Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die

Well the informed know this is true, I am not interested in convincing you sheeple.

 

You can google it yourself under "Conservatives give 30% more to charity".

 

was very vague. How many people actually fully recover after 6 months of down time? Usually, if one is down that long, they are going to be either a gimp of permanently disabled. Do you really want to come out of it? As I have said before for me, either full speed ahead, or dead. To translate for the government imposers (DO NOT KEEP ME ALIVE FOR YOUR EVIL AMUSEMENT IF I AM CRIPPLED).

 

I see. So you're only here to persuade people who already agree with you? That sets the bar pretty low.

I guess that's easier than actually having to construct logical, reasoned arguments backed by evidence.

 

If this is acceptable to you, more power to ya. I don't find it acceptable at all.

 

I will address this first then I shall move onto the OP.

Your first story is about a woman who was having a miscarriage at nine weeks pregnant. A miscarriage is NOT an emergency and there is NOTHING that can be done to prevent it. All you can do is let nature take its course. Should this woman be given a comfy bed to lie on so she can let that happen? Should she take a bed away from someone who actually needs it?

Miscarriages are sad, but they are a fact of life.

Your second story is about a women who needed non urgent surgery, and this is why she had to wait. Anyone who wishes to have elective surgery will wait. I have had elective surgery twice. The first time I had to wait a year, the second time my surgery was canceled once - why? Because someone else needed it more than I did, and I was more than happy to let them go ahead.

You can take out insurance, but it doesn't mean the insurance company is going to cover the entire cost of the surgery. You can still end up thousands of dollars out of pocket, which is what you guys just don't understand.

 

Now, on to the OP.

Firstly, the article does say that there were 'several' cheers. There were many people in the audience, and the majority of those people didn't cheer at all, so it's going to be only a few idiots who did.

Also, Ron Paul answered the question put to him, with a resounding 'No'. He said "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."

The hypothetical was interesting. What is the reason why this 30 year old man didn't take out insurance?
And I wonder that if the people in the audience (those who cheered) couldn't afford health insurance for some reason, would they be happy if someone cheered and expected them to die?

 

Apparently you do find this acceptable:

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

As for Shona Holmes, whose story you quoted in an earlier post:

and

 

There were a few who shouted approval, many who cheered, and more who clapped, and even more who stayed less vocal and probably were very happy at the monstrous garbage. That whole room stunk with idiots and would have been the perfect time/place for another 9-11 to occur. Put a lily at the door and bulldoze it to the dump. That's what you do with these kind.

 

I guess it would depend how much pain your in wouldn't it.

 

Pain is nothing, emergency is everything. It doesn't matter if you are in pain when you walk, if you are not going to die, then tough luck, you wait, and those in need go before you.

Over here, its mostly the elderly who sook about waiting. But then the oldies expect everything to be handed to them.

 

That's already been proven crapola. Thanks for adding it.

 

Nice to know if your hemorrhaging from a miscarriage your willing to wait for treatment for 3 or 4 hours.

 

I don't think society is willing to abolish government welfare programs entirely.

There are simply too many people like yourself out there who believe in the power of government and faceless social programs to do good.

And whatever the ratio is, 80% - 20% bad, or if as I think that government-run welfare does more harm than good, we are simply going to have to live with the consequences.

All I can hope for is to reduce the number of people on welfare and try to limit the rewards for lazy and irresponsible behavior to only the most deserving, i.e children.

Which is not an easy task when your side wants to throw money at the problem and encourage bad behavior.

 

I don't know about all the other countries but I can see what Obama and the Obama voters are up to.

He is going to give free health insurance and healthcare to what he claims is an additional 40 million people who do not have health insurance now.

And if they cannot pay for it - and few of the will pay whether they can or not - then the government will just give it too them.

That means everyone with health insurance and quality healthcare now will have to pay more for their healthcare and possibly receive poorer service in order to make room for all the deadbeat Obama voters entering the system.

That sounds great to the Obama voters but it sounds really lousy to everyone else.

 

I haven't seen that. If you can provide a link that debunks this Harvard Medical Centre study, I would be grateful.

 

Steal? Wow, obviously you don't consider it a Patriot to pay taxes and look out for your fellow American. That is unless you are the person in need of help, then it's all good. It's not a handout. Just wait long enough and you might be the person on the needing end. As for me, no, I doubt I will ever need government assistance. Why? Because I've been fortunate to put myself in a very good financial position that maybe less than 10% of Americans can actually say they are in.

 

Surprisingly enough, it was many of those very same oldies who fought hard for years when they were young to have a progressive government elected so that we and our children could all have decent health care.

Your comment is off topic, inaccurate and uncalled for.

 

What is government run? They mandated you buy insurance from a private insurance company. Those of us that did want government insurance were just disappointed. So if the government runs insurance, they just become the middle man that takes the money paid in premiums, invest it and pay out claims. Here's the difference though, they won't skim xx% off the top for CEO salaries and dividends to stock holders. Again, what's better, make a person possibly pay $1 million dollars back over a lifetime or require them to carry insurance for about 150 bucks a month?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Again, it's not a matter of crying to the government. Government requriing insurance has nothing to do with government handouts? Are you just off topic or do you seriously believe these are related? But since you brought it up, I have a good friend that works for FEMA, and throughout all these disasters there are many good ole republican conservatives that cry to the governement when they realize their insurance companies either won't pay, doesn't pay or not required to pay in disasters. They aren't crying to charities or churches or other organizations. They are waiting in line for that FEMA check. Funny how most disasters happen in red states and they are the first to cry for FEMA.

Again, what exactly does this have to do with mandated insurance? Ok, yes, people would be and are allowed currently to pay for and use whatever drug (approved or not) that they want. Don't know what this has to do with the FDA or the government, but I'm sure you can explain the correlation.

Duh, no kidding. So I guess by your rationale, the government should require people to do anything? What about requiring a certain speed on the street? What about requiring car insurance? What about requiring a driver's license? What about requiring them to register to vote? I guess our government shouldn't require anyone to do anything that is not in the constitution, right?

 

Bible-thumping cut-throat social Darwinists. It's the scariest faction in American politics right now.

 

If it wasn't for the Federal government, the states could use your gasoline tax money (to add more luxuries to Rick Perry's $10K a month rental in Texas) for other purposes and you would not be the wiser. And, left up to the states, you could not be assured that the roads in your state met all the safety requirements. Left to the states, you might be driving on dirt roads. I don't see any state refusing the Fed money.


The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation's highway system (Federal Aid Highway Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands (Federal Lands Highway Program). Through financial and technical assistance to State and local governments, the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for ensuring that America's roads and highways continue to be among the safest and most technologically sound in the world.

FHWA is charged with the broad responsibility of ensuring that America’s roads and highways continue to be the safest and most technologically up-to-date.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Federal-Highway-Administration/175380479155058?sk=app_4949752878

Well Duh! Do you think road construction, maintenance is free?

Do you think road construction, maintenance is free?

That's right, and that is what they do, so, were you going to do it if they didn't?

Really? Is that why you like Rick Perry, who had an executive order for all 12 year old girls to get vaccinated? For women wanting an abortion to have to have an unnecessary and unwarranted sonogram? Or, should you change your statement to say "we haven't authorized or paid them to stick their noses into our private health care decisions, unless we change our minds on certain issues"? Hypocrisy is the GOP's middle-name.

 

Are you repeating yourself?

 

As usual, you missed the whole point.

A Liberal could write us some article claiming that liberals give more and just like your conservative article could not be disproven, but Liberals don't make up stories to prop themselves up as kinder, more charitable, etc., etc., like conservatives do.

Also, there are many conservatives (like myself) that are labeled Liberals because they vote Democrat, so the point the article is trying to convey does not necessarily apply to *********s! We saw a display of just how generous they are at the Florida Primary.

The point being, that the right-wing article you want me to google is suspect - there is no way to measure who is more charitable, unless you lie.

 

No it means we should apply it now and again, just for variety.

 

And once again, an anecdote does not a systemic critique make.

Here are multiple examples of people dying while waiting for care in the United States:
http://www.ksat.com/news/26827797/detail.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5884487&page=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1920705...oman-dies-er-lobby-refuses-help/#.TnIRR9R95Bk

Does that indict the entire U.S. system of health care?

To quote someone on this thread: "If this is acceptable to you, more power to ya."