Not trying to be judgmental but... (Tea Party Debate reaction)

[manasia]

Was this a bit much? My personal opinion, is that those few do not represent the whole.

If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.
Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

[Ajax]

Was this a bit much? My personal opinion, is that those few do not represent the whole.

If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.
Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Yeah, I was actually flipping channels last night and saw Billie Tucker's smiling face, and for some reason I stopped.  She was talking to Wolf Blitzer and he played that clip for her.  It did sound like a few people did yell 'yeah'.  Billie Tucker said that she and others around her turned around and looked at those people and she said that she wished those people hadn't even come to the debate. 

Every group is going to contain a few idiots. 

But Wolf did get his 'gotcha' moment, so good for him.  I'm sure he's proud. 

[manasia]

Yea good point AJAX.

[JeffreyS]

They cheered for letting people die at this debate and for the Texas death penalty at the last debate.  If the candidates were smart they would promise to murder some people if elected.  That would definitely play to their base.

[JeffreyS]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-13-2011/indecision-1776---ye-cobblestone-road-to-the-white-house---rick-perry-beatdown?xrs=share_copy  Funny take on the cheering.

Go to the 2:29 mark

[gsb]

They're just trolls, and trolls gotta troll.  The problem is that it really doesn't matter whether the folks in that room are saints or sinners, it's that their vision of the future of the United States is utterly repugnant to me and mine is utterly repugnant to them, and I don't see any way to bridge the divide.  We don't even share the remotest common vision for the country at this point, and I don't see that going anywhere good.

[cityimrov]

Besides the rather heartless audience, I wonder about Ron Paul's point.  In case you didn't hear, Ron Paul's point is that people will be generous enough that the uninsured will be taken care of by private charity and churches in the area.  Basically, more places like Shriners would pop up to help support the community due to the generosity of people using the tax money they saved to start up these charity hospitals. 

Do you guys think should the social welfare system be dismantled, people will donate the money they saved from taxes to private charities to cover the difference in what the government was supporting?  Or will people just pocket their money and forget about the needy and just let them die? 

Or worst, will people actually believe the extra $10 they give per month to charity will somehow cover the complete dismantlement of medicaid and somehow be enough to support an entire health care system?   

[Garden guy]

I'd like to dimantle the tparty itself...how embarrassing they are...other countries are laughing their ass off looking at them. I do hope at lease one of the that are saying this shit has their mother suffer with no help...they do not represent anything this country was founded on....it is "we the people"...not "fuck you you're on your own"..right?...i'm sure they are'nt going to talk about the tax breaks that have allowed them to be where they are...the contributions from wealthy on promises made....end election contributions now...the whole election system has caused this to happen and the haves are taking over and if we don't scream and holler they will take over and end what we know as a free and peaceful country....someone help us from these idiots.

[Bridges]

Besides the rather heartless audience, I wonder about Ron Paul's point.  In case you didn't hear, Ron Paul's point is that people will be generous enough that the uninsured will be taken care of by private charity and churches in the area.  Basically, more places like Shriners would pop up to help support the community due to the generosity of people using the tax money they saved to start up these charity hospitals. 

Do you guys think should the social welfare system be dismantled, people will donate the money they saved from taxes to private charities to cover the difference in what the government was supporting?  Or will people just pocket their money and forget about the needy and just let them die? 

Or worst, will people actually believe the extra $10 they give per month to charity will somehow cover the complete dismantlement of medicaid and somehow be enough to support an entire health care system?   

No, they will not pick it up.  Private donations are way down across the board.  They've also been shown to not last. 

I'm sure Mr Paul would have known that, considering his 2008 Presidential Campaign manager was uninsured, died of pneumonia, and left his relatives with $400,000 of debt.  His friends launched an individual website to raise money, they totaled $38,000.   http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured

[Tacachale]

And yet there are those who say the reason Paul isn't taken seriously is because the media ignores him.

[cayohueso]

Sounds like more than a few people in the audience need a visit from three ghosts on the morrow. A decent society invests in it's  people things such as education and healthcare in the desire to create a better society for all. This is not a liberal ideal...it is common sense. Oh wait....the tea party...yeah,nevermind.

[Jdog]

Besides the rather heartless audience, I wonder about Ron Paul's point.  In case you didn't hear, Ron Paul's point is that people will be generous enough that the uninsured will be taken care of by private charity and churches in the area.  Basically, more places like Shriners would pop up to help support the community due to the generosity of people using the tax money they saved to start up these charity hospitals. 

Do you guys think should the social welfare system be dismantled, people will donate the money they saved from taxes to private charities to cover the difference in what the government was supporting?  Or will people just pocket their money and forget about the needy and just let them die? 

Or worst, will people actually believe the extra $10 they give per month to charity will somehow cover the complete dismantlement of medicaid and somehow be enough to support an entire health care system?   

No, they will not pick it up.  Private donations are way down across the board.  They've also been shown to not last. 

I'm sure Mr Paul would have known that, considering his 2008 Presidential Campaign manager was uninsured, died of pneumonia, and left his relatives with $400,000 of debt.  His friends launched an individual website to raise money, they totaled $38,000.   http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured

___________________________________

There is an indirect relationship between an individual's wealth and charitable contributions.  Wealth up, less percent to charity.  The poor are more altruistic.

[cityimrov]

Sounds like more than a few people in the audience need a visit from three ghosts on the morrow. A decent society invests in it's  people things such as education and healthcare in the desire to create a better society for all. This is not a liberal ideal...it is common sense. Oh wait....the tea party...yeah,nevermind.

When you think about it, if our culture was truly privately altruistic, I think Ron Paul's ideals would work and we could get rid of SS, Medicare/aid.  I think our core problem is we're trying to fund a system to help those most in need by a society that really doesn't care much for them.  If they truly cared, then private donations would be at it's highest percentage right now through either strong monetary donations or strong volunteerism.   However, from what I hear from this thread, that's just not the case right now. 

Oh yes, those audience members - they are your next door neighbors.  This debate was held in FLORIDA. 

[chipwich]

If I understand it correctly (and maybe I am just grossly generalizing), but if I were to follow the logic of hard-core tea partiers for future America then we it that poor mothers shouldn't be allowed to abort their unwanted baby. 

The baby should then be born and be on its own and denied any healthcare that the poor parent could not afford. 

Should the baby survive, then it should be denied public education or at best the child should go to an underfunded school (as Rick Perry has done).  Everyone knows public school is a wasteful burden upon taxpayers.

At school, they should not learn many sciences and some history (as they may be controversial, again look at the new Texas textbooks).

Now, the child is dumb and unhealthy.  Their parent, under the guidance of Michelle Bachmann should work for less than minimum wage (hence the child cannot afford good nutrious food).  The sickly, uneducated child should then also go work for less than minimum wage, unless they commit a crime or use drugs.

At that point they should be sent to a very well funded prison where they should serve a long manditory minimum sentence for their crime, or otherwise be executed if the crime were bad enough.

[FayeforCure]

If I understand it correctly (and maybe I am just grossly generalizing), but if I were to follow the logic of hard-core tea partiers for future America then we it that poor mothers shouldn't be allowed to abort their unwanted baby. 

The baby should then be born and be on its own and denied any healthcare that the poor parent could not afford. 

Should the baby survive, then it should be denied public education or at best the child should go to an underfunded school (as Rick Perry has done).  Everyone knows public school is a wasteful burden upon taxpayers.

At school, they should not learn many sciences and some history (as they may be controversial, again look at the new Texas textbooks).

Now, the child is dumb and unhealthy.  Their parent, under the guidance of Michelle Bachmann should work for less than minimum wage (hence the child cannot afford good nutrious food).  The sickly, uneducated child should then also go work for less than minimum wage, unless they commit a crime or use drugs.

At that point they should be sent to a very well funded prison where they should serve a long manditory minimum sentence for their crime, or otherwise be executed if the crime were bad enough.

And finally the criminal young adult will have free healthcare at tax-payers' expense!!

Society either pays up front (a reasonable amount), or much more at the end. What do you think costs us less: an initial investment in the child, or the incarceration of a hopeless adult?

Western european countries have done their cost benefit analysis, and that's why a third of the worlds' prison population resides in the US at a huge tax-payer expense.

Apparently we like paying for the consequences of destruction but not for construction!!

It's the difference between being reactive vs being pro-active.

Good leadership requires one to be pro-active!!

I guess we cannot find that among Republican YOYO (You're On Your Own) advocates.

They still don't seem to understand that true freedom comes from shared risks rather than the destructive YOYO mentality.