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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.