For Ron Paul, health-care question struck close to home

In the Republican debates the other night, Ron Paul was asked a hypothetical question about a healthy young man who goes without health insurance, but is then struck down by a major illness.

Do we step up and give him the medical treatment that he needs, Paul was asked, or do we just let him die as penalty for not doing the smart and responsible thing? (That second suggestion drew cheering from a small number in the crowd.)

Paul responded by suggesting that we should turn to private charity to handle the problem, which isn’t in the slightest bit feasible.

As it turns out, though, the question struck closer to home than most people realized, as Seth Abramovitch reports for Gawker.

Kent Snyder, 49, served as Paul’s 2008 campaign manager but died of complications from pneumonia two weeks after Paul withdrew from the ‘08 race. As the Wall Street Journal reported in Snyder’s obituary (which happened to be matched with the obituary of Sen. Jesse Helms):

“It was Kent more than anyone else who encouraged and pushed Ron to run for president,” said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul. “Ron would not have run for the presidency if it had not been for Kent. Ron was really hesitant, but Kent drove him forward.”

However, Snyder did not have health insurance. According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own. (Interestingly, Snyder is credited with raising $19.5 million for the Paul campaign in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone, but none of that money was apparently used to buy insurance for campaign staffers.)

Because we treat health care as a de facto right in this country, Snyder did get at least some health care, racking up $400,000 in unpaid medical bills before he died. A fundraising effort after his death — the charity approach advocated by Paul — produced only $35,000 toward paying off those bills.

That’s not an unusual story. I’m aware of at least three similar instances among my extended circle of neighbors and friends, two involving cancer and one involving a major heart attack. In all three cases medical care was provided despite the fact that the victims didn’t have insurance, and in all three cases that treatment has been successful to date.

The patients involved didn’t come close to having the resources to pay off their bills. But somebody paid them. You did, and I did, and we paid Kent Snyder’s bill as well. It’s a convoluted, extremely irrational, unnecessarily expensive and inefficient system, and the only two approaches that show any promise of rationalizing it are the individual mandate or single-payer.

But because that is allegedly “socialism”, many would prefer no solution at all.

– Jay Bookman

785 comments Add your comment

Mick

September 15th, 2011
10:01 am

**But because that is allegedly “socialism”, many would prefer no solution at all.**

Sad but true, the dreaded S word. I don’t think any significant change will happen during my lifetime, so I try to keep in the best health possible and say my prayers…

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:01 am

“Do we step up and give him the medical treatment that he needs, Paul was asked, or do we just let him die as penalty for not doing the smart and responsible thing?”

Jay, this is such a rare occurrence. Please show me how many young healthy Americans fall ill and die because they didn’t have insurance. And be honest, there are all kinds of charitable foundations that assist in these types of matters. You don’t completely change an entire system because of a very few extemeley rare occurrences.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:03 am

“Do we step up and give him the medical treatment that he needs, Paul was asked, or do we just let him die as penalty for not doing the smart and responsible thing?”

I know Democrats have a problem wrapping their head around the “personal responsibility” concept. It’s not the gov’t’s job to pay for them if he CHOSE not to purchase health insurance EVEN THOUGH HE COULD afford it.

FrankLeeDarling

September 15th, 2011
10:03 am

Single payer makes some much sense for so many reasons I really do not understand why we dont have it already

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:04 am

“However, Snyder did not have health insurance. According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own.” – This situation is different than the hypothetical question that was asked the other night, Jay.

1811/0311

September 15th, 2011
10:05 am

Kind of like when a motorcycle rider refuses to wear a helmet.

We pay for that too.

Mick

September 15th, 2011
10:05 am

Thanks to obama care, a pre-existing condition cannot be used against you. Now, as to the price of your health insureance???

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:06 am

“Kind of like when a motorcycle rider refuses to wear a helmet.

We pay for that too.”

We, as taxpayers, should not have to pay for his stupidity.

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:06 am

Scout: Kind of like when a motorcycle rider refuses to wear a helmet.

We pay for that too.

What, for the ambulance ride to the morgue?

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:06 am

I will say the pre-existing conditions that prevent people from any kind of affordable health insurance is a CROCK!!!!!!! There must be something that can be done about this. I’m saying don’t revamp the whole system, I’m fine with my health care but something needs to be done about pre-existing conditions.

Mick

September 15th, 2011
10:07 am

**Kind of like when a motorcycle rider refuses to wear a helmet.**

Hopefully, they are organ donors. No helmets in florida, lots of young bikers…

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:07 am

If anyone would just ask me, I have a good solution: government owned neighborhood health clinics — all services free to patient, paid for by government.

These clinics could cover the basics: flu, colds, chronic conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, even x-rays and treatement for small accidents, etc.

Either at no-pay, or low co-pay, even if you have insurance.

That alone would cut health care costs. The government could negotiate prices with drug companies, equipment companies, medical supply companies, like they do for Medicare/Medicaid. You’d get people out of ERs which is a huge cost to taxpayers.

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:07 am

con ideology killed him.

Let the die, the cons chant.

Jay

September 15th, 2011
10:08 am

Woodstock, they are NOT extremely rare.

As I noted, I’m aware of three cases in just the last year in my extended social circle, and there are probably many more that those involved have simply kept quiet.

According to the Census Bureau report released this week, 49.9 million Americans were uninsured in 2010. Do you think those 49.9 million people don’t get sick or injured?

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:08 am

“there are all kinds of charitable foundations that assist in these types of matters”

They can’t keep up with demand.

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:08 am

Oops let them die.

gop campaign slogan.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:10 am

getalife,

You think we should pay for someone else’s irresponsibility?

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:10 am

“There must be something that can be done about this.”

There is Mike, I believe you refer to it as Obamacare.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:10 am

“all services free to patient, paid for by government.”

You mean paid by the American taxpayer. And Bosch, they have these now, go to Walgreens, they can help with the things you mentioned and are very cheap.

This mentality everyone has of free health care just isn’t realistic. What’s the difference between raising taxes so we can pay for a “free healthcare system” or just paying for it when you go to the doctor? You are paying it one way or the other.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:11 am

“According to the Census Bureau report released this week, 49.9 million Americans were uninsured in 2010.”

Is it their choice or are they just not able to get b/c they can’t afford it or pre-existing conditions? 2 different situations, Jay.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:12 am

“There is Mike, I believe you refer to it as Obamacare.”

LOL!! I knew that was coming Bosch! Problem is like I mentioned, Obamacare has to be funded somehow, I assume by tax dollars, so what’s the difference to me? I’m still paying for healthcare.

ty webb

September 15th, 2011
10:12 am

“If anyone would just ask me, I have a good solution: government owned neighborhood health clinics — all services free to patient, paid for by government.”

Good idea…as long as the neighborhood pays for it through higher taxes, but then again, that would kinda blow a hole in the “free to patient” thingy…unless of course, you think “government” is not taxpayer funded.

1811/0311

September 15th, 2011
10:12 am

Adam:

No ………….. for the months in intensive care.

Doggone/GA

September 15th, 2011
10:12 am

“There must be something that can be done about this”

There is, and Jay already mentioned 2 ways: individual mandate or single payer

1811/0311

September 15th, 2011
10:12 am

Adam:

No ………….. for the months in intensive care.

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:12 am

Bottom line is this: If someone decides not to have health insurance, there are those who would deny health CARE because of it. Despite the ability to pay the bill or not, by the person in question or by family members or a fund raising effort. In reality, we DO NOT let people die simply because they do not have insurance, and we ALSO don’t let people die just because they can’t pay.

People who get shot and die, well if they make it to the hospital then costs are applied to trying to save their lives. There are those who would say that person should simply be left in the street.

The person who has a sudden rapid disease, who doesn’t have insurance, and dies from it. He had the ability to get insurance, but didn’t. Should the medical community, upon discovering this fact, no longer pay for anything, INCLUDING his trip to a charity that is 100 miles away because charities are NOT nearby in every area? Should the medical community ignore the incident until someone else dies from the same disease?

Should the medical community turn away someone SIMPLY for not having insurance, and having NO WAY of knowing one way or another. Example: John Doe in a coma. No one claims him. After 5 years and medical treatment he wakes up and it is discovered he is wealthy and had insurance but his policy expired because he stopped paying them years ago (because of being in a coma). OR, let’s just say the insurance DOES pay after all, in the end. Skip the nonsense. Should the medical community, not knowing his insurance status at the time, have refused to help him or turn him over to charity?

Paul

September 15th, 2011
10:13 am

The follow-on questions for the next debate just keep on coming.

That would be an extremely tough question. But this is hardball politics and a time to lay out for the American voters the real issues behind the sound bites offered by the candidates.

So it should be asked.

But before that happens, maybe some of the “Repeal Obamacare and protect us from socialized medicine” crowd will answer the question Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann ducked?

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:13 am

“You mean paid by the American taxpayer”

Yeap, exactly.

“they have these now, go to Walgreens, they can help with the things you mentioned and are very cheap”

Walgreens is a private company and the don’t provide basic medical services.

I’m talking about government owned and operated health clinics — it’s not free, it’s government owned and operated, meaning taxpayers pay for it.

md

September 15th, 2011
10:14 am

Missed putting this downstairs, so I’m off topic here……..but folks need to understand how stupid the misfits can be:

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/120_177/muni-reaction-obama-jobs-bill-1031028-1.html

In a nutshell, muni-bonds are the main source of income for local/state communities to fund projects such as schools, roads, etc……….bonds are usually low yield, but fairly safe……the key is they are tax free………..what do you folks suppose is going to happen when they are taxed?

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 15th, 2011
10:14 am

There’s your bumper sticker for 2012 – ‘Let them die’. I think a former Florida Congressman lost his re-election bid because he said this very thing on the floor of the House two years ago. People said he was nuts and over reacting. Guess not. Mr. Grayson was right.

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

Pea,

I think we should join the rest of the civilized world and offer health care for the people instead of wasting trillions on bail out for the banks or needless wars like Iraq.

American exceptionalism for real.

Granny Godzilla

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

sad about Mr. Snyder

It’s way past time for medicare for all.

USMC

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

While I disagree with Jay’s usual “Socialist” slant on a solution to our country’s Healthcare dilemma, I do recognize that there is much work to be done to update, streamline, and restructure many facets of the healthcare industry.

But I would add that many of the people whining about healthcare are not merely shutout of the system as they cry.
They simply don’t make paying for healthcare a priority. But these same people will surly WASTE hundreds or thousands of dollars per month on an auto lease or car payment or overpriced clothes/sneakers or they “dine out” more than they should, or go clubbing, etc.

FrankLeeDarling

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

I pay for the stupidity of wall street everyday why not someone who really needs it

It is not always about personal responseablity some people find that they cannot pay the 1000$
Deductible on the cheap plan their minimum wage job offers.

jt

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

,” extremely irrational, unnecessarily expensive and inefficient system, and the only two approaches that show any promise of rationalizing it are the individual mandate or single-payer.”

A Centralized plan economy gives us …………our present economy.
.
Ditto with our health-care.
.
A progressive can ignore reality…………..a progressive can never ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
.
Get the government out of the medical field………………………………….entirely.THAT is the only solution.
.
And with Ron Paul, we’ll get it.
.
Liberty is on the march…………….woe is those that will stand in the way.
.
(just a snark by).

1811/0311

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

“According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own.”

Hummmmm ………………………. having a B.B.A. in Accounting and before I would agree or disagree with this I would want to know what kind of car he drove, house owned or rented, lifestyle expenses, etc., etc.

It ususally just a matter of priorities and most people make the CHOICE to gamble “present goodies” vs. “future problems”.

ty webb

September 15th, 2011
10:15 am

“con ideology killed him.”

actually it was pneumonia… I’m not sure how peumonia votes though, so you may have a point.

Doggone/GA

September 15th, 2011
10:16 am

“so what’s the difference to me? I’m still paying for healthcare.”

That’s right, you are. And you pay whatever the hospitals say you have to pay, because they inflate their prices to cover those without insurance. If EVERYONE had insurance, then that give the insurance providers huge clout in negotiating prices down.

Paul

September 15th, 2011
10:16 am

“However, Snyder did not have health insurance. According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own.” – This situation is different than the hypothetical question that was asked the other night, Jay”

That’s correct, Peadawg.

And as was noted on the prior thread, it is a problem addressed by Obamacare.

Are you in favor of repealing that fix?

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:16 am

I am happy my group of doctors are not cons that would let me die.

JOE C00L

September 15th, 2011
10:16 am

So Pea and Woodstock say let em die, what other cons on here 2nd that?

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:17 am

USMC: They simply don’t make paying for healthcare a priority. But these same people will surly WASTE hundreds or thousands of dollars per month on an auto lease or car payment or overpriced clothes/sneakers or they “dine out” more than they should, or go clubbing, etc.

I’m just SURE you have statistics to back that up.

You know, if someone did this in a civilized European country, they’d be called… wait for it…. tax evaders!

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:18 am

“I think we should join the rest of the civilized world and offer health care for the people instead of wasting trillions on bail out for the banks or needless wars like Iraq.”

That would actually be fine with me. Don’t forget bringing out troops home from countries like Germany where we shouldn’t be. Also, foreign aide needs to stop until we can take care of our own. But my question is what do we do w/ the idiots who just plain choose not to purchase insurance for whatever reason?

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:18 am

ty,

Pneumonia is easily curable for a man that age.

You got your wish to let him die.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:18 am

“I’m talking about government owned and operated health clinics — it’s not free, it’s government owned and operated, meaning taxpayers pay for it.”

Here’s what you don’t get. Now, when you have a basic medical need as you say, like a cold, you know if you go to the doctor it’s going to cost you a few bucks. So, some people would rather try some cough medicine and push through it. When we have a government owned clinic I can’t imagine how many people will be going to the doctor!! For any little thing just go to the doctor it’s free so why not? These places would be awful!!! They will go bankrupt having to treat so many people for meaningless things.

I like the idea of a government funded medical facility that “only” treats Americans with pre-existing conditions that are unable to get reasonably price private health insurance. These government ran health clinics you speak of would be disgusting.

Paul

September 15th, 2011
10:18 am

Peadawg

“We, as taxpayers, should not have to pay for his stupidity.”

Are you ever going to come right out and say “Let them die”?

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:18 am

USMC,

“But these same people will surly WASTE hundreds or thousands of dollars per month on an auto lease or car payment or overpriced clothes/sneakers or they “dine out” more than they should, or go clubbing, etc”

So let’s say that magically, everyone becomes responsible and instead of buying all those luxury items like eating out and going clubbing, etc. they spend the money to buy health insurance.

What happens to those businesses who lose that money? They close, leaving many employees without jobs, and not paying taxes.

It really is a messed up system when you have to make choices like that, and that one industry that every human being within that system will eventually use becomes the one that costs the most.

md

September 15th, 2011
10:19 am

Now on topic………..I do find it interesting how so many are opposed to single payer yet have no problem with their medicare…………..

Set it up through payroll deductions and go from there…………..

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:19 am

Scout: Hummmmm ………………………. having a B.B.A. in Accounting and before I would agree or disagree with this I would want to know what kind of car he drove, house owned or rented, lifestyle expenses, etc., etc.

Lifestyle envy

Jay

September 15th, 2011
10:19 am

So what’s your proposal, Peadawg?

Uninsured guy comes into the ER on a stretcher. They do a credit check on him: Over 650 rating, so he probably could have afforded it, so put him in a corner and let him die?

Conversely, he was driving an ‘89 Chevy in the accident, so he probably couldn’t have afforded it, so treat him?

You come in here acting all hard-headed and hard-hearted, as if it were a simple thing. So I ask again, and let’s use YOUR example. An uninsured 25-year-old who could have afforded it comes into the hospital needing life-saving, expensive care:

Do you let him die? Yes or no.

Gale

September 15th, 2011
10:19 am

Bosch @10:07 – I agree with neighborhood clinics completely. It would be a much less expensive undertaking in the long run than processing any and all through the local ER.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:19 am

“So Pea and Woodstock say let em die”

Nobody said anythng like that you idiot. And with our current system do we just let em die as you say? Wake up you moron.

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 15th, 2011
10:20 am

People don’t seem to understand ‘Pre-existing conditions’ from the context of getting insurance. If you have one then you CANNOT get the insurance. It’s not like you just pay a lot more, the insurance companies won’t even sell you a policy – ANY POLICY.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:20 am

Peadawg: But my question is what do we do w/ the idiots who just plain choose not to purchase insurance for whatever reason?

Well, you could always use the originally Republican idea of FORCING them to buy it.

Paul

September 15th, 2011
10:20 am

Woodstock

“I’m saying don’t revamp the whole system, I’m fine with my health care but something needs to be done about pre-existing conditions.”

Something was done about it. It’s called Obamacare.

If you vote Republican, they’ll rescind it.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:20 am

“It would be a much less expensive undertaking in the long run than processing any and all through the local ER.”

Haven’t you heard of a Well Star clinic?? There is one is every town. Try it out.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:21 am

“Are you in favor of repealing that fix?” – Not at all. Most of that law is good. My gripe is the federal mandate.

“So Pea and Woodstock say let em die, what other cons on here 2nd that?”
1. I’m not a “con”
2. Which situation are you talking about? The one where he chose to not purchase insurance or the one where he couldn’t b/c of pre-existing conditions? I think everyone’s getting mixed up here.

USMC

September 15th, 2011
10:21 am

“I’m just SURE you have statistics to back that up”–ADAM

I am not going to play childish games with you Adam; I’ll just use JAY’s example:

“That’s not an unusual story. I’m aware of at least three similar instances among my extended circle of neighbors and friends, two involving cancer and one involving a major heart attack. In all three cases medical care was provided despite the fact that the victims didn’t have insurance, and in all three cases that treatment has been successful to date.”

You know people and I know people that don’t prioritize healthcare until it’s too late.

(ir)Rational

September 15th, 2011
10:21 am

And some people decide that they should do the responsible thing and pay for their private health insurance as a priority over their cable bill, cell phone, internet, new clothes, a new car or whatever else. Just because I don’t have health insurance (I actually do) doesn’t mean I can’t afford it. A lot of times, it means I don’t want to afford it, or think I can’t because I have other “priorities.” Just a thought.

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:22 am

WOODSTOCK MIKE: Nobody said anythng like that you idiot.

Wolf: “Are you saying that society should let him die?”
Audience member (loudly): YEAAAAAAH!

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:22 am

“Something was done about it. It’s called Obamacare.”

Wish it was that simple Paul. Obamacare is an unsustainable program that won’t work in America. I couldn’t imagine having the government completely run health care. What a mess that will be. Take a look at how a typical government agency operates and tell me you want that to be your healthcare.

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:22 am

“choose not to purchase insurance for whatever reason?”

Because they can’t afford it after w lost millions of jobs?

Those people?

1811/0311

September 15th, 2011
10:22 am

Adam:

…………… or choice stupidity ?

ty webb

September 15th, 2011
10:23 am

There’s a difference between “letting him die” and the federal government(taxpayers) not paying for his healthcare.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:23 am

“Well, you could always use the originally Republican idea of FORCING them to buy it.” – Let’s force people to buy houses to help the housing market. Let’s force people to buy cars to help the auto industry. :roll:

jm

September 15th, 2011
10:23 am

“In this universe, our hypothetical young man receives at least emergency care because hospitals are required to treat the urgently ill without regard for their ability to pay, thanks to a bill signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. But the costs of his treatment are not absorbed by the hospitals. They are passed on to consumers, employers, and the government in the form of higher insurance premiums. ”

http://www.slate.com/id/2303760/

Thanks Reagan (sarcasm)

Aquagirl

September 15th, 2011
10:23 am

I’m just SURE you have statistics to back that up.

Hey, Neal Boortz said so…..isn’t that good enough?

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:23 am

“Wolf: “Are you saying that society should let him die?”
Audience member (loudly): YEAAAAAAH!”

He told me I said that, which I did not. Nobody should be left to die. And anyone making the claim that this is the way it happens now is lying or ignorant. People will die and there will be sad stories regardless of Obamacare.

1811/0311

September 15th, 2011
10:23 am

This can go on all day …………………. next thread please.

fyi2day

September 15th, 2011
10:24 am

Jay, you did nothing to address and support your assertion quoted below. Why?

“Paul responded by suggesting that we should turn to private charity to handle the problem, which isn’t in the slightest bit feasible.”

I am glad you are not attributing the “let’em die” quote to Paul as many others are in the media are. If you will pardon the pun, Paul is “dead” right on this. I will try and expand for you if I can on what many people believe who support Paul.

I am sure we all hope and agree, that those shouting from the audience, “whose affiliations we can not know,” do not themselves find a need for the kind of help and compassion someday our hypothetical 30 year old needs.

This issue is not complicated it has only been made so by special interest. And yes, government bureaucracies are special interests too! Their job is to sustain or grow themselves and maintain their own jobs.

Rhetoric aside, we all know the hypothetical man here will get treatment if for no other reason than the compassion of our great doctors and their own Hippocratic Oath. That has always been the way in America. Americans are a compassionate people already.

Now the question defining how these costs should be paid for?
Re-empowering our religious and other private charities through tax incentives provided to their donors is the simple answer. It is a free market approach that creates all the benefits of free market checks and balances. You create accountability here where there is little in government bureaucracy, especially one as large as to deal with this challenge nation wide. Charities get donors by doing good work and good work attracts “tax incented” donors to give support. As a culture we need to get back to looking to ourselves and our neighbors rather than putting faith in a far off federal government to handle challenges that are literally right in front of us locally.

Localization should be reflected in the urging of our States to take back jurisdiction on issues that can be dealt with creatively at the state level. Empowering all 50 states & 1000’s of communities nationwide to solve these important issues we will create innovation that would be sought modified and perfected throughout the nation just as is done in any true free market. The benefits are undeniable and give us all the greatest opportunity to participate in real compassion in our country.

Today a group of people lifted a burning car from a man and saved his life. People saw the need banded together and helped their neighbor the concept is the same. Where would that man be if they all just waited for the government to solve that? How successful would they have been and in the end what would it have cost?
Those people created direct action to a problem in front of them in their community. They created a positive and successful outcome and it cost only the compassion in there hearts to do it. I’ll bet it made them feel good too!!!

We can do this America! He may not be slick, but he is correct about many of these things and seldom gets his full message out through the corrupt media. Do not let the media machine be judge and jury on Ron Paul. Take back your liberty and your country.

Here is an article on media consolidation from 2004 by Ted Turner –
My Beef With Big Media http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
I do not support all Turner’s politics but, commend him as a great American entrepreneur in writing this article after selling to Time Warner.
The MSM achieved power by successfully lobbing for changes allowing mass consolidation. Ron Paul threatens this. Other candidates and the president supported this consolidation and are beholden to one corporation or the other. Therefore, you will most likely never hear ideas like this discussed in open debate. “Now more than ever liberty needs advocates.” With the American free press, an essential part of a successful democracy, all but dead, we must all be vigilant now.

Do the American people really care if Goldman Sachs let’s General Electric (Obama/Biden) or Halliburton (Bush/Cheney “insert Perry or Romney here”) run the place this time? I guess that’s yet to be seen. But, I can tell you many of us traditionally Non-politicals are fed up with losing the essence of our great country to communists and carpetbaggers alike.
Ron Paul is offering an alternative to the corporatist model that Eisenhower warned of, and has all but taken over already. A vanished free press has left us with the left and right media outlets complicit in keeping Paul’s message from a waiting public.
If not Ron Paul we will surely end up with Clint Webb as president. So you must continue spread the word, educate your busy family, friends, and neighbors to spend an “honest hour” looking at Paul and convey the importance of Ron Paul getting that republican slot. Switch parties if you have to…

“First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-Gandhi-
They are beginning to fight… Make no mistake this is a fight for your very freedom and the fate of American liberty.
The Government has too much, does too much, and in our high tech world now, knows far too much about the lives of private citizens and we are paying for it all…
This can not stand it is not necessary and the temptation for corruption is far too great.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Ben Franklin –
Peace!

Gloria

September 15th, 2011
10:24 am

I’m thankful that Obamacare is phasing out the pre-existing clause.

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:24 am

“Most of that law is good. My gripe is the federal mandate”

How do you think that thing about insurance companies not being able to deny over pre-existing conditions gets paid for?

For someone who is harping on personal responsibility, you sure don’t get that is EXACTLY what the federal mandate creates — it requires everybody to be personally responsible.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:25 am

“choose not to purchase insurance for whatever reason?”

Because they can’t afford it after w lost millions of jobs?

Those people?”

No, getalife, those are 2 different examples again. CHOOSING not to even though you can and NOT BEING ABLE TO are two different things.

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:25 am

Let them die too rough for you scout?

Paul

September 15th, 2011
10:25 am

Scout

““According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own.”

Hummmmm ………………………. having a B.B.A. in Accounting and before I would agree or disagree with this I would want to know what kind of car he drove, house owned or rented, lifestyle expenses, etc., etc.

It ususally just a matter of priorities and most people make the CHOICE to gamble “present goodies” vs. “future problems”.”

It’s irrelevant.

My father could not get health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Cost was not the issue. The car he drove or trips he took were not the issue. Insurance companies refused to write him a policy. For any amount of money.

Generation$crewed

September 15th, 2011
10:25 am

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:18 am

“It really is a messed up system when you have to make choices like that, and that one industry that every human being within that system will eventually use becomes the one that costs the most.”

Seems like an example of supply and demand.

The world ain’t perfect and it ain’t fair.

People without insurance should have insurance or a way to recieve medical attention at a minimal cost.

But how is it fair to ask another person to pay for it?

jm

September 15th, 2011
10:25 am

Jay, you download that NBER study on healthcare inflation and wages?

TaxPayer

September 15th, 2011
10:26 am

The expected Republican response — “Let them die. That way, there will be more cake for the rest of us.”

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:26 am

USMC: You know people and I know people that don’t prioritize healthcare until it’s too late.

If only it were that simple.

Let’s say you purchase health care instead of having a car note. Now you have no car. That job you had that required a car to get to? You had to quit and take something else. Were you lucky enough to get something better? Probably not. Do you now have a better life? no.

Let’s say you prioritize it over “going out” to the clubs once a week. You spend maybe $20-30 every week on the clubs, but your premium is $200-300. You have not saved money.

Or, let’s say you just drop ALL activity in the world and just stay at home, watching Fox all day, and pay your medical insurance premiums.

The list goes on and on. You people really act like everything in the world is all about MONEY. It isn’t. It’s like quality of life shouldn’t exist except for in YOUR life.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:26 am

” it requires everybody to be personally responsible.”

If it’s a requirement/mandate, then it takes the “personal” part of “personal responsibility” now doesn’t it? :roll:

getalife

September 15th, 2011
10:26 am

Pea,

You meant this man’s needless death.

You wanted to let him die so be happy con.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:26 am

“I’m thankful that Obamacare is phasing out the pre-existing clause.” – As are many many people. Me included.

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 15th, 2011
10:27 am

I for one would prefer a government run healthcare system to the current one we have where NOT giving treatment is the priority so the healthcare insurance company can make a profit.

When you put profit ahead of patient care you have a losing system from the viewpoint of the patient. The goal of the government healthcare system should be to be at a break even level. It won’t always work out that way but by having a large group of insurees (around 300 million) we should be able to get some really low rates and work keep it closer to a balanced system.

stands for decibels

September 15th, 2011
10:27 am

anyone mention bankruptcy yet? just to get that ball rolling–

http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats.htm

Half have experienced a serious health problem

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:28 am

Gale,

Yeah, I think so too. I was going over some of my dad’s medical bills the other day for a Dr. visit he had recently. And the amount of paperwork alone was shocking, not only that but duplicated by Medicare and his Insurance company and I thought, that is just for ONE person, why does it take so much paperwork (which somebody has to do) for one medical transaction. It was a freaking check up — nothing more, it’s crazy.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:28 am

“You meant this man’s needless death.” – I agree it’s needless. If the man was able to purchase health insurance but chose not to b/c he’s a idiot, pure and simple, that’s not my problem.

Again, I still don’t think you understand the difference in the 2 situations.

Joe the Plutocrat

September 15th, 2011
10:28 am

JB, I don’t know that your screed reveals anything new. Ron Paul simply does not believe the state/government should “play god” or make decisions best left to individuals. I don’t want to open Roe v Wade’s box; but the mantra of the left (and I agree) is; “my body, my choice”. are we to accept a double standard in allowing the government to make healthcare choice if they do not concern a woman’s uterus? I can’t speak for Paul, but I suspect, as an MD, he knows people die every day. this fact is what fuels the “for profit” medical-insurance complex. the federal government cannot even provide “healtcare” to veterans. you know, the left should embrace Paul, as his views on foreign policy/endless imperialist wars is consistent; namely that the USA (as an individual resident of the world) should not worry about insuring (or ensuring) the lives of its fellow citizens. we need to fix the system, not trade in silly hypoythetical “what if” scenarios. people who get pneumonia sometimes die. all the Obamacare in the world will not stop this. 30 year-old’s in a coma sometimes die (and if a 30 year-old is in a coma, he is anything by “healthy”). as I said, the status quo is a for profit oligarchy, just like banking, defense, energy, etc.; and I salute Paul as he is the only person in the room who refuse to kick the can down the street. he’s not perfect, and I suspect there are chinks in his armor, but “the crazy uncle” is not one of them.

jm

September 15th, 2011
10:28 am

Go back to charity hospitals and repeal Reagan’s bill.

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:28 am

Peadawg: Let’s force people to buy houses to help the housing market. Let’s force people to buy cars to help the auto industry.

Slippery slope arguments won’t help you here.

stands for decibels

September 15th, 2011
10:28 am

next thread please.

why? this make your butt look big?

JOE C00L

September 15th, 2011
10:29 am

WOODSTOCK MIKE

September 15th, 2011
10:19 am

Calm DOWN MIKE RUSS!!! :-)

Bosch

September 15th, 2011
10:29 am

“If it’s a requirement/mandate, then it takes the “personal” part of “personal responsibility” now doesn’t it?”

No, Pea, not at all, it requires everyone to pay into the system, and not just the responsible one, but everyone.

Soothsayer

September 15th, 2011
10:29 am

“[S]omebody paid them. You did, and I did, and we paid Kent Snyder’s bill as well. It’s a convoluted, extremely irrational, unnecessarily expensive and inefficient system, and the only two approaches that show any promise of rationalizing it are the individual mandate or single-payer.”

Not to mention the millions of others without insurance. That’s why the cost of health insurance has more than doubled over the past 10 years. And, unfortunately, why I can’t afford it any more. It’s a vicious cycle.

Generation$crewed

September 15th, 2011
10:29 am

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 15th, 2011
10:29 am

I’ve got another comment to leave. I have friends in England where they have the mix of government and private insurance available. One of them runs a small business and he is able to have this small business because of the government healthcare system. If he tried to open this same business here in the U.S. he wouldn’t be able to because of the cost.

So, for those of you who call for the government to get off the backs of small business because we all know that they are the engine of the economy and will bring us out of this recession here is one BIG way to do just that.

Adam

September 15th, 2011
10:30 am

Peadawg: CHOOSING not to even though you can and NOT BEING ABLE TO are two different things.

So how would you legislate determining who can pay and who can’t when they are brought in under circumstances where they are unable to communicate it?

(ir)Rational

September 15th, 2011
10:30 am

I hate that just because I’m against more federal intrusion into my life, more regulations regarding what I can or can’t do, or products I have to purchase now, as opposed to before when it was my choice to purchase them, ect., I’m automatically characterized as the type of person that would rather see someone left to die in the street or a corner instead of helping them. Maybe, just maybe the answer isn’t always (and I would think almost never is) government. I’m not going to pretend I have the answers for this, but I am going to continue saying that government isn’t the answer to this problem.

jm

September 15th, 2011
10:30 am

Liberals behave like liberals enough.

When conservatives behave like liberals, we’re all really toast.

Peadawg

September 15th, 2011
10:30 am

“Slippery slope arguments won’t help you here.” – Expect a lot more slippery slope arguments if this mandate is declared constitutional.

stands for decibels

September 15th, 2011
10:30 am

“I’m thankful that Obamacare is phasing out the pre-existing clause.” – As are many many people. Me included.

Filing this one in the “I’m not a man-hating feminist, I just believe in equal pay for equal work!” bin.