US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I loled hard when Wolf asked Ron Paul: "What would you do if a 30 year old man who has no health care insure is seriously ill, falls in a coma, and needs 6 months of intensive care?", then tea party crowd replied: "Let him die!".

Please tell me you're joking.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Vexx

So far, only Cantor (house speaker) has said much out loud and that was basically, he'll only pass the parts of the bill he likes... the cuts. and give no quarter on eliminating any tax loopholes or subsidies to the rich.

The funny thing, this model is proven to work for small nations that are surrounded by bigger nations with high taxation and beyond average economies. Maybe someone thought the USA could be like Liechtenstein.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I loled hard when Wolf asked Ron Paul: "What would you do if a 30 year old man who has no health care insure is seriously ill, falls in a coma, and needs 6 months of intensive care?", then tea party crowd replied: "Let him die!".

Now, if the 30 year old person, wasn't 30 years old but still unborn... then his life needs to be protected at all costs though. The cynism of these folks knows no bounds.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Now, if the 30 year old person, wasn't 30 years old but still unborn... then his life needs to be protected at all costs though. The cynism of these folks knows no bounds.

Not really a fair argument. To them, a fetus is a baby, who didn't ask anything of anyone and isn't responsible for anything. It is owed our protection.

A 30 years old, OTOH, has been an adult for 12 years. Long enough to have gotten a job and insurance.

Their views on euthanasia might be more interesting.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by solomon

Please tell me you're joking.

yeeeeAAAAHHH!


it's right up there with last week's thunderous applause

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Not really a fair argument. To them, a fetus is a baby, who didn't ask anything of anyone and isn't responsible for anything. It is owed our protection.

A 30 years old, OTOH, has been an adult for 12 years. Long enough to have gotten a job and insurance.

Their views on euthanasia might be more interesting.

Given how screwed their economy is, the 30-year-old could have problems finding a job, let alone pay the premium for an insurance.

Then there is also the fact that the insurance companies would use all sort of legal tactics to avoid paying out......

[Vexx]

I'm thinking the purpose of the GOP puppet show (*cough* candidate reviews and primaries) are to make Romney look 'safe and reasonable' in comparison.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Given how screwed their economy is, the 30-year-old could have problems finding a job, let alone pay the premium for an insurance.

Then there is also the fact that the insurance companies would use all sort of legal tactics to avoid paying out......

Which is why I ask people about the logic of paying people money to reserve the right to decide what you get to do with said money.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by flying ^

yeeeeAAAAHHH!


it's right up there with last week's thunderous applause

As I said with the "execution applause" of last time, sheer ugly moral depravity. And that's me being nice about it.

Pro-life my ass.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Given how screwed their economy is, the 30-year-old could have problems finding a job, let alone pay the premium for an insurance.

To be fair, the question specifically states he has a nice job, just chooses to not pay the $200-300 a month because "he's healthy". In other words, a very plausible scenario for many late 20-early 30 year olds.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GDB

To be fair, the question specifically states he has a nice job, just chooses to not pay the $200-300 a month because "he's healthy". In other words, a very plausible scenario for many late 20-early 30 year olds.

I found it funny that a supposed no nonsense politician like Paul refused to simply say "let him die". Instead he spouted endlessly about "responsibility" and "welfare states" etc, all of which may be true, but the real answer, and Paul's not so subtle political response, all amounted to the audience member's cry of "let him die". I lost some respect for Paul simply because he wouldn't directly say what he was indirectly saying all along (that respect was brought back when he attempted to explain his 9/11 comments).

Fun debate, though. Perry took a real pounding in the debate (not that the polls will show that much of a difference), but he didn't cave to the real pressure of some of his stances on immigration or medical treatments (I agree with some of what he said concerning Immigration, but his inoculation policy is too heavy-handed and very difficult to walk back (unlike his Social Security rhetoric it seems ), and based on their performances my new ideal ticket is Gingrich/Huntsman (or Huntsman/Gingrich). I'm still unclear why Cain is still running since he is an awful performer (in these debates), that answers absolutely no questions (mostly because he has no political career by which others can question him on). Bachmann should also probably step down since she has little real traction (and can only complain about "Obamacare")...but she will probably stick it out for at least the first 2 primaries.

Worst topics were Jobs, Health Care and Energy. I thought the Immigration discussion was decent and the opening and ending were strong.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by GDB

To be fair, the question specifically states he has a nice job, just chooses to not pay the $200-300 a month because "he's healthy". In other words, a very plausible scenario for many late 20-early 30 year olds.

To be fair, it's completely irrelevant unless we believe we are going to be critiquing people's decision before deciding how to treat them medically. We'd have to go digging into the person's financial history and then decide what we feel he would or wouldn't be able to afford. That, of course, can be fairly subjective on that person's other needs and goals at the time.

We can argue, per the example, that if the person just chose not to get insurance when he was perfectly able to afford it that their was some negligence on his part. But that is also a far cry is from that and saying that negligence would allow government to sit back and watch him die.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by james0246

I found it funny that a supposed no nonsense politician like Paul refused to simply say "let him die". Instead he spouted endlessly about "responsibility" and "welfare states" etc, all of which may be true, but the real answer, and Paul's not so subtle political response, all amounted to the audience member's cry of "let him die".

Sounded more like "the community will take care of him, the government shouldn't have to" to me.

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

We can argue, per the example, that if the person just chose not to get insurance when he was perfectly able to afford it that their was some negligence on his part. But that is also a far cry is from that and saying that negligence would allow government to sit back and watch him die.

Of course not. Treat him, and then bill the ever living fuck out of him when he wakes up. He has/had a good job, he can cover it. That or have his friends/family pay for it. I don't normally agree with such crude methods, but when someone is perfectly capable of taking preventative measures and doesn't because they want to save a buck, then it's their own damned fault. And this same policy should be taken with politicians. They need to bleed for the quick-buck grabs they've done that could've been prevented.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by GDB

Of course not. Treat him, and then bill the ever living fuck out of him when he wakes up. He has/had a good job, he can cover it. That or have his friends/family pay for it. I don't normally agree with such crude methods, but when someone is perfectly capable of taking preventative measures and doesn't because they want to save a buck, then it's their own damned fault. And this same policy should be taken with politicians. They need to bleed for the quick-buck grabs they've done that could've been prevented.

You make a lot of assumptions here. First, that he'll live to pay it off, that he won't be injured in a way that stops him for paying, that he has a good job which is different that saying he can afford to pay it off(for example he has just enough money to pay it enough but not without struggling with other bills/sacrificing others things), or that his family/friends will be able to afford the bills or even have a responsibility towards his bills(this actually contradicts personal responsibility).

This of course comes back to my original point of when you saying "someone is perfectly capable of taking preventative measures and doesn't", who is going to decide this? It can be extremely subjective. Not to mention that the person who you don't consider negligent but still doesn't have insurance i.e the extremely poor, homeless, those who "weren't perfectly capable" who will pick up their bills? Will we still charge them, or forgive their bills?

[ChainLegacy]

This is one of the areas where I disagree with Ron Paul. I think we should look into universal healthcare, just that we need to drastically cut back on corruption and special interests in our government for it to be a properly functioning system. What we have now is still better than nothing, but could be so much more if our government were cleaned up (which Paul is capable of doing.) In an ideal world I think socialist elements can and should be implemented into a capitalist government. The problem is, in a corrupt government these programs offer much less benefit to the people, with special interests funneling the benefits to themselves.

I feel it will take an old-school conservative like Paul to get our government back into some kind of functioning state and at least quell if not stop entirely the special interest takeover. And though I don't agree with his stances on these 'entitlement programs' across the board, this situation needs to be looked at sooner or later, and a fresh start (something Paul offers imo) is better than sticking with this broken system indefinitely.

I think Paul wouldn't come out and say he'd let the man die because he wouldn't as a physician. He just believes the whole program to be bad economically.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I think Paul wouldn't come out and say he'd let the man die because he wouldn't as a physician. He just believes the whole program to be bad economically.

He said the Church would pick up the tab, which raises a whole other set of questions.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by GDB

Of course not. Treat him, and then bill the ever living fuck out of him when he wakes up. He has/had a good job, he can cover it. That or have his friends/family pay for it. I don't normally agree with such crude methods, but when someone is perfectly capable of taking preventative measures and doesn't because they want to save a buck, then it's their own damned fault. And this same policy should be taken with politicians. They need to bleed for the quick-buck grabs they've done that could've been prevented.

What you forget is, that this question was meant to debate something completely different. Something Ron Paul realized. And like in a comedy the "yeeaah let'im die" sayers in the audience strengthen the point of the anchorman.

Now Ron Paul is not stupid in contrast to some in the audience and see's the loss of a valuable worker (pays taxes, contributes to GDP/economy) if the person in the given example died.
He knows perfectly well, that this carefully designed case is what can at best be described as collateral damage in their plans. Because if this guy has a well paying job, he is statistically with 95% certainty healthcare insured.
And by definition the guy in the example is not the target of the GOP plan.

They are actualy aiming at the poor, those who do not have a job that pays good... those who are expendable for the economy. If someone is a net loss for the economy than it is perfectly fine if that person dies early. Now Ron Paul isn't saying it like this, because this would be like discrimination of the poor. He rather uses complicated semantics and terminology to hide what he really wants to say. This way most poor (high percentage of those often lack decent education) don't understand it and then it is not discrimination anymore... isn't it?

Ah well... not my business.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GDB

...when someone is perfectly capable of taking preventative measures and doesn't because they want to save a buck, then it's their own damned fault. ...

So, the logical direction for this is that people who get fat, people who smoke, people ride motorcycles, or take risks on the wrong side of the "healthy" line in the sand should be left to die while the community goes around them. Where is that line and who draws it?

Personal "commercial" medical policies don't really work -- 95% of them discourage preventative care and have rather small lifetime limits when you can even get them. I only know of *one* entity (non-profit) that really thinks in a preventative holistic view and even they didn't start out that way.

So... CNN hosts a "Tea Party" debate that reveals some ugly witchburners in the crowd. Okay CNN, when is the "MOVE ON" debate going to happen? CNN claims to be unbiased and has done an extreme from one side, how about an extreme on the other side?

article: CNN panders to the Tea Party (the hidden political reality behind “centrist” journalism – a never-ending pandering to the Right.)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/13-5

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

So, the logical direction for this is that people who get fat, people who smoke, people ride motorcycles, or take risks on the wrong side of the "healthy" line in the sand should be left to die while the community goes around them. Where is that line and who draws it?

Personal "commercial" medical policies don't really work -- 95% of them discourage preventative care and have rather small lifetime limits when you can even get them. I only know of *one* entity (non-profit) that really thinks in a preventative holistic view and even they didn't start out that way.

So... CNN hosts a "Tea Party" debate that reveals some ugly witchburners in the crowd. Okay CNN, when is the "MOVE ON" debate going to happen? CNN claims to be unbiased and has done an extreme from one side, how about an extreme on the other side?

article: CNN panders to the Tea Party (the hidden political reality behind “centrist” journalism – a never-ending pandering to the Right.)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/13-5

in the next presidential election when the democrat candidate have a debate.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Given how screwed their economy is, the 30-year-old could have problems finding a job, let alone pay the premium for an insurance.

Then there is also the fact that the insurance companies would use all sort of legal tactics to avoid paying out......

Lol, but that would require an honest debate and an ability to take things into context instead of just debating on some political pundit line over and over again.

Obviously the amount of information would cause the average voter's heads to explode so they don't need to know this.

It's best to stick to strawman arguments, appeals to emotion, and arguments about ideals that exist in a vacuum.

Or so they keep telling us...

Meanwhile, let's just keep having the media place a clamp on Ron Paul. :/ Like it or not, "let him die" will become attached to him.

Originally Posted by james0246

I found it funny that a supposed no nonsense politician like Paul refused to simply say "let him die". Instead he spouted endlessly about "responsibility" and "welfare states" etc, all of which may be true, but the real answer, and Paul's not so subtle political response, all amounted to the audience member's cry of "let him die". I lost some respect for Paul simply because he wouldn't directly say what he was indirectly saying all along (that respect was brought back when he attempted to explain his 9/11 comments).

Which is why that question is rather rigged in the first place when it comes down to that and either yes or no comes off as dishonest.

His real response was to leave it up to charity and churches, and that this kind of voluntary support would be sufficient enough to save the man. According to him, these charitable institutions would be enough to help people.

The only problem is that while he believes this, the results don't seem to have worked that way.

So, no, I don't think it amounts to letting him die, even if I hardly agree with such a response at the moment.

Of course, none of this solves the main issue of hospitals being able to charge the fuck out of people and hold them hostage without insurance, basically letting them die if they can't pay for whatever the hell is being asked... which everyone would like to not talk about.

In any case, it's fairly evident the teabaggers are in support of this medical insurance and industry cartel.

Also, considering they booed Mr. Paul for being honest about the war on terrorism, he really should consider who to look out for. Hmm...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

in the next presidential election when the democrat candidate have a debate.

No, I want Move-on to be the moderators and question-givers of the GOP candidate field. And I'd be fine with the Tea Party moderating/questioning the Democrats. In both instances - the candidates would have to field really uncomfortable questions and it would illuminate what kind of people are questioning them as well.