Posted on 09/13/2011 1:53:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
TAMPA, FL -- The morning after a sometimes-rocky appearance in front of a Tea Party debate audience, Gov. Rick Perry said he was "taken aback" by cheers from some crowd members on a hypothetical question of whether a young man who decides not to buy health insurance should be refused care if he develops a life-threatening illness and be left to die.
"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa.
"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."
Perry distinguished from that the issue of "justice," reiterating his strong support and "respect" for the death penalty on a state-by-state basis. "But the Republican party ought to be about life and protecting, particularly, innocent life," he added.
Perry also responded to the crowd's negative reaction to his support for allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, saying his campaign has "the right message" on opportunities for children who were brought to the United States illegally "by no fault of their own."
"This issue is about education, it's not about immigration," he said.
"These kids showed up in our state by no fault of their own, some 2-3 years of age. And they've been in our schools, they've done their work, they've prepared themselves good, they want to be contributing members of society. So it would be I think the wrong message to say somehow or another that you can't go to our colleges, or we've going to punish you because of the sound of your last name."
"When people really think about it, I think they'll understand what we did in Texas was the right thing for Texas," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
Speaking to the insurance issue here.
What is wrong with multi-tiered insurance? If you are in a restaurant, you can order the more expensive dish, or the cheaper, or opt out and go somewhere else for a sub. On insurance, if you pay, you should get better service than someone who doesn’t. Ultimately, that might mean triage for the deadbeats.
This solves a lot of the problems of freeloading. For example, take motorcycle helmets. I can see the safety argument for them, and the freedom argument against them. But, if you’re riding without a helmet, and without some insurance payment, with the assumption that the goverment (i.e., the rest of us) are happily guaranteeing the same level of brain care as for someone with a helmet and insurance, I think it’s freeloading.
A friend of mine told me that in Austria, they’re explicit about this, and there’s a two-tiered level of care. So, if you get cancer, but you don’t pay for private insurance, you might be told there’s an opening in six weeks at a clinic 500 miles away. But, if you were paying the additional private insurance, there would be an opening immediately at a nearby clinic.
This is where the Obama mandate goes wrong. (One of many ways). Instead of recognizing that there’s a benefit to wealth and payment, it pretends that in the interest of fairness and social justice no such benefit exists. Instead, it mandates a co-erced payment. Wouldn’t it be better to say “If you pay, we’ll do this for you, but if you don’t we’ll do the best we can. Not nothing, but not top of the line care, either.”
I was on a cruise boat a couple of years ago, and one of my tablemates was an ICU nurse. She was generally liberal and hated insurance companies because they tried to deny care to minimize expenses. But, then she said, “Do you know who gets the best medical care? Illegal aliens, because there’s no gatekeeper.” How she could be liberal while observing that is another story.
It would be much better to have a vague link between payment and care than the current system.
Let’s not fall for the subtext of these articles, which are suddenly ramping up. Notice the highlighting that this was a Tea Party debate. The subliminal message is that those crazy, far-right, cruel, vicious Tea Party people LAUGHED at somebody dying. See - look how crazy and dangerous the Tea Party is.
The mainstream media knows that a whole lot of Americans think that Obama is in over his head. They now are starting to lay the groundwork to slander those of us who believe in limited government (i.e., those with a Tea Party state of mind) in order to try to convince enough voters (to get to 270 electoral votes by hook or crook) that Obama is better than any alternative.
Obama can’t run on any record of accomplishment, so they are laying the groundwork NOW to try to make a belief in limited government somehow “beyond the pale” and get enough guilty white voters to vote for Obama again.
the answer about this hypothetical person is, we already have medicaid.
Made Perry look REAL liberal when he said that.
What are you? A policeman?
You think we should wave our flags when he praises lower tuition for illegals?
So the WSJ will print their letters?
I have to admit, and I will get flamed for this, but I am reconsidering my position on in-state tuition for children of illegals brought here at a young young age. Some of these kids speak English better that Spanish and many can’t read or write Spanish. Are we going to send literate English speakers to a country where they are illiterate? I know these cases are few, but maybe they should be reviewed. What I am against is then trapping us into citizenship for the Parents because you “can’t separate the family”. Baloney, my 20 year old goes to a school 500 miles from home... happens all the time.
What does “step over and move on” have to do with the person’s political or religious belief’s? I know plenty of people all across the political and religious spectrum that would help that person and I know a few who would not. In general those that would refuse to get personally involved have no problem saying the government should help them.
The difference I see is that while a libertarian may help that person (or not) he would never force someone else to help that person.
I have strong libertarian leanings (the principles not the party) and I would say that the state should not help that person even though I would.
Guy is SICK!
Atheistic Libertarians believes in less gov. because there is no such thing as "good". In the absence of "good" there is never any reason for one person to force another to do anything.
On the other hand, Christian Libertarians see that God created Natural Laws and Natural Justice to govern man. Any attempts of men to force other men to bend to the will of God are all made in vain. Men living by virtue, shunning vice and following the word of God will most of the time be rewarded here and always in heaven. That is Natural Justice. No government regulation can protect you as well as living a clean life can.
I think the patient and his family should be responsible for making such a healthcare decision and they should be responsible for paying the bill when it’s all over. Once their resources have been exhausted, the taxpayers may be able to cover the shortfall but the patient and his family should be required to pay the taxpayers back with interest even if it means wage garnishment, tax refund forfeitures, etc. The healthcare system is a shiity mess. It got that way because the US government laid its hands on it. We shouldn’t entertain the notion that the system will get better if we let the government have even more contact with it.
Let me try to get the idea of what the "right to life" really means. I, too, am a libertarian conservative. At the core of any logical and reasoned based philosophy is that life is an a priori right. That means that MY life belongs to ME. Any arguments about that are between me and G_d. For earthly matters, it means I can do with MY life what I please as long as I perpetrate force nor fraud upon another (therin violating their right to life). To be clear this means that no person or government has the right to tell me how I should or should not act in any said situation. Forcing a person at the point of a gun (which is what government boils down to) to give up a portion of their life to do this or that is patently wrong. That means that my time and my money (a representation of my life) are mine to do with as I please. Anything outside of that is theft.
I have just about had enough of Perry. I will vote for him if he wins the nomination, but no way will I vote for him in a primary.
Not buying it. I say they were plants. Perry's right. We're the party of life. We don't let innocents die. That's the other party.
Hell yes they can go back to Mexico as English speaking only citizens. not one inch of ground will we cede to these invaders. Not one step backwards. This is war, there will be scorched earth and broken hearts.
I fail to understand your point concerning in state tuition for illegals and sending English speaking children to Spanish speaking countries.
Is your belief that we should not deport the children? That is a different subject than in state tuition for illegals.
The man in the hypothetical question was not innocent. He made a deliberate and conscious choice. Are you saying he should not be responsible for his choice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.