Republicans Applauding Executions

[jsteele]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

jsteele wrote:So, in tonight's debate, the Tea Party audience cheered the idea of allowing a comatose 30-year-old die because he lacked health insurance. That was even too much for Ron Paul. The Republicans sure do like the idea of death.

I predict that the next debate will feature the audience doing the wave after a candidate proposes nuking Iran off the face of the earth.

That wouldn't be newsworthy - TP types have always cheered the slaughter of fureners.

I tried to find a clip of the moment...about how far in was it?

Here it is:

[Anonymous]

Hell, they were also applauding the death of some hypothetical 30 year old uninsured person. Not surprising in the least. These folks are essentially pure Id.

[Anonymous]

beat me to it.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Actually, I didn't find that nearly as troubling. It's simple-minded, enthusiastically supporting the ultimate punishment for foolishness, but that's typical Rep thinking of the "Just Say No" variety. (I would have preferred if the question had posed an 18-year-old, to highlight the Reps' punitive approach, or better yet, a 3-year-old with a foolish parent, or simply an infant dumb enough to be born to poor parents, all of whom would die under libertarian and TP unplans.)

I'm more struck by Paul punking out of dealing with the logical consequences of his proposals. I thought he was more ballsy than that.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the issue. IF an adult CHOOSES not to have health insurance, then he has no coverage. How is this controversial?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue. IF an adult CHOOSES not to have health insurance, then he has no coverage. How is this controversial?

So, you are in the "let him die" camp? The controversy, as TheManWithAUsername says, was highlighted by Paul himself. Human nature being what it is, if there is not a mandate to buy insurance, some folks will not buy it. But, we as a society are not willing to simply stand by and let those folks die. There are a number of alternatives between letting a person die and letting them get free healthcare. Paul himself talked about churches helping out -- coming dangerously close to "chicken care" I thought. But, if we as a society have indeed become the sort of place where we will stand by and allow people to die simply because of a lack of insurance, I guess our society is not what I thought it was.

I have always thought the personal mandate was the Achilles heal of the Obama plan. In the sort of system he proposed, it is necessary and has historically had Republican support. But, it is the easiest component to demagogue. I don't like the idea that we are forced to become customers of UHC and AETNA. That's why I prefer single payer or even a public option. But, Republicans rejected those alternatives, leaving a mandate as the only choice. And, now they are running against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue. IF an adult CHOOSES not to have health insurance, then he has no coverage. How is this controversial?

How about mentally ill individuals? The destitute? Folks who bought health coverage that then turned out to be insufficient? Let 'em die, right?

Oh, wait. Wow! I guess--for the 3,283,223,383,989th time--life isn't as black and white as you first thought. Actually, given that you sound like your average modern Teabagger, I'm sure you still believe that there are no exceptions. Unless it's your turn, in which case all of a sudden things get ambiguous very quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue. IF an adult CHOOSES not to have health insurance, then he has no coverage. How is this controversial?

...says the morally stunted individual.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't think it's all bloodthirst. They see themselves as in a philosophical war with death penalty opponents, and they're psyched up to applaud a "win" for their side, without taking the time to consider that it's not that simple a question.

It's like when a Democratic governor brags about the number of abortions in his state, and everyone cheers.

Wait - what was I saying again?

Which Democratic governor made this boast? All pertinent facts, please.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't think it's all bloodthirst. They see themselves as in a philosophical war with death penalty opponents, and they're psyched up to applaud a "win" for their side, without taking the time to consider that it's not that simple a question.

It's like when a Democratic governor brags about the number of abortions in his state, and everyone cheers.

Wait - what was I saying again?

Which Democratic governor made this boast? All pertinent facts, please.

Yeah...what I was doing there was...y'know, it's complicated.

No governor has ever done that, AFAIK.

[Anonymous]

the country is overly socialistic. the money has run out. big trouble. end of story.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't think it's all bloodthirst. They see themselves as in a philosophical war with death penalty opponents, and they're psyched up to applaud a "win" for their side, without taking the time to consider that it's not that simple a question.

It's like when a Democratic governor brags about the number of abortions in his state, and everyone cheers.

Wait - what was I saying again?

Which Democratic governor made this boast? All pertinent facts, please.

Yeah...what I was doing there was...y'know, it's complicated.

No governor has ever done that, AFAIK.

Then you should have said, "it would be as if" and no, I don't know.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't think it's all bloodthirst. They see themselves as in a philosophical war with death penalty opponents, and they're psyched up to applaud a "win" for their side, without taking the time to consider that it's not that simple a question.

It's like when a Democratic governor brags about the number of abortions in his state, and everyone cheers.

Wait - what was I saying again?

Which Democratic governor made this boast? All pertinent facts, please.

Yeah...what I was doing there was...y'know, it's complicated.

No governor has ever done that, AFAIK.

Then you should have said, "it would be as if" and no, I don't know.

You must be the most popular guest at all the parties.

[Anonymous]

I think if a person chooses not to have health insurance, then it is up to his community, family and church as to whether or not he is treated. That is the way it has always been. Life is not always fair.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I think if a person chooses not to have health insurance, then it is up to his community, family and church as to whether or not he is treated. That is the way it has always been. Life is not always fair.

Okay, so an uninsured guy gets in a car accident and is brought into the ER unconscious. The ER doctors are supposed to contact his community, family, and church in order to determine whether they should treat him? Or, should it not have even gotten this far because the ambulance drivers should have left him on the side of the road for his community, family, and/or church to transport him to the hospital?