Tea Party Cheers For Death of Uninsured Man

[nlsme]

I didn't see where there were cheers for the death of an uninsured man. What I saw was that the guy said that the uninsured man knew the risks of not having health care and it is his right to risk being uninsured.

My understanding of the U.S. is that obtaining health care coverage is the responsibility of the individual. Unless that changes, the rest of U.S. society should not be responsible should that individual chooses to not get or neglects getting health care coverage for himself.

In contrast, in Canada, basic health care coverage is provided by the government. Individuals (that are Canadian citizens) cannot choose to not have basic coverage, or do individuals run the risk of neglecting to get this coverage. Individuals can choose to obtain extended coverage that covers certain things over and above basic coverage.

Home insurance is optional in both Canada and the U.S. If someone chooses not to purchase it and his house burns down along with all of his belongings, the rest of society in Canada or U.S. is not responsible for rebuilding his house and replacing his belongings and money.

This particular debate revolves around whether or not that responsibility for obtaining health insurance should rest with the individual or the government. Do you want the individual to put himself and possibly his family at risk? Do you think that individuals should keep that responsibility or should that responsibility fall upon the government? My impression of the cheers is that those people feel that this individual is given the choice, made a poor choice and the government should not simply compensate people for making a poor choice that resulted in a bad outcome for that individual.

As I said earlier, there really is no risk to being uninsured. If you are uninsured, and you need care, you still receive that care. The only people that are negatively impacted by ones poor decision are the ones that DO pay for care. One should not have the "right" to opt out of their responsability to pay for their care.

 

[Vihzel]

As I said earlier, there really is no risk to being uninsured. If you are uninsured, and you need care, you still receive that care. The only people that are negatively impacted by ones poor decision are the ones that DO pay for care. One should not have the "right" to opt out of their responsability to pay for their care.

I think what the Tea Party wants to do though is prevent you from receiving that care and letting you deal with your poor decision to not get health care and give up your life as a result of it. That way the cost isn't put anywhere else but your funeral.

If you don't have health insurance and get into a car accident and need dire medical attention... then tough luck. Go to a church and they'll help you with their advanced medical equipment and well trained surgeons. (Isn't that what Ron Paul suggested?)

 

[RiverOfIce]

1. Health care should not be considered a right because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights lists people's rights that the government cannot infringe upon, not services or material goods that the government must ensure for the people.

That makes no sense. Under that law, driving a car is impossible, because there is no right that the government can not infringe on, I know, not even a sentence.

If there was a right that said the government can not infringe on free markets, then ok, but that is not in the constitutions.

edit I promised that I would add a quote supporting universal healthcare by a founding father.

First up, my favorite:

With your talents and industry, with science, and that steadfast honesty which eternally pursues right, regardless of consequences, you may promise yourself every thing

 

[Stuntman]

As I said earlier, there really is no risk to being uninsured. If you are uninsured, and you need care, you still receive that care. The only people that are negatively impacted by ones poor decision are the ones that DO pay for care. One should not have the "right" to opt out of their responsability to pay for their care.

Thanks for the info. I went back and read your post. I'm not that familiar with the U.S. health care system.

So, if I understand it, you do get to receive the care, but it causes those with health insurance to end up paying for it indirectly, not to mention possible bankrupcy for the individual requiring the care. Then those who do not have health insurance do not end up paying since they have no premiums.

That seems unusual to me. If no one is denied the care, then it would seem that everyone should pay for it or at least have a mechanism to get as many people paying for it as possible.

 

[nlsme]

I think what the Tea Party wants to do though is prevent you from receiving that care and letting you deal with your poor decision to not get health care and give up your life as a result of it. That way the cost isn't put anywhere else but your funeral.

If you don't have health insurance and get into a car accident and need dire medical attention... then tough luck. Go to a church and they'll help you with their advanced medical equipment and well trained surgeons. (Isn't that what Ron Paul suggested?)

Ron Paul simply said that they need to live with the consequences of their poor decision. He said nothing about changing the law regarding denial of service.I am simply saying, that to the individual, there really is very little risk in not having health insurance, aside from having to file bankruptcy.

 

[Vihzel]

Ron Paul simply said that they need to live with the consequences of their poor decision. He said nothing about changing the law regarding denial of service.I am simply saying, that to the individual, there really is very little risk in not having health insurance, aside from having to file bankruptcy.

I apologize for the confusion. I was talking about the Tea Party's stance and not Ron Saul's stance in the first paragraph. The only thinf about Ron Paul that I mentioned was about him telling people to go to churches.

 

[mike114]

Since having a Police force to protect you from unexpected ills is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

Since having fire protection for your possessions is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.

Since having public schools since you didn't have the foresight to save up for a private one is a right, please cite the portion of the Constitution or quote any of the Founders to back such a claim.



Free preventive health care should be a right. It will reduce costs for everyone. Nip problems in the bud BEFORE they become "emergency room" problems that bankrupt people.

My pleasure, please see the 10th amendment to the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is no national police force or fire dept. They are all handled by the states and local governments. The Board of Ed should be abolished IMO as they have done more harm and wasted so much money.

And so instead of pointing out the specific parts of the Constitution that back your claims, you cite examples of things NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Let's try this again, where in the Constitution do you find the authority for all that you believe?

Also, if you believe healthcare is a right, than you also believe housing, food, jobs, etc should all be rights. Hell, let's not be responsible for anything in our lives...let the government take care of it.

I bet you also like to claim that you believe in freedom and liberty don't you??

 

[BiggestManEver]

Also, if you believe healthcare is a right, than you also believe housing, food, jobs, etc should all be rights. Hell, let's not be responsible for anything in our lives...let the government take care of it.

There's a middle ground there somewhere that you may be missing.

 

[OstrichSaK]

....he needs to stand up for the Democratic principles that he ran on, and that got him elected.

I don't even care that he tows the party line as you stated... for me, I just want to see him keep his word. Example: When he was campaigning he swore that he would (as one of his platforms) make sure that once the Patriot Act sunsetted he would do everything within his power to see that it was killed as it should be. What happened there? Politicians say one thing then do another so who can you trust? That's why I like Ron Paul regardless of what the media tries to paint him as. He's always made his thoughts crystal clear and then stood behind those thoughts when it came time to vote and act at the capacity given to him. If that isn't refreshing in D.C. then I don't know what is.

This whole Republican v Democrat debate is killing this nation.

 

[mike114]

There's a middle ground there somewhere that you may be missing.

With all due respect, I'm not missing anything. I'm following the Constitution. Although your intentions may be admirable, they are not supported by the Constitution. All these issues you mention were meant to be handled at the state level.

Unfortunately all these good intentions have had very negative consequences.

 

[Sue7M3]

I didn't see where there were cheers for the death of an uninsured man. What I saw was that the guy said that the uninsured man knew the risks of not having health care and it is his right to risk being uninsured.

And that is not true. No one chooses to be uninsured. The vast majority are uninsured because they CAN NOT afford it. More and more companies are refusing to offer health care plans or contribute to them. More and more companies are refusing to hire FT employees so they don't have to offer such benefits. The greed of the insurance companies and pharma companies is leaving more and more people out in the cold. That's where the problem is-the insurance companies and big pharma don't give a damn about helping people, and it's disgusting that they and not a person's doctor has the final word about what treatments they will be able to receive.

So what is someone supposed to do when they are told they have cancer and have no insurance? They work hard everyday but their company refuses to offer health insurance or they simply can't afford the premiums. They make too much to qualify for Medicaid. Should that person be allowed to die? That is the question.

 

[BiggestManEver]

With all due respect, I'm not missing anything. I'm following the Constitution. Although your intentions may be admirable, they are not supported by the Constitution. All these issues you mention were meant to be handled at the state level.

Unfortunately all these good intentions have had very negative consequences.

So, you'd rather foot the bill through higher insurance premiums for all the people without coverage getting treated?

If free preventive care is provided, less people will have to go in for worse (i.e., expensive) procedures which I will end up paying for.

 

[OstrichSaK]

And that is not true. No one chooses to be uninsured. The vast majority are uninsured because they CAN NOT afford it. More and more companies are refusing to offer health care plans or contribute to them. More and more companies are refusing to hire FT employees so they don't have to offer such benefits. The greed of the insurance companies and pharma companies is leaving more and more people out in the cold. That's where the problem is-the insurance companies and big pharma don't give a damn about helping people, and it's disgusting that they and not a person's doctor has the final word about what treatments they will be able to receive.

So what is someone supposed to do when they are told they have cancer and have no insurance? They work hard everyday but their company refuses to offer health insurance or they simply can't afford the premiums. They make too much to qualify for Medicaid. Should that person be allowed to die? That is the question.

You know, there are options other than insurance or death, right? To read your posts one could assume you genuinely believe that those are the only two options available. Based on that I would agree that everyone on the face of the earth should be insured. I know better though and therefore don't think health insurance is the savior to us all.

 

[Sue7M3]

So, you'd rather foot the bill through higher insurance premiums for all the people without coverage getting treated?

If free preventive care is provided, less people will have to go in for worse (i.e., expensive) procedures which I will end up paying for.

I'm one of the uninsured. We lost our insurance when my husband was laid off in 2009. He hasn't been able to find a job that offers it since and it's just too expensive to get on our own.

I would love to have insurance. Then I would no longer have to be so terrified of getting sick.

I believe everyone deserves healthcare whether they can pay or not. No one in this country deserves to go without treatment when they are sick or food when they are hungry, and health care costs would go DOWN if people could get preventative care regardless of their bank account balance.

 

[Steven58]

This wouldn't even be a discussion if the economy was in better shape. *sigh*

 

[OstrichSaK]

I would love to have insurance. Then I would no longer have to be so terrified of getting sick.

That's the problem with the way people think today. You assume that if you have insurance you don't have to worry about getting sick. Insurance does not equal carefree of sickness or injury. My own mother lost everything because she got cancer. I've seen it first hand and the problem isn't lack of insurance it's health care costs. It amazes me how many people think that if they just have health insurance than everything will be alright. Nothing to worry about. That's what the insurance companies want you to think but they have entire departments who's only job is to make sure they don't pay when you get sick. Yet somehow through clever marketing they fool the masses into thinking insurance i the ONLY way to do things.

What you should be saying is 'I wish medical care was affordable so I wouldn't be so terrified of getting sick' and focus on fixing that problem then the others will fix themselves.

 

[RiverOfIce]

you cite examples of things NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Let's try this again, where in the Constitution do you find the authority for all that you believe?

But the constitution was never written to "authoritize" anything. It was created to set a ground rules for which endeavors the goverment can not do against the states and the people directly. It is list of "Do Nots", it is not a list of "Do's". The constitution was never written to give a privileged to a person, just written to make sure that some privileges was not taken away.

You have a right to everything that the constitutions takes under the bill of rights and amendments, those can not be taken away. But everything else in this country that is not specifically stated in those clauses, can be given and taken away at will, with out need for review or process. If the government wants to tax, you are taxed. There is nothing in the constitution saying the can tax, but here is nothing that said they can't tax, so you are taxed.

For my qoute I will go with Thomas Paine, also known has "The Father of the American Revolution"

Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed.

Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished.

It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good.

I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.
There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.

 

[Frisco]

I'm one of the uninsured. We lost our insurance when my husband was laid off in 2009. He hasn't been able to find a job that offers it since and it's just too expensive to get on our own.

I would love to have insurance. Then I would no longer have to be so terrified of getting sick.

I believe everyone deserves healthcare whether they can pay or not. No one in this country deserves to go without treatment when they are sick or food when they are hungry, and health care costs would go DOWN if people could get preventative care regardless of their bank account balance.

That really puts reality on it in a nutshell. Those formerly insured through employment, now lost, have nowhere to go unless they can afford high premiums of starting over on their own, and the shrinking "middle class" just can't go there anymore.

Health care issues rear their ugly head in these families, and guess what, the conservative Republicans who push against universal health care now have their tax dollars, our tax dollars, paying for another family's cares through assistance programs, which those Reps are also against.

 

[OstrichSaK]

This wouldn't even be a discussion if the economy was in better shape. *sigh*

It's also one of the reasons our economy is in the shape it's in.

 

[Frisco]

..the problem isn't lack of insurance it's health care costs.

Health care costs include high medical insurance premiums, my friend.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Health care costs include high medical insurance premiums, my friend.

At what point in history did health care become inseparable from health insurance? You do know that you can get health care w/o having health insurance, right? In fact, up until a few decades ago it was the ONLY way one got health care. My how times have changed.

 

[Vihzel]

Can we all agree that healthcare companies should not be allowed to be able to drop their customers in the case that they get really ill?

I think at least that's something that we can all agree on. Too many times have customers been suddenly dropped from their healthcare plan once they became really ill.

 

[BiggestManEver]

At what point in history did health care become inseparable from health insurance? You do know that you can get health care w/o having health insurance, right? In fact, up until a few decades ago it was the ONLY way one got health care. My how times have changed.

When the big insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies jumped into politicians' pockets.

 

[Frisco]

At what point in history did health care become inseparable from health insurance? You do know that you can get health care w/o having health insurance, right? In fact, up until a few decades ago it was the ONLY way one got health care. My how times have changed.

Too much about political social welfare issues in the U.S. has to be ignored to cause the link between medical insurance costs and hands on health care to become invisible.

It's a sad state of affairs, and likely not reversible now that the tide has turned on the economic hardships of the country in the direction of permanency, basically gradually erasing the middle economic class, ballooning the upper and lower economic classes.

And that's where that hands on health care ends up: the upper economic class can afford it, and no one else.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Can we all agree that healthcare companies should not be allowed to be able to drop their customers in the case that they get really ill?

I think at least that's something that we can all agree on. Too many times have customers been suddenly dropped from their healthcare plan once they became really ill.

No, I can't agree to that for two reasons. The first is that would mean the federal government (and probably an entire department headed up by a Czar) would have to tell a private company what to do. Second it would also mean EVERYONE'S premiums go up to pay for the outrageous medical bills. Who do you think pays for the medical bills? The health fairy? Personal health insurance is already too expensive w/o such crazy & costly requirements.