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.

jsteele wrote:

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?

Anonymous wrote:I think the ER has an ethical duty to treat whatever emergencies are brought their way, correct? Now once he is treated, if the idiot chose not to have health insurance then he deserves to go bankrupt afterwards as the hospital seeks to get repaid. Note that in the hypo, it is someone who CHOOSES not to buy health insurance - not someone who lost their insurance after losing a job or someone truly true poor to purchase health insurance. In both instances, I think society should fill in the gaps (which we have through COBRA and through medicaid/medicare).

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the ER has an ethical duty to treat whatever emergencies are brought their way, correct? Now once he is treated, if the idiot chose not to have health insurance then he deserves to go bankrupt afterwards as the hospital seeks to get repaid. Note that in the hypo, it is someone who CHOOSES not to buy health insurance - not someone who lost their insurance after losing a job or someone truly true poor to purchase health insurance. In both instances, I think society should fill in the gaps (which we have through COBRA and through medicaid/medicare).

FYI, Ron Paul has said before that he wants to end Medicaid. His waffling the other night notwithstanding, he's generally hard-core libertarian.

In a libertarian system, I don't think we'd have COBRA, because we would have very little employer-provided coverage b/c we wouldn't have the tax incentive.

Something of a side issue, but what would you do about preexisting conditions and about insurance companies denying coverage? Those issues often keep someone from coverage regardless of how responsible s/he has been.

Similarly, what about a person who contracts a serious illness and has to change insurance carrier (b/c of, say, reaching adulthood or changing jobs due to lay-off)? Even if there's a law requiring insurance companies to accept such a person, the rate would likely be prohibitively high.

Most commonly, what about the children of irresponsible parents? It's the same thing as car and home safety regulations - in the Ayn Rand paradise, I get to choose to my risks, but I also get unfettered choice about the risks taken by my 5-year-old?

Anonymous wrote:also, in watching the clip, it looks like the crowd cheered the idea that people are entitled to take risks and the government should not be counted on to solve all problems, and churches and other private groups should pay medical bills when an improvident individual cannot.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the ER has an ethical duty to treat whatever emergencies are brought their way, correct? Now once he is treated, if the idiot chose not to have health insurance then he deserves to go bankrupt afterwards as the hospital seeks to get repaid. Note that in the hypo, it is someone who CHOOSES not to buy health insurance - not someone who lost their insurance after losing a job or someone truly true poor to purchase health insurance. In both instances, I think society should fill in the gaps (which we have through COBRA and through medicaid/medicare).

FYI, Ron Paul has said before that he wants to end Medicaid. His waffling the other night notwithstanding, he's generally hard-core libertarian.

In a libertarian system, I don't think we'd have COBRA, because we would have very little employer-provided coverage b/c we wouldn't have the tax incentive.

Something of a side issue, but what would you do about preexisting conditions and about insurance companies denying coverage? Those issues often keep someone from coverage regardless of how responsible s/he has been.

Similarly, what about a person who contracts a serious illness and has to change insurance carrier (b/c of, say, reaching adulthood or changing jobs due to lay-off)? Even if there's a law requiring insurance companies to accept such a person, the rate would likely be prohibitively high.

Most commonly, what about the children of irresponsible parents? It's the same thing as car and home safety regulations - in the Ayn Rand paradise, I get to choose to my risks, but I also get unfettered choice about the risks taken by my 5-year-old?

I'm actually for a single payer system, just making the point that I don't see those in the crowd quite as blood-thirsty as the OP. Reason I am for a single payer system (or at least a system where the insurance is with an individual and not tied to your employer) is because I was laid off a few years back and realized how screwed I would have been if me or one of my family members had a serious illness. If that were the case, despite saving, paying taxes, having good education, etc. (doing everything the right way), I would have lost everything through no fault of my own. It did not seem to make sense or be fair to me.

Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.

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.

Aimee4 wrote:I think the applause from the audience about the death penalty, as well as Gov Perry's attitude, stems not from celebrating executions, but celebrating one of very few Governors who's state still actually practice this form of punishment.

Anonymous wrote:

Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.

Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.

jsteele wrote:

Aimee4 wrote:I think the applause from the audience about the death penalty, as well as Gov Perry's attitude, stems not from celebrating executions, but celebrating one of very few Governors who's state still actually practice this form of punishment.

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? What is the real difference between celebrating executions and celebrating the guy who carries out executions? Either way, the audience was applauding the fact that people died. The fact that one of those killed may have been innocent may actually help rather than hurt Perry. Check out this article from Politico:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A1B30E84-4008-465D-AE24-2BED58E229E7

Regarding focus groups conducted by Kay Bailey Hutchison’s gubernatorial campaign agains Perry:

Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man — Cameron Todd Willingham — and got this response from a primary voter: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.”