What is the current Republican position on this?

PGH said:
Another way of saying this would be: Yes I heard members of the crowd at the Tea Party debate calling for letting people without insurance die, followed by one of the leading candidates supporting this position.

You are also correct in that 100% of the audience did not yell out. Only a handful that were then applauded vigorously.

I'll believe the republican party does not support such a stance when they seem to actually not support such a stance.
Click to expand...

I did not hear the audience applaud vigorously after it was yelled out and Ron Paul did not answer supporting the position of letting them die. I heard applause before that statement. I only listened to a clip maybe I am wrong. Do you have a link to it.
 
Last edited:
Nah I'm at work so I can't pull up any videos. And I'll confess my memory may be inaccurate. First one to pull up the tape with proof wins!

But I'll say I'd be very surprised if Ron Paul said anything other than "people have to make their own choices" regarding the matter. That's what I recall. Which is really just a nice way of saying, "You're on your own suckers!"

ETA: Found this. I think it sums up what I was saying pretty well. Even Rick Perry says he was taken aback by the crowd and Ron Paul's position on what to do with those without coverage.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
From the GOP Website
http://www.gop.gov/pledge/healthcare
Click to expand...

That's what they say, but they fought hard to avoid any sort of health care reform.

Frankly, the most sensible Health Care policy is Universal Health Care. Anyone who isn't for that just doesn't know the facts. It is just flat-out cheaper to cover everyone together. Our current system is ridiculously expensive and doesn't provide care that is any better than other first world countries.

The Republicans favor ideology over cost-effectiveness when the two conflict, however.
 
Last edited:
Before the Obamacare debate, requiring people to buy health insurance was broadly acceptable to Republicans. Although this isn't UHC, it establishes a key premise: All Americans should be in a risk-management pool.

I know a couple of people who say they'll just shoot themselves if they get too unhealthy. I'm not sure they've thought this out. You usually don't plan to get sick, and it's possible you may be in, say, ICU, without ready access to a handgun, running up bills despite your avowed opposition to UHC.

Chances are you'll get the care, and once it bankrupts you, health care administrators will work to get you signed up for indigent services. In order to ensure coverage after that, stay indigent. This system is expensive, wasteful, destabilizing and often counterproductive; it may be making health outcomes worse; it may put U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in a global economy.
 
Minoosh said:
Before the Obamacare debate, requiring people to buy health insurance was broadly acceptable to Republicans. Although this isn't UHC, it establishes a key premise: All Americans should be in a risk-management pool.

I know a couple of people who say they'll just shoot themselves if they get too unhealthy. I'm not sure they've thought this out. You usually don't plan to get sick, and it's possible you may be in, say, ICU, without ready access to a handgun, running up bills despite your avowed opposition to UHC.

Chances are you'll get the care, and once it bankrupts you, health care administrators will work to get you signed up for indigent services. In order to ensure coverage after that, stay indigent. This system is expensive, wasteful, destabilizing and often counterproductive; it may be making health outcomes worse; it may put U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in a global economy.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Republicans say it's wrong to require people to have health insurance. I don't know anyone who doesn't want health insurance. Not any sane person. It'd be like republicans saying it's wrong of us to require people to eat. People want it, they will need it at some point and it would benefit everyone if we all had it. Who are these people fighting for the right to pay gigantic hospital bills?
 
Tony said:
Travis, if I may ask, why will no private company give you coverage?
Click to expand...

Why would they? With my chronic health conditions and the near certainty I will get cancer (virtually everyone on both sides of my family has gotten cancer) I would be a huge money loser for them.

Also they've all turned me down.

Brainster said:
Have you been denied health care?
Click to expand...

Several years ago I needed an MRI but could not get one. Do you know how much they charge for those things? And they wanted it all upfront too.

Then there was that time I was vomiting up blood all day long. I struggled with whether I should go to the ER and get a huge bill I could not afford but eventually passed out and the situation resolved itself.......thankfully.

And then there was the time I couldn't get rabies prophylaxis after a potential exposure. That was fun!
 
Last edited:
I find it somewhat disturbing that a lot of people here aren't aware that getting health insurance is impossible for some people, even though that's exactly what you'd expect from profit-driven health care.
 
Before healthcare became the tangled mess of regulation and licensing we see today, people who needed healthcare but couldn't pay for it typically were NOT denied. There was a greater incentive for private charity back then, both because people were taxed less and therefore had more money and because they weren't already an accessory to forced charity, and thus the existence of charity hospitals (as well as lower rates across the board) were much more common then. Its not true that people would be dying unless the government mandates insurance. We have seen increases in the costs and decreases in the availability of healthcare since the regulations and public healthcare spending were foisted upon the industry, as we always see when the government interferes.
 
Last edited:
corbin said:
Before healthcare became the tangled mess of regulation and licensing we see today, people who needed healthcare but couldn't pay for it typically were NOT denied. There was a greater incentive for private charity back then, both because people were taxed less and therefore had more money and because they weren't already an accessory to forced charity, and thus the existence of charity hospitals (as well as lower rates across the board) were much more common then. Its not true that people would be dying unless the government mandates insurance. We have seen increases in the costs and decreases in the availability of healthcare since the regulations and public healthcare spending were foisted upon the industry, as we always see when the government interferes. You can't give a certain privileged group of people the massive and desirable power of regulating markets and stealing from other people and expect this power not to be exploited for the benefit of unscrupulous members of society - power corrupts, thus, the principle of limited government.

Socializing poverty is not a good thing for the government to do. It turns isolated problems into general ones and everybody ends up worse off.
Click to expand...

When was this? With the low taxes and easy access to free medical care without insurance? Just a general year...
 
Well, its a continuum.

As a general trend, medical care was cheaper in the past, the increases in price correlating to the amount of regulation in the industry. Take any date in the past and this is true. Now, I'm talking about "normal" procedures that are minimally influenced by technology and development. Getting a cavity filled or having a bone set shouldn't be more expensive, but they are, and extremely so. Its because of all the preferential regulations in the industry.

Further, there is a vacuum of knowledge and education regarding medicine. Pharmaceutical lobbying, the method of licensing doctors, FDA procedures and other factors create a situation where the treatment option chosen often isn't the best, it is instead the most profitable to organizations to which the government has granted a monopoly. Conflicts of interest are everywhere, all propped up and created by government.
 
Last edited:
corbin said:
Well, its a continuum.

As a general trend, medical care was cheaper in the past, the increases in price correlating to the amount of regulation in the industry. Take any date in the past and this is true. Now, I'm talking about "normal" procedures that are minimally influenced by technology and development. Getting a cavity filled or having a bone set shouldn't be more expensive, but they are, and extremely so. Its because of all the preferential regulations in the industry.
Click to expand...

Well it WAS a continuum. You stated that it came to an end with all the government regulation and increased taxation. So there has to be a point at which it ended right?

I'm gonna guess you're thinking of the 50's? Only because people seem to always imagine the 50's as some sort of idyllic paradise....
 
PGH said:
Well it WAS a continuum. You stated that it came to an end with all the government regulation and increased taxation. So there has to be a point at which it ended right?

I'm gonna guess you're thinking of the 50's? Only because people seem to always imagine the 50's as some sort of idyllic paradise....
Click to expand...

What ended? Private charity?

It, like the price, didn't just abruptly end. I see it as being on the same continuum as the rising price.

The 50's, sure. But the 1940's, 1880's, and 1960's as well.
 
eeyore1954 said:
All parties have some idiots in the "crowd" but that does not mean it is the position.
Click to expand...

But, it is unquestionably the position every republican candidate with the exception of Huntsman is playing to.
 
corbin said:
Before healthcare became the tangled mess of regulation and licensing we see today, people who needed healthcare but couldn't pay for it typically were NOT denied. There was a greater incentive for private charity back then, both because people were taxed less and therefore had more money and because they weren't already an accessory to forced charity, and thus the existence of charity hospitals (as well as lower rates across the board) were much more common then. Its not true that people would be dying unless the government mandates insurance. We have seen increases in the costs and decreases in the availability of healthcare since the regulations and public healthcare spending were foisted upon the industry, as we always see when the government interferes.
Click to expand...

This sounds pretty fictional to me. Health Insurance companies have always tried to deny claims and avoid taking on costly patients. This was happening in the 70s and before. You go back far enough and you just end up with little health insurance and general and relatively poor medical coverage for everyone. I imagine there MIGHT be less hijinks by health insurance companies, but only because they were still figuring things out.

The idea that Private Charity will cover these things is, quite frankly, laughable. Private Charity has NEVER been able to handle the large needs of society. The reason why we have the public handling these tasks is because private charity was and is inadequate and haphazard. It gets worse as better care comes along and costs go up because better care requires more resources. Health Care was cheap 100 years ago because there wasn't a lot we could do.

You're just weaving a fairy tale narrative that doesn't have any basis in historical fact.

The fact remains that the cheapest way for society to handle Health Care is through a Universal Health Care system. Anything else, like our current system, would be more expensive.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
I ask this in earnest as I have such a large personal stake in the matter. Maybe some of you do too. I know that's why most of my threads in this subforum have been about it. As you all know no private health insurance company would ever cover me. From my current point of view the only way I could get covered is with some sort of universal health care system being implemented.

So what is the Republican plan to allow all Americans to have access to health care?

I must confess I'm a little ignorant about the current plans by the major Presidential candidates or the Republican party at large. I know they were against Obamacare but that doesn't really inform me as to what they are actually in favor of. It only lets me know they hated that proposal.
Click to expand...

Have you looked into this
http://www.opa.ca.gov/healthcare/health-plan/pre-existing-conditions.aspx

California Major Risk Medical Insurance Program
 
jj said:
But, it is unquestionably the position every republican candidate with the exception of Huntsman is playing to.
Click to expand...

Show me any candidates who have demonstated they are in favor of the let them die program.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Show me any candidates who have demonstated they are in favor of the let them die program.
Click to expand...

Bachman is easiest, since she fought against any sort of Health Care reform.

Look at what they DO, not what they say.

Now, I suppose we should refine that to "Let them die and/or cost society a ridiculous amount of money." In our current situation it is sometimes the former and sometimes the latter.
 
PGH said:
I'd agree. Thing is that's never happened at a democratic debate. Why do you think that is?

And if I did hear that at a democratic debate I would have serious concerns about the party. Yes, we know all parties have some idiots. This seems to be the first thing said when republican idiots scream deplorable things at the top of their lungs, constantly. Both parties may have idiots, but one seems to be winning.
Click to expand...

This made me think of something that bothers me even more than the Tea Party outburst at this particular GOP debate. I know that some talking heads in the Republican party condemned that "Let him die!" outburst, but I don't think a single one of the GOP contenders publicly condemned it*.

What really bothers me is, if it is true that none of the GOP candidates spoke out against such a stupid thing, why is that? Are they so far down the rabbit hole in their quest to appease the Tea Party that they won't call them out on something so blatantly wrong?

*I would be willing to be convinced otherwise, btw.

ETA: It appears that in this article Rick Perry comes out and condemns the "Let him die!" outburst.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
Show me any candidates who have demonstated they are in favor of the let them die program.
Click to expand...

My question is have they publicly condemned the "Let him die!" outburst, especially when it occurred at their own debate? If not, then this is a perfect example of how they are hoping to pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP without having the moral courage to call them out on that extremism.

People will remember this in the general election, I can guarantee it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom