Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why do I live in my nation?
B5C
Veteran
This is from last nights Tea Party Debate:
People cheer for the deaths of prisoners and some could be innocent.
GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die (VIDEO)
"A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.
"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.
Paul interjected to offer an explanation for how this was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. He added that communities and non-government institutions can fill the void that the public sector is currently playing.
"We never turned anybody away from the hospital," he said of his volunteer work for churches and his career as a doctor. "We have given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves ... that's the reason the cost is so high."
The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage."
Gosh, why do I live in this nation?
People cheer for the deaths of prisoners and some could be innocent.
GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die (VIDEO)
"A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.
"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.
Paul interjected to offer an explanation for how this was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. He added that communities and non-government institutions can fill the void that the public sector is currently playing.
"We never turned anybody away from the hospital," he said of his volunteer work for churches and his career as a doctor. "We have given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves ... that's the reason the cost is so high."
The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage."
Gosh, why do I live in this nation?
0
Comments
The US can afford to put almost half of taxpayers money into a war machine-- more than any other country (more than China and Russia and 16 more countries combines in fact) but it can't afford basic healthcare for its citizens. And the US is the only developed nation like this. There are even some third world countries that provide basic healthcare for it citizens, and the US can't even get that right. Add to that all the tax cuts for the rich and some corporations paying ZERO taxes-- well, SOMEBODY'S got to pay, so the middle class gets saddled with it. No one seems to be looking at the bigger picture here, even though in many other countries this is regarded as common sense.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Speaking of third world countries:
Shameful.
I don't think the candidate in question meant harm with it, but killing those people is doing something out of fear (not that unusual in humans). So many people will agree with death-row. This is a whole different question though.
~~~~
BTW, I work in an ER and I see this every day at work. We have to pick up the pieces-- just damage control-- because not everyone can live the so-called "American dream."
As for Rick Perry. Here clearly thinks his courts are so perfect that everyone on death row is guilty, so he does not need to interfere with the death row process.
There is something fundementally wrong with society when they cannot care for others.
Why do we consider it a basic right of citizenship to have our children educated for free through the 12th grade, have our 911 calls answered by police or fire departments, have adequate and well maintained roads and bridges, have air traffic controllers to guide our flights, to have our trash picked up, to have clean running water, and to have our sewage disposed of properly... we expect all that, but we see the right to see a doctor as a "benefit" available only to a select slice of society (which doesn't include me at the moment, btw).
I just don't get it.
And I'll use my mother as an example. When in her early 50s, she applied for a secretarial position in two places -- a private doctor's office and a public school. In the public school she would have gotten health insurance and a pension. In the private doctor's office she got neither, but the pay was marginally higher and she thought she'd enjoy the adult clientele more. She chose the private doctor's office. 20 years later she had no health insurance and no pension. Society's fault, or the fault of her own poor choices?
The people who I know who are living the American Dream...whatever that is...worked damn hard to do so. Two people I know who are/were not living the American Dream are my sister and my nephew...who didn't really work much at all.
I know there are other examples on the other side of things, as well.
The journalist actually told him "What you are saying is false, you murdered all those people". He got himself out of the tricky question by saying "I believe our society made a just system, which deals with people fairly. I believe that American people are able to make good decisions which result in a just world. If someone will not behave in the interests of our society, i support fully the capabilities of the people working in this system to deal with this person in a way that will make justice a rule in our society. If the choice of our society is to execute those people, i fully support them in their opinion."
Note that what i quoted are not direct quotes from the video, but is rather my personal interpretation of what happened on that stage.
Also, i did not say Rick Perry is necessarily the type of person i would vote for personally - i'm just urging everyone who might have understood what happened as a crowd cheering for the executions, to consider an alternative viewpoint - that of the candidate being supportive of the views of people, a system which is supposedly the consequence of people deciding for democratically, even if it might be something that would be controversial, or he might not fully agree with.
I'm sure he understands the system is not perfect. He's just saying that it is a system that is the best he and everyone else could make, even if it has faults. As such, he supports it - since the system still supposedly handles people (who might be guilty or not) in the best way possible. He is saying it is not in his interest to doubt in such a system, because his opinion might actually be less just than the result of going through the process which people go through to be found either guilty or innocent in this case.
Right now I'm a full time student, and despite the law that says they can't use my history to refuse to write me insurance, nothing says what they can charge for it. I simply can't get insurance because I've had cancer (and been cancer free for almost 17 years, BTW) and have taken an antidepressant medication within the past ten years.
People wonder why I'm a rabidly liberal progressive? It's all about the profit in this country. I think the whole idea of "for-profit" in health care is morally wrong and unsupportable. Corporations whose number one priority is to maximize profits so as to pay the maximum dividend to share holders making decisions about who gets what health care is just flat wrong.
Healthcare should be available for every citizen of said country, Keeping a Healthy population is in everyones best interest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/11/doctors-letter-resists-nhs-reform
The other fact that gets conveniently omitted every single time this issue comes up is, anyone who legitimately can't afford mandatory health insurance will get government help to purchase it. Had the public option not been shot down, we could have created a single overall system to do this. As it now stands, it's going to be a nightmare of paperwork (if the GOP doesn't torpedo the whole bill as seems likely). I don't see how this is any different from requiring auto insurance. It's called "the common good". You have to pay taxes to have fire and police protection, schools, roads, etc. How is this any different? If your not choosing to do it for yourself ends up costing me money, how is that fair?
The sad fact is (and it *is* a fact) that all the health care that is given away (almost 25% in the hospital system I worked in) has to be paid for somehow. And that happens by insurance companies, hospitals, etc raising their rates. So we all pay for that care in the end - and at a much higher cost than if we'd simply make sure everybody were covered in the first place. $5 worth of preventative care up front would save us $5000 worth of acute care later, but we're too myopic to see that.
I don't get why the GOP are so against this (other than that Obama is for it, which seems good enough reason for them). For one thing, it was their idea to start with (ask Mitt Romney). Second, their mega-rich buddies in the health insurance industry stand to see HUGE profits from it. Imagine if they suddenly had another 50 million customers with paid up premiums!! They'd be rolling in dough more than they are already (sickening, but true).
Finally, as a Buddhist, and if you allege to practice compassion, I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care. You've clearly never been without it yourself and had any kind of health issue, nor known anyone who did. I've been there, done that.
I work in the ER (not medical staff– I register patients). While it is true that EMTALA regulations make it where no one can (supposedly) be turned away from the ER, the problem is the ER then just works as “damage control” long after an injury or illness has caused sometimes irreversible damage to the patient’s health.
All the ER does is do a quick fix to the immediate problem, but cannot treat the larger health issues that led to the visit in the first place... the ER is only obligated to stabilize the patient, that is all EMTALA requires.
Nobody benefits from such an arrangement and its yet another reason why the US spends so much more money than other countries. The value of having health insurance is to PREVENT things from getting worse. The logic of “We have free healthcare– just go to the ER” is NOT a solution.
I'm still waiting for the US to catch up with the rest of the developed world.
You save money on your vehicle by maintaining it-- i.e. by investing money in oil changes, tune ups, checking tire pressure, etc. If you don't, the consequences will be far worse and you'll have to shell out a lot more money.
If you want to save money in the long run, you have to spend money. Ironically the conservative way of doing things is not so conservative. Its just myopic.
First of all, it should be for emergencies. Only. Instead, many people without insurance or their own doctor are admitted for things that are not emergencies. Have a separate clinic for non-emergency cases.
Second, if it's an emergency, why are many patients left sitting there for LONG periods of time?
I have to admit that some of the private hospitals in Bangkok operate much better -- from a logistics standpoint -- than do our American hospitals. Bumrungrad International there, which has been featured on "60 Minutes" (and in a positive sense) has several divisions. The regular hospital. The emergency room. The general clinic. The doctors offices and exam rooms for general treatment. All on the same campus, but in different buildings or wings.
There is a triage system so that patients are initially assigned a level of urgency, but it still doesn't matter-- a lot of cases end up being urgent (or worse) because they haven't been able to nip the problem in the bud by seeing a doctor (no insurance!). Again, it just ends up as damage control, after the health issues have gotten out of control.
>I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care.
There is the misunderstanding. It's not about not being in favor for people having access to healthcare. It's about the government forcing people to give up more of their paycheck, meanwhile, with meanwhile being the most important part of this whole thing, spending over 1 trillion dollars a year on military imperialism and then doing all this other stuff too. The money is ALREADY there to begin with, it's just being used to build bombs instead. Ron Paul says, don't take more of the people's money, stop trying to rule the world with the military. People booed him when he stated the actual reasons why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. That is just sad. Military spending simply can't be ignored whenever you have something else that costs money. However, very very few people even talk about that. The reason is that very very few people are actually anti war. The money is already there to pay for it, it's just being used to build bombs...
Any war is not right or wrong because of $$$$$. And that's what Ron Paul often reduces it to.
Health care is not right or wrong because of $$$$$. And that's what Ron Paul reduces it to.
I'm an open-minded Democrat. If the GOP doesn't like "Obamacare", fine...propose the alternative to it. Did they fix it under 8 year of Nixon? No. Did they fix it under 8 years of Reagan? No. Did they fix it under 12 years of Bushes? No. But then, when the Democrats attempt to fix it, they moan and groan about it's not the right fix. What's their plan to fix it? I still see no GOP plan.
Ron Paul is demonized because people don't truly understand the potential of libertarianism. To me libertarianism is about giving the citizens of the country a blank slate to create a country that is based in compassion and understanding, but it only works when the citizens of that country have a sense of community and actively practice compassion and understanding. We obviously are not there yet and so candidates like Ron Paul (who are not perfect and subject to mistakes and delusions), are not taken seriously (which is a good thing, as sad as it makes me to say that).
Did the buddha tell his followers to go FORCE compassion on others because it would make the world a better place? No. He realized that true compassion derives strength from wisdom and that wisdom is only gained from a personal commitment to follow principles that lead to its development.
You can't effectively legislate morality; it must come from within.
Look at his 2008 Campaign Manager:
"Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured
At CNN's Tea Party-indulging debate on Monday, Ron Paul, a medical doctor, faced a pointed line of questioning from Wolf Blitzer regarding the case of an uninsured young man who suddenly found himself in dire need of intensive health care.
Should the state pay his bills? Paul responded, "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—"
He never quite finished that point, letting the audience's loud applause finish it for him. So Blitzer pressed on, asking if he meant that "society should just let him die," which earned a chilling round of approving hoots from the crowd. Paul would not concede that much outright, instead responding with a personal anecdote, the upshot being that in such a case, it was up to churches to care for the dying young man. So basically, yeah. He'd let him die.
As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.
http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured
"
This guy died to a treatable illness! I had Pneumonia when I was in high school and almost died from it. The only thing that saved me was the free healthcare from the US military. If I had the Pneumonia today that I had in high school. I would be suffering and slowly suffocating my self to death.
@StaticToybox I hardly think that your "sampling" of libertarians is a true representation and if it is, I apologize in advance for my assumptions. I know there are many greedy people who are attracted to libertarianism because they see a opportunity to take control/advantage: much like communism. I have met many christians who seemingly lack the compassion that most christian sects preach, but that doesn't mean I think that christianity itself is represented by those people. I see many democrats that are lazy and want the government to simply support their laziness, but that doesn't mean that all democrats are lazy. That kind of generalization is what has caused many muslims (and assumed muslims), unjustified suffering because they were bundled in with people who chose to take some pretty extreme actions in the name of a shared religion.
Also, you will see that I stated that I feel that this country is NOT ready for that level of freedom/responsibility.
The country is even less fit for everyone to be ruled by an elite select few.
I have a friend who is a tea party member. Rails against unions. But belonged to one before retirement. Rails against social security. But happily accepts the check every month, because without it and a very small pension as a former school secretary, she and her handicapped husband would have to...well, she doesn't believe in relief or food stamps or anything like that...guess they'd just have to die. Rails against the interstate highway system. But uses it multiple times per week. Rails against any kind of government health care plan. But had a sister who died after a long battle with multiple forms of cancer and wondered why the government didn't do anything about the state of medical care in the U.S. (And as an aside, is a born again Christian who used to believe that everyone in this forum was going to hell).
In other words, she's got a big mouth and doesn't live up to a single principle that she espouses.
I agree our political situation is a sad state of affairs. We are a society that functions to a large extent out of greed, fear and delusion. Just look around it's not hard to see. If the culture and society as a whole functions at such a level, why would one expect those put in office would be any different? A people gets the government it deserves.
All the best,
Todd
This is why we must get into politics and influence a new generation of leaders. Look at me. I was an ex neo-conservative republican who is now an Democratic Socialist. I will never join the Democratic Socialists of America due to the fact that third parties work, so I decided to become an democrat and influence from the ground up. Thanks to my location that I live in a very progressive area. The local Skagit County Democrats endorses Dennis Kucinich and very good supporters of the Socialist Bernie Sanders. This is why I oppose Ron Paul. I like his views on foreign policy, but I really don't like his domestic policy. Capitalism is the worst thing on the planet. Capitalism only brings suffering to the people who can not make it through the system. Right now we are returning to the 1920s where the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer. Do you want a society where altruism reigns or selfishness?
Ron Paul is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Do you really think you want to live an society where they believe Altruism is evil??
I can not live in a society where selfishness reigns. I love those social programs I enjoy. I don't want to see them gone.
We need to get out of capitalism and to something better.
Altruism should come freely from us, not forced out of us by government or politicians.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"
http://www.modernwhig.org/