46 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
That is a bad component of the plan
I'd not drag him though the barnacles, however. He's just a bit naive when it comes to conflicts between his personal ideals, the rights of others and the law. The cost of medical care has gotten out of control and that needs to be addressed. But I'm of the thought that the insurance industry is part of that problem so expanding their customer base cannot be a good solution.
I remember one Republican debate
The requirement to get health insurance came up. They said that no one should be required to pay health insurance. That was part of personal responsibility. There was a followup question about soneone who didn't have health insurance and couldn't pay for treatment for a life-threatening disease, should that person be allowed to die? I still remember the applause from the audience. I don't remember hearing a reply from the candidate.
I guess the Republicans figure that person should just die and not bother them.
I remember that too
Boy, was that sickening. It wasn't just applause; it was cheering and shouts of "YEAH!!" If responses like that are typical of the Republican base, it's mind-boggling that they can't understand why people think they're heartless.
.....no matter who gets the Republican nomination, Obama should have that bit of film queued up for his campaign ads.
I remember that segment
and I'm posting a link to the transcript and the video....it was on CNN's Tea Party Debate; however, it was Ron Paul that the question was directed to (and he's pretty far over the right field area in the first place with his views). Although all of the MSM labeled the cheering etc as coming from the Tea Party (based on the fact that it was a debate sponsored by them), Ron Paul has a strong following and I got the impression while I watched that it was HIS following who were cheering because the cameras panned over the audience and most appeared to be somber and shocked at what was going on around them.
That said....do you believe that the panel of appointed people, none doctors, will NOT be deciding who gets medical treatment and who doesn't with Obamacare? (They were referred to as the Death Panels by Palin...the Administration called her a liar until it was proved that she was right all along.)
Just watched it again
1. I didn't see the somber or shocked looks. Sorry.
2. The camera is not on on the audience at all when the people shout "YEAH!" and start cheering so I don't know how you determined who was doing what.
And no, sorry, but "Death Panels" is still a flat-out lie.
Hate to burst your bubble
but that is already being done. It's being done all the time by the insurance companies.
thankfully the govt does everything
cheaper than private business, don't they?
Depends on how many muffins you eat.
Was 78 when she had a heart valve replaced and already not very healthy otherwise, and her insurance (Medicare and a separate supplemental policy) paid the entire bill. She died four years later from either aneurism that couldn't be operated on when it was discovered three years after her valve replacement or a final heart attack. There wasn't an autopsy so we didn't know for sure, but we did know that one or the other would finally get to her.
I DO know this....if a Government panel/committee instead of her doctor and insurance company was making the decision on replacing her valve and giving her another four years, it wouldn't have happened. The reason? She would have been only a number on a piece of paper that they were looking at. She had a good doctor/patient relationship and together they made the decision to try to give her whatever more time God would grant her.
Yes, insurance companies DO make decision to not cover SOME medical treatments on a patient-by-patient basis....drug or alcohol addicts might not get a new organ or stay on a list far below someone else who wouldn't be prone to abuse that new organ, for instance, or an experimental last-ditch procedure. But, for the most part, even very expensive procedures are routinely given the green light by insurance companies. I do not believe that this would happen with Obamacare....especially given the fact that BO just gave a green light to give hundreds of millions of dollars to a no-bid contract to another BO donor for an untested and unneeded new SMALLPOX vaccine, for crying out loud.
Yeah, because insurance companies are our friends and she'd never have been "only a number on a piece of paper" to them.
So government health care took care of her.
There was only one video feed during that debate....
....and what you linked to was it. You must be thinking of something else.
If I take an option to not have health insurance
and get a life threatening illness for which I cannot afford treatment, I cannot expect others to ante up for my care. It's that simple to me. If I get treated without paying for it, I'm beholden to the good charity of others...Also that simple.
So we let you die so you won't be beholden.
Don't get me wrong
I have every belief in charity as a moral obligation...but not as a legal one...and forced charity is, IMO, morally destructive. I also don't believe that to be "beholden" means to owe those who gave but to show willingness to return the favor. True charitable giving requires no "thank you" from the recipient of the gift. True charitable giving is actually a "thank you" from the giver for having the ability and the opportunity to provide help to another.
So all those people on Medicaid
should be taken off and charities can pick up the slack.
You're obviously not understanding what I'm trying to say
As individuals, we accept our own moral obligations. As citizens of the US we must accept the legal ones as well. But our government is supposed to reflect the will of the citizens...is it not? From what I understand, the majority of us do not want components of this plan forced on us and one of these is the requirement to have health insurance or face government punishment. That is just plain wrong, IMO, and allowing this to happen sets a bad precedent.
As for charity, I'm of the mindset that such is a very personal decision. The reward for charity is not a tangible thing but one much greater than that. Government forced charity takes all of that away and replaces is a sort of feeling of reluctance rather than one of personal satisfaction. But this concept is not one that's easy to explain so I'll drop it for now.
It's not about money
It's about the Hippocratic Oath and the fact that we are human beings. You can look at it as rewarding someone for being irresponsible, but at the end of the day it's a life being saved.
I wouldn't want to go to a doctor who could look at a dying person and say, "Well, he can't afford to pay me so I'm not going to save his life."
It's not about the doctor or the oath
It's the part about getting through the system to see the doctor. The physician is not one most likely to turn a person away.
good point on forced "charity"
Of course "charity" means "love" as of fellow man. When forced it removes the element of benevolence and turns gratitude into an attitude of entitlement.
Only Republicans were in the audience?
That would be odd since the Democrats usually have dirty tricks groups to go around and do those exact sorts of things, such as the Curious George guy at a Sarah Palin rally nobody in the media can name, who was ignored or shunned by most there, yet cameras were rolling and following him everywhere, except when they could have followed him to ask who he was or gotten a car tag. Yeah, they can locate Joe the Plumber, but not the Curious George guy. Now THAT is Curious.
As for the sound clip linked above;
Applause at "Risk is what freedom's all about". Applause about churches and benevolent associations helping out. A few loud "yeahs" (less than 10?) from those carefully spread around the auditorium when the MC asks a question if "society should just let him go (die)". Not to anything Ron Paul said, but to what the MC asked. Sounded to me like a few scattered Democrats giving a "yeah" to the question asked and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt they weren't there just to disrupt.
I'm beginning to think Liberals have very selective hearing and memories. It's amazing how things suddenly change from a few "yeah's!" on a question, to sickening applause and clapping to letting the person die, when obviously the answers given gave no such appearance.
LOL yeah that's it
And the Republicans
should use the State of the Union address that has BO being called a liar by Wilson regarding illegals getting health care. This same speech as him also stating no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions....that's also a lie.
Oh, I hope they do
It will highlight their rudeness in addition to their other attributes.
I don't care if Obama was up there saying the sky is green with pink polka-dots. What Wilson did was inappropriate.
RE: Uncle Obama will come around
Shouldn't that be Cousin Vinnie, Furio or Paulie?
But BO gets a pass
on insulting SCOTUS publicly? And it was fine for BO to invite Paul Ryan to a speech about the budget and then publicly insulted him? And it's fine for BO to blame Speaker Boehner for not cutting the 'big deal' when it was BO that changed the playing field at the last second? And it's fine for BO to consistently claim that the Republicans are doing nothing about jobs, the budget, the economy, etc. while he's campaigning when it is his OWN Dems in the Senate that wouldn't pass his Jobs Bill and while the Republicans keep sending bills over to the Senate that Reid keeps hanging onto and won't allow a vote on? This is the MOST dishonest president I've had to endure in my lifetime, and you STILL praise the clouds he supposedly walks on.
I seem to remember you saying it about Clinton.
Is the worse just the one that is in office?
I don't recall
saying very much against Clinton....I may have gotten into some debates on things I didn't agree with him politically about, but most of the discussions about Clinton at that time were about whether he lied about Monica and if that was an impeachable act. Even then, I believe my stand was I didn't care about his personal bad behavior (JFK was also notorious for that but was a pretty good president in my opinion) because I didn't think it had anything to do with how effectively he ran the country. Being an utter failure at one doesn't mean you aren't good at the other. I was happy to see his wife's healthcare program tank, but I was also happy to see that Clinton was able to bend to the right enough to work with Republicans and Democrats to accomplish many of the things that were good. I thought he absolutely s_cked at foreign policy, however, and I still do.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)