YEAH!!!! KILL MORE PEOPLE AND THEN LET MORE DIE ON THEIR OWN!!!!! That's the f why we're Republicans. Via TPM.
Well, someone would be paying a hospital bill for a long time. That's the choice he made for not wanting insurance. Why should taxpayers pay for his irresponsible choices? Just like the housing bailouts. Why should we pay for their stupid choices. It's called personal responsible behavior. Just because you don't like the way something works doesn't mean you can act like a child and expect everyone to take care of your butt. It's called priorities. He would probably like not also having to pay for rent, food and college or a cell phone. But, if he makes to much for welfare, he needs to get his priorities straight and have some common sense. Hospitals are a business. The doctors have to adhere to his employers policies to practice. If you don't have insurance, go to the nearest charity hospital. Most of you, like Blitzer, think like stupid little children. Like most liberals you act like there is a money farm growing in Washington. Why don't you people just grow up! What children!!!!
fireinyoureyes, did you also notice that nobody booed the "yeah"? I wouldn't doubt that there were some Tea Party people in the crowd who were actually disgusted by the shouts of approval in this debate and in the last one when the crowd cheered Rick Perry's rising score of executions. However, I also wouldn't doubt that they felt intimidated by their fellow party members. The Tea Party boasts a robust number of loudmouths and bullies, and you and anyone else who might have libertarian leanings and who is looking forward to the Tea Party running this country, better be prepared because that thuggish element in the party will run roughshod over the rest of you. Being a libertarian doesn't necessarily mean that you must be utterly devoid of compassion and concern for the welfare of others in order to be free, but there are a great number of primitive idiots in the Tea Party who think that that is exactly what it means.
The example given - of an otherwise healthy 30-year-old who (it was implied) would rather spend the $300 on goodies than he would on health insurance. I get it that none of the rich geezers on the stage that night thinks that $300 is more than walking-around money, but where I come from, it's a major part of the working person's budget.
And you're damn lucky if they only charge you $300 for your health insurance. My Kid Brother, who is 53 and has three major health issues (hereditary bad ticker, hereditary veinous insufficiency in his legs, and an osteoarthritic knee). I helped him shop for quotes when his wife divorced him and his COBRA coverage ran out; the lowest estimate we got was $1,250/month (ranging all the way up to $1,500/month) *and* they excluded coverage for his three major medical issues. Tell me this: how is a 54-year-old man supposed to pony up a $1,250-$1,500 every month on a carpenter's wages? (And it's not like he lives high off the hog, either.) He's a non-drinker, non-smoker, non-strip-club-going, non-gambler ex-Lutheran.
Thank the Ceiling Cat that our state, Arizona has AHCCCS ('Zona's version of Medicare), or when he went into congestive heart failure in June of 2010, he'd be pushing up daisies now. He ended up having not one, but *two* heart attacks in June, spending the entire month in the hospital. Then in November they called him in for a CT scan and wouldn't let him go home - another major blockage. He ended up having a double bypass and getting a Dick Cheney Whizz-Bang dual-action pacemaker. All on the State of Arizona's dime.
How much better off would we all be if we took the insurance companies out of the pic, thereby saving the money they make on profit, and had "Medicare for All"? Sure, we'd have to pay for it with taxes, but the taxes would be a damn sight lower than the payments to an insurance company, and I don't know about you, but I'd a damn sight rather have a government weenie who gets a flat salary decide which medical treatment I'm getting, than have some insurance company shill whose looking for a fat bonus by denying as many people treatment as possible.
Twisting meaning making something out of the deal that it wasn't. A few jerks yelling does not represent the whole crowd. Also, they were cheering when he said people are responsible for their own choices, which was a bleed in from the let him die crack, which was disingenuously put in play by Wolf Blitzer, a man who proudly hoists his "I Hate Conservatives" flag, and will do anything he can to undermine them.
Can I ask what was Twisted in that headline and I quote
Nevertheless, there were voices who responded to Blitzer's question, "should society let him die?" with hand-clapping, woos, and at least one straight up "yeah!"
I am going to assume that those who were there and yet not up on stage were in the crowd am I correct, and you yourself said that there was "Hand-clapping, woos, and at least 1 straight up 'Yeah!'," you did say that right. So if I may ask were those people NOT attending the TEA PARTY DEBATE? If so, then can I ask you where can you logically claim that this title twisted ANYTHING.
Video- CNN Debate: Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die That's the title, those are the people who were there, and they did cheer AFTER the question was asked should he be allowed to die. That was the question asked and they did cheer it, sounds to me like that is exactly what was shown in the video. So my question is, why lie about it, why not admit yes they did it and stop trying to wet the trees outside the house instead of admitting it's on fire and do what it takes to possibly save it?
This is discusting... Tea partiers at their best... Hypocritical bigots!! No abortion... but lets kill the guy with no insurance!!!
OMG!!! fireinyoueyes... You are sooo lost in your little world of lies... Get real... If you don't want to help people don't become a doctor... Do people become doctors to help the sick or do they become doctors to make a profit???
You're right, the headline is twisting what happened. Nevertheless, there were voices who responded to Blitzer's question, "should society let him die?" with hand-clapping, woos, and at least one straight up "yeah!"
Though not necessarily representative of the crowd's views, that is a heavily biased, probably quite angry, and definitely hateful way to respond to that question.
Watch the tape again before they got to Ron Paul saying ANYTHING when he mentioned that the man MIGHT die the people were cheering. it's the same as when they cheered on Wednesday when it was mention that Rick Perry had killed 234 people. I'm sorry if these heartless cheers worry you, but unfortunately that is who they are DEAL WITH IT, if these are the people you agree with accept what it is they really agree with or else educate yourself and figure out how YOU really feel not how you are told to feel.
Oh wait, you are here to support Ron Paul or the Tea Party TRUTH means nothing to you, bye now I know how to use google and not just some Psuedo Libertarian or Neo Con site for my news and information
Really it was profit? There is no PROFIT in a cure, there is profit in treatment. The GOVERNMENT paid for that research and those cures, you know the difference when the government pays for it even the POOR can afford it and things like SMALL POX are eliminated.
Profit, please those miracle drugs aren't exactly miracles look at the side effects that the GOVERNMENT now forces them to tell you CLEARLY in commercials. How old are you? Sheesh: Side effects equal seizures, blood clots, stomach cramps, DEATH, bruising, internal bleeding, anal leakage, low blood pressure, dimentia, suicidal thoughts, High blood sugar, may make symptoms worse, may cause hair loss, may cause unusual hair growth, may cause sexual side effects, may cause loss of vision, may cause dizziness.
Half those damn miracle drugs you are speaking of have at least 5 or more of those side effects I just listed and MANY of them include DEATH or INTERNAL BLEEDING. By the way VERY FEW PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO GO TO SCHOOL, people have record debt thus they have to go ahead and make deals with the devil.
Shame on who? You tried to "extrapolate" without actually looking up your starting point, where the middle was, or even looking out towards the end. When PROFIT pays for research material instead of continuing to work on a HEART MEDICATION we get a BONER PILL. Yes profit really drives such good research.
Profit is what paid for research and discovery of miracle drugs and the advanced treatment procedures we have. That is pure fact. Without that we'd have lousy health care help, as no one would (or could afford to) go through the lengthy and difficult training it takes to be a physician. What I've noted extrapolates out in nearly uncountable ways, all ways that have allowed America to be the medical saviors of the world. You spend to much time with the indoctrinators on the left, who preach virtual nihilism as a way of life, and demand that the destitute pay for your funeral. Start educating yourself. Shame on you.
That's what you get out of this exchange, that the Tea Party is cheering for an uninsured person to die? That's really twisted. People cheered when Ron Paul said you have to be prepared to take care of yourself, that the hypothetical man made a choice not to prepare for catastrophic medical problems. They DID not cheer for a potential death. You have to be dark and cynical and looking for any possible angle to interpret - willfully misinterpret in my opinion - what this clip was all about. I would say a person would have to be biased and angry, if not flat out hateful. You must not have to defend your point of view against serious challenges very often.
And people wonder why I will NEVER utter the words "Ron Paul is r" because his ideas are repugnant. Accidents happen, 300 bucks a month that's half many peoples rent and in these hard times who can afford an extra 300 dollars a month for something you will get no REFUND for if you don't use it. Insurance is the ultimate ponzi scheme you pay and pay and pay hoping you never need it and they aren't even guaranteed to pay your entire bill. That 30 year old guy could have been paying for said insurance since he was 25, have never used it, given them a free 18,000 and they won't give him a dime back as a matter of fact they will probably have gotten more then 18,000 because they was probably a 4-12% increase each year.
Pure profit if you never get sick, and you have co-pays and yearly as well as lifetime limits on what they will pay. On what THEY will pay, not you as long as they decide to insure you you will have to continue to pay, and if they cancel your policy they won't have to return a dime to you. But yeah the 30 year old hard worker is the one who should give up his safety net not the corporate vampire just getting deeper and deeper pockets.
Health Care, Education, Rehabilitation, and Pharmaceuticals should never be for profit. Too many people rely on them and the profit margin makes for heartless execution of those vital pieces of modern humanity.