to a libertarian, in order to feel out how far he is willing to take his ideology in a practical matter.

There is a reason why many conservatives have libertarian leanings but don't throw in with the whole philosophy.

No, that doesn't count if their programs kill people, because !intentions!

Yep. Everybody forget about that pesky "road to hell" thing.

Saint Croix said...

When Democrats kill millions of black children in Africa when they outlaw DDT, nobody in the audience shouts, "Yes!"

They just, you know, do it.

Henry said...

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

How many is an audience?

* * *

Sometimes macabre is good. There's a human urge to cut through the false sentimentality and the conformist pose. This is where punk rock comes from.

The "yes!" was a stupid, jerk thing to yell, and in literal terms an incredibly ugly expression. But I don't think it's literal. It's the voice of a person fed up with the phony manipulations of sob-story politics, of no expense is too great, and we're doing it for the children.

garage mahal said...

It's so handy when someone gives you the hook for your predetermined narrative. Even if you have to stretch the truth a little to make it fit.

The question wasn't answered I don't think. So there is no further misunderstanding, what is the official Republican position on that 30 yr old w/o insurance? Is he left to die in the free markets, or not?

Andy R. said...

It was a libertarian themed question given to a libertarian, in order to feel out how far he is willing to take his ideology in a practical matter.

I was talking about the audience response, not Paul's answer. Do you think the audience members that cheered were only libertarians and not conservatives?

What about all the other people on stage who didn't condemn cheering over people dying in hospitals because they don't have insurance? Are they all libertarians too?

Mary Beth said...

The way I understood the question, the man could have afforded insurance but chose not to get it. I thought the original intent of the question was to force a choice between the government compelling us to buy insurance or being cold, cruel, and heartless.

Robert said...

George Washington had to employ private doctors. Why did The State allow George Washington to die?

What the hell is this notion of The State "allowing" people to die - or live. My life is in my hands, not The State's. If you put the allowance/disallowance of death/life into The State's hands, you have effectively surrendered your life to The State.

Scott M said...

GM, I have no idea what the "official" Republican answer would be. The answer from those interested in personal liberty is as I mentioned above. Eventually, everyone (with even an ounce of maturity) would carry catastrophic. Other wouldn't survive on their own and would have to turn to charity, family, etc. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to pass along their stupidity and society would benefit.

Are you suggesting that you are against Darwinism?

Bender said...

Who knew that one guy could voice the opinion of the whole silent "audience" and then the entire national "Tea Party"??

Those on the left knew, which is why people on the left routinely place themselves in conservative audiences, pretending to be one of them, and then they go and act crazy, specifically to give the impression that it is the conservatives who are heartless, evil, etc. See "false flag operation."

Pogo said...

Under the Democrat's statist philosophy, a sick man without insurance will be allowed to die in the hospital rather than have the state pay his medical bills.

Oregon's Medicaid Priority List did exactly that. The NHS in Britain does this every day.

It's how those systems work.

SPImmortal said...

"The question wasn't answered I don't think. So there is no further misunderstanding, what is the official Republican position on that 30 yr old w/o insurance? Is he left to die in the free markets, or not?"

Hospitals should treat people in need of immediate emergency attention. The law already provides for that.

But this sort of generosity has strict limits before it becomes corrosive and deadly in it's own right.

A person might suffer and die without a roof over their heads. Give them an apartment? Food, entertainment, regular dental and physical checkups, all free of charge?

Europe went that way and now it is falling apart. The Gods of the Copybook Headings and all that.


The problem with socialist policies is that they always ignore math, moral hazards, cost-benefit analyses, and basic human behavior.

Holmes said...

It's an entirely strawman question, but assuming it's not, it's far more dignified, I take it, to have a panel decide who lives and who dies? By a panel of experts. Like DOE picking Solyndra.

sonicfrog said...

Actually, people cheered at the mention of personal responsibility; a few shouted "yes" when Blitzer asked if we should let the man die.

Yep. When I saw the headline, I thought the whole audience erupted in a raucous cheer. I counted two "yes's" and maybe five hand-claps.

That said, I actually did like the question. Even though it's a hypothetical, it does give you a little more insight into his thoughts on this topic. But then Rep. Paul is not one to back down or dodge his own views. Wish the other guys on stage could be as frank and honest. That, I think, is part of Paul's appeal.

SPImmortal said...

"I was talking about the audience response, not Paul's answer. Do you think the audience members that cheered were only libertarians and not conservatives?"

Most likely they were cheering because somebody had actually call shenanigans on this false choice moral quandary bullshit that everyone is fed up with.

The answer is aan in your face "yeah, why not", because they know the sort of sophistry in play.

"What about all the other people on stage who didn't condemn cheering over people dying in hospitals because they don't have insurance? Are they all libertarians too?"

Please codemn the Democratic policy of allowing the brains of newborns to be sucked out of their skull by a doctor liscensed for murder.

See how that works?

Christopher in MA said...

"What is the official Republican position on that 30 y/o without insurance?"

Who knows? Ask 30 different Republicans or conservatives and you'll get 30 different answers, ranging from "doesn't he have a family or support group?" to "nobody that young ever thinks they're going to die" to "sucks to be you, dude." But an "official" position, much as your squalid little mind would love to snark at, doesn't exist. As opposed, of course, to the official Democrat position on abortion, which is "exterminate at any time for any reason."

My position? As SPImmortal stated, hospitals are already required to provide emergency care to sick people who show up at the ER. So he's not going to die in the hospital. But if that pain in the chest becomes a strep infection that requires open heart surgery and a lifetime of expensive medications - and the fellow has no insurance? That's why hospitals have a risk pool of money for just those rare cases.

The "free market" that you sneer at says, in a Malthusian way, you are responsible for yourself. But there is no true free market in re health care, so this person is going to get taken care of in one way or another. That is, until The State is responsible for you. Then you will live only so long as you contribute to the good of The State.

Or in other words, Garage, you'd better stay healthy. If you fall behind in your production quota under Obamacare, you will become a useless eater who must be eliminated. All for the good of the bottom line and the common good, you know.

sonicfrog said...

Oh, and note the super quick edit after the "Yeah's". Twenty to one says there were some boos regarding that idea, and TPM didn't want that included because it hurts the narrative.

If I'm right, I'm blogging it.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Because, let's face it, Ron Paul is your go-to guy if you want the official Republican position on anything.

David said...

Unfair premise. People in this situation usually get care. Either the providers swallow the bill or some charity or group steps in to help. It happens all the time.

And if the person chose not to have insurance so he could afford his new Harley . . . . . ?

SPImmortal said...

"That said, I actually did like the question. Even though it's a hypothetical, it does give you a little more insight into his thoughts on this topic. But then Rep. Paul is not one to back down or dodge his own views. Wish the other guys on stage could be as frank and honest. That, I think, is part of Paul's appeal."

I like the question as long as it's not a lead in to some ridiculous sophistry about the heartlessness of being against government run healthcare.

It is good to know where a candidate stands on a scenario like this and whether his "small government" mindset might be too absolute.

EDH said...

garage mahal said...
The question wasn't answered I don't think. So there is no further misunderstanding, what is the official Republican position on that 30 yr old w/o insurance? Is he left to die in the free markets, or not?

Actually, TalkingPointsMemo cut off Paul's answer. (Anybody got a link to that.)

Notably, Blitzer in his hypothetical didn't say whether the "healthy 30 year old young man" was a "rich CEO" or other who had enough resources to pay for his own care.

garage mahal said...

But if that pain in the chest becomes a strep infection that requires open heart surgery and a lifetime of expensive medications - and the fellow has no insurance? That's why hospitals have a risk pool of money for just those rare cases.

Really. So that hospital is going to take care of this person the rest of their life? I don't think so.

SPImmortal said...

"Really. So that hospital is going to take care of this person the rest of their life? I don't think so."

There are a lot of charities and hospital programs that do indigent care.

I don't know if you could get help for that particular scenario, though. Especially considering it's cost.

sonicfrog said...

Found it.

After the two "yes's", there aren't boos, but you can tell the audience is not comfortable with that exchange. Go to the 4:10 mark and see what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb6aAiJUp9w&feature=watch_response

edutcher said...

The problem with Ron Paul's candidacy is the fact that he's the candidate of the doctrinaire Libertarians and they are not shy about trumpeting their views.

Andy R. said...

Perhaps we've settled the debate now about whether conservatives are stupid or evil.

No, we know they're smart, but any doubt about Leftist lack of intelligence has been removed.

sonicfrog said...

Notably, Blitzer in his hypothetical didn't say whether the "healthy 30 year old young man" was a "rich CEO" or other who had enough resources to pay for his own care.

Yes he does. He says "a healthy 30 year old man has a good job, makes a good living"... That pretty much covers it.

Mary Beth said...

Notably, Blitzer in his hypothetical didn't say whether the "healthy 30 year old young man" was a "rich CEO" or other who had enough resources to pay for his own care.

"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 dollars a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But, you know, something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay for, if he goes into a coma, for example, who pays for that?"

Maybe not a CEO but it sounds as though the choice isn't, "Do I eat or get insurance?" It's, "Is there something I would rather spend a couple of hundred dollars a month on?"

Christopher in MA said...

"So that hospital is going to take care of this person the rest of their life? I don't think so."

Oh for fuck's sake, garbage. So now I actually have to say "first they'll do the operation, then they will prescribe the drugs, then they will help him find the financial assistance he needs, and then he will be discharged" now? Are you incapable of understanding the point I was making?

OF COURSE they're not going to take care of him forever. But they're not going to throw him out on the street, either. Stop being such a dishonest cockholster.

SPImmortal, yes, that scenario is an extreme one, and one that rarely occurs. And it would be difficult to finance, certainly, even with insurance. However, I used it because it was familiar to me. I didn't think garbage would hijack it to support his sophistry.

Next time I'll just say this hypothetical person has a bad cold.

bagoh20 said...

"Really. So that hospital is going to take care of this person the rest of their life? I don't think so."

All the guy has to do is murder the next doctor he sees and a few nurses, and the state will take care of him forever, including: TV, cell phone, getting married, conjugal visits, bearing children and full heath care. Woohoo, he could even become a successful writer!

bgates said...

I think so long as there are poor sick people, everything Andy R owns should be confiscated from him and sold to pay for their medical needs. He and people like him should be kept on a 700-calorie/day diet, housed on cots in dormitories, and allowed to hold no possessions until the scourge of death has been eliminated.

Because I care.

Clyde said...

Do they have video of this supposed cheering and yells of 'yes'? If not, I'm calling 'bullshit.' Video, or it didn't happpen.

SunnyJ said...

@garage...no he's left to the cronyism of the death panel, which oh so compassionate by meassuring all of us in "life units" depending on our perceived worth to society. Of course this panel will be appointed and just like the green jobs grants to Obama's supporters, the Progs will pick and choose who wins and who loses, or in the health debate, who lives and who dies.

@rhhardin has it right, the emphasis in Blitzer's question is on "allowed to die". Only the conditioned progressive mind, that believes government allows us to exist, feels it's more compassionate to have the state allow us, than to take personal responsibility for our lives and allow ourselves to tell the state to butt out.

E.M. Davis said...

Really. So that hospital is going to take care of this person the rest of their life? I don't think so.

I think you should, hypothetically speaking.

Henry said...

"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 dollars a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But, you know, something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay for, if he goes into a coma, for example, who pays for that?"

Under ObamaCare young Bob Cratchit could spend somewhat less than the cost of health insurance in tax penalties for not having health insurance. Then, when he has his terrible accident, he could immediately sign up.

I'm not sure if he'd be liable for the first day of costs of his coma, or whether he'd be able to sign up for ObamaCare when he was in a coma. One assumes his next of kin would take care of that detail.

What I do know is that this scenario tells us why ObamaCare will be underfunded. It is more cost efficient for healthy people to pay the fine than pay the cost of insurance. When they need health insurance, they can sign up then.

The scenario should have ended like this: But, you know, something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. And thanks to Obamacare the nearest hospital is bankrupt, understaffed, and undersupplied. The drugs that could help him were halted during development and the medical device that could save him was discontinued when its manufacturer was sued out of existence. The hospital can't treat him anyway because his condition demands a specialist who was so underpaid she went to work for the government writing policy papers. Who pays for that?

We all do.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

garage mahal said...

So there is no further misunderstanding, what is the official Republican position on that 30 yr old w/o insurance? Is he left to die in the free markets, or not?

The official Republican position is that he should not be left to die. Instead you, garage, need to step away from the keyboard, hurry over to the hospital, and save his life. We'll wait here.

What's that? You didn't spend many years studying hard and delaying gratification so that you could be an open heart surgeon? That's okay, you can just hurry on over to the hospital and offer to pay someone to save the man's life instead.

See, we have a heart, because we made sure that someone else took care of the man in need.

sonicfrog said...

Posted It

traditionalguy said...

Tea Party are killers is the desired meme of CNN branch of the Obama Campaign. That is why CNN sponsored the Tea Party crowd at the debate.

CNN is not in the habit of promoting Tea party sponsored events, so I bet that shout to that question was a a softball to a planted Moby with the macabre line pre-story boarded.

Henry said...

@Sonic Frog -- Excellent work.

The biggest round of applause is when Ron Paul talks about working in a hospital before Medicad. He says "I practiced in Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anyone away from the Hospital."

Paul: "We never turned anyone away..."
Audience: Applause.

* * *

In addition to the applause line, note how Paul turns the question. Blitzer talks about health insurance. Paul talks about health care.

AJ Lynch said...

Mary Beth pointed out:

"The way I understood the question, the man could have afforded insurance but chose not to get it. I thought the original intent of the question was to force a choice between the government compelling us to buy insurance or being cold, cruel, and heartless."

Exactly, libruls cheering "Yes" when the govt takes the young man's money by force to pay for shitty insurance coverage.

Leland said...

what is the official Republican position on that 30 yr old w/o insurance? Is he left to die in the free markets, or not?

I'm curious Garage. My wife is an RN. When she sees a patient, she doesn't ask about insurance. She treats the patient. Some times she does triage, because her time is in high demand and she can only take care of so many.

So, since you ask the question, what have you done to educate yourself to take care of that 30 yr old without insurance? Have you put in the years of training to provide the necessary healthcare to that person? What did it cost you to obtain that training?

Cedarford said...

There is a logic conflict in tea party people that believe as a Freedom Lover, a young healthy man manking a good living should be able to avoid spending 3K-12K a year on health coverage and buy the Porsche instead. While at the same time believing that if the young man, who pissed away his savings and lost his nice job the moment he wrecked the Porsche WOULD OF COURSE be cared for in his months of intensive care by "non-Gummint" - Christian charities, private hospitals REQUIRED BY LAW to admit and treat...

The outcome of the Freedom Lover's freeriding w/o insurance and obeying no Gummint Mandate would NEVER BE LEFT BLEEDING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO DIE!! Nosiree!

Magical thinking by tea partiers.
Who, down South are the ones 1st in line to scream for the Fed Government to cover the costs of freeriders that lacked flood or hurricane insurance when disaster hits. Or demand that the government subsidize people living in waterfront areas hit by major hurricanes 5 times in the last 100 years by forcing coverage and spreading risk costs of the flood, hurricane damages from people in tea party locales in Florida and the Outer Banks and w/in 1 mile of the Mississippi to dumb Wisconsinites and Coloradans.

cubanbob said...

Blitzer's question really is a disguised question. The implication is that since he doesn't believe his family would pitch in to cover his bills if he were in that situation (and that he wouldn't volunteer to pitch in for one of his relatives) then someone needs to be forced to cover his expenses or obligations. With liberals its all in the projections. They out themselves all of the times.

cubanbob said...

C 4 the government forbids private primary flood insurance. So if you want to push for the repeal of federal flood insurance and leave it to the private insurance market fine. I live in a flood zone and carry sufficient excess flood. But I can't buy primary non government flood insurance since it is not available by law.

As for the accident scenario you mentioned, charities do what they decide to do. They are not obligated or compelled under the force of law to provide for others. If they want to cover the injured party in your scenario they are free to do so or not. No one is being compelled to do so.

Why is it it is never presumed that the family members are not obligated to help their relatives but taxpayers always are. If the relatives don't care enough, why should the tax payers?

garage mahal said...

So, since you ask the question, what have you done to educate yourself to take care of that 30 yr old without insurance? Have you put in the years of training to provide the necessary healthcare to that person? What did it cost you to obtain that training?

I come from a family of nurses, so I admire your wife's work. But is your wife paying for this guy's healthcare? My guess is no, she is administering it. I'm for single payer, which would eliminate all this inequality. And save boatloads of money in the process. We're actually paying for single payer, just not getting it.

Cedarford said...

Leland said...
what is the official Republican position on that 30 yr old w/o insurance? Is he left to die in the free markets, or not?

I'm curious Garage. My wife is an RN. When she sees a patient, she doesn't ask about insurance. She treats the patient.
=====================
Your noble wife does that in part because she is assured, under the present system, that some source of funding covers her paycheck so she doesn't have to bother to ask if the person she is providing goods and services for has the ability to pay.
That system breaks down when too many free riders, illegals getting free care, and patients whose Medicare doesn't cover half their costs come in.
That is when all those Border hospitals shut down, when people with private insurance start thinking that if "christian charities will pay" for what is for many their largest household bill - family health insurance - why NOT Free Ride. We all LOVE Freedom!
And if it becomes too many free riders on top of illegals and elderly - then employers also stuck with the costs being passed on to them on their health insurance contribution decide not to hire, or scale back existing benefits, or hire only part-time and temps.

Cedarford said...

Perverse consequences of Freedom Loving and the "right" to refuse paying for health insurance by some Gummint Mandate...

In Orlando, a proposal that a hospital upgrade to level I traumacare facility was turned down on fears that that would then make the private hospital the "destination of choice" for those lacking health insurance. That more than the gen pop, have situations where they need advanced trauma care.

Paddy O said...

There are records for macabre?

Scott M said...

Rob Zombie comes to mind.

sonicfrog said...

The implication is that since he doesn't believe his family would pitch in to cover his bills if he were in that situation (and that he wouldn't volunteer to pitch in for one of his relatives) then someone needs to be forced to cover his expenses or obligations.

Complaining about an assumption, then followed by another.

Nice.

Many people don't have families who have the means to take care of another family member. Many other families, even if they have the means, would at some point, be obliged to stop paying for the heath care before they too go bankrupt and then can't afford insurance themselves.

The elephant in the room here is medical inflation. Just like the American auto industry, where the business model became too reliant on expensive SUV's that supported everything else they were trying to do, we are facing a point, coming sooner rather than later, where health costs will become so exorbitant, that insurance companies start going out of business, and we are left with medical care for none.

As a libertarian, I hate to say it, but I think we are going to end up adopting a socialized model of health care, warts and all. When the system crashes, which it inevitably will, we'll have no choice. I'm pretty much resigned to it.

Dammit Google Blogger... Why can't we Blockquote for crying out loud!!!!! That's one of the reasons I went to Word Press.... Speaking of.. Ann?.... Weren't you going to move??????

Curious George said...

Doubling down on stupid:

"Andy R. said...
I was talking about the audience response, not Paul's answer. Do you think the audience members that cheered were only libertarians and not conservatives?

What about all the other people on stage who didn't condemn cheering over people dying in hospitals because they don't have insurance? Are they all libertarians too?"

The crowd did not cheer people being left to die Corky. And straighten your stupid hat. It doesn't make you look hip or edgy. It makes you look like a moron.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

garage mahal said...

I come from a family of nurses

Damn it. Now I've got the image of Heath Ledger from the Batman movie stuck in my head.

John Lynch said...

Heh.

We live in an ironic and postmodern age. People aren't easily spun anymore.

n.n said...

Appeals to emotion is the most effective tactic employed by left-wing ideologues.

Let me ask Blitzer this:

Is it reasonable to limit involuntary exploitation committed for the good of an individual or group?

If the government curtailed its policy of progressive involuntary exploitation, would beneficiaries and providers be willing to confiscate those funds from their family, friends, and neighbors?

With respect to slavery, which is a combination of involuntary exploitation and restricted liberty, what is the threshold past which people will not progress?

In order to mitigate the causal factors of corruption, why doesn't responsibility for parents, children, etc., fall to parents, children, etc.? Why should the government replace the role designed by nature for the family?

On a relate note, what do we do with over 10 million (and, if history is to be our guide, likely 20 million, and growing) illegal aliens who displace American men, women, and children, and necessarily increase the incidence of involuntary exploitation (including murder, rape, and redistributive change)?

Is Blitzer concerned with a selective rule of law, involuntary exploitation, totalitarian policies, and general denigration of individual dignity, which contribute to progressive corruption of individuals and society?

There are reasonable compromises of individual dignity. There are reasonable measures individuals can pursue and still demonstrate a respect for others who provide a product or service for their consumption.

In any case, appeals to emotion are merely a means to quell dissent and prevent a rational review of issues on their merit.

Is it any wonder that Democrats were and continue to be the party of slavers? It is an inherent characteristic of their progressive totalitarian ideology.

Oh, and before I forget, Blitzer. Sacrifice another human life to appease your mortal gods, and promote the normalization of other deviant behaviors as is your cause.

Curious George said...

Doubling down on stupid:

"Andy R. said...
I was talking about the audience response, not Paul's answer. Do you think the audience members that cheered were only libertarians and not conservatives?

What about all the other people on stage who didn't condemn cheering over people dying in hospitals because they don't have insurance? Are they all libertarians too?"

The crowd did not cheer people being left to die Corky. And straighten your stupid hat. It doesn't make you look hip or edgy. It makes you look like a moron.

Oclarki said...

We live in a country where illegal aliens receive weekly dialysis treatments for chrinic kidney disease. Nobody is dying on the street because they don't have insurance.

Sigivald said...

A crafty plan to make the media look like partisans, or just stupidity?

"Look like"?

They do that all by themselves.

MayBee said...

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

Not Terri Shiavo's husband, that's for sure.

DCS said...

The physician allowing the patient to die is being paid by Obamacare Meanigful Use guidelines. A living patient with very poor health metrics will drive his salary down ,while a dead one will have no effect other than change the denominator. Talk about unintended consequences.

Freeman Hunt said...

Not Terri Shiavo's husband, that's for sure.

Heh heh heh.

Lombardi Chick said...

Given a choice, I think I'd prefer to die because I couldn't personally afford insurance, than to die because the state denied me treatment.

Just sayin'.

Andy R. said...

I thought we were going to make it through our first comment thread without a hat comment...

Andy R. said...

Rick Perry: ‘Taken Aback’ By Let Them Die Cheer At Debate

While I would have preferred to see this kind of response during the debate itself, better late than never!

farrell said...

Prof. Keck is talking about this at: http://bit.ly/qv7Xzv

Pragmatist said...

Typical of the kind of moral degenerates that populate that particular nasty section of the lunatic fringe.

Pragmatist said...

Next time we should let fascists and Rightists pick the questions. Maybe they could study Geobbels for some tips on how to make the idea of killing off the poor and weak seem like a benefit to society.

caseym54 said...

The correct answer to Blitzer's question should have been:

"Obamacare makes actual health insurance (protecting against extreme and costly events) illegal. The young man might have spent a couple hundred dollars insuring against this kind of catastrophe, but the new law says no one may offer such. Instead, he has to buy expensive pre-paid medical care or go without coverage entirely.

So, the fault for this falls squarely on Obama. Ask him that question, not me."

Alex said...

I'm one of those people in the audience who shouted YES and did a fist pump/leg kick combo. Then I spiked the football.

Laika's Last Woof said...

In a country where "the poor" live better than the middle class in places like Somalia no citizen should be a slave to another's claimed need for a handout. That horse has been beaten to death, and the inexorable rise of behemoth bureaucracy and deficits and corruption over the past 50 years can be laid at the feet of this ridiculously overplayed hand. Were I there and cheering it would have been my way of saying, "Enough is enough."

Leland said...

So Garage, do you know the new rules under Obamacare for payment of services? It's a percentage based on customer satisfaction. That is, in order to get reinbursed, the patient has to give 5 stars for performance. How many people do you think are carried into a hospital, get blood samples taken, receive an IV, and maybe get an NG tube, and then are up to giving their care 5 stars when they walk out still alive?

See, under single payer, you have to follow the single payers rules. Those rules are written by career bureaucrats, who spend little time actually learning how to treat people. Hospitals are not meant to be hotels. You don't go their to relax. You go there to get cured and then be released to go home and relax. When hospitals have to respond to the comfort of patients, who don't have to pay out of pocket; their won't be beds for that 30 something in need of care.

Cindy Martin said...

The government should only be the source of catastrophic care. Those that can afford to pay the premium to the government should do so. Non catastrophic care should be done through private insurance at rates that are affordable since the insurance does not have to cover the disasters.

Freder Frederson said...

Given a choice, I think I'd prefer to die because I couldn't personally afford insurance, than to die because the state denied me treatment.

And why is that, you are still dead and your suffering in the former case would be exacerbated by the knowledge that your heirs will be burdened with horrendous medical bills.

Your position makes no sense.