Borders? We don't need no stinkin borders.
we REALLY have to control our people - if indeed they WERE “our people”.
ANYTHING like this, even a small number of audience participants will allow the Drive By Media to blast us - and our candidates and cause.
I think more and more folks are getting sick and tired of being FORCED at the point of a government gun
to pay for the irresponsibility of others.
Nope to the first. Nope to the second. Two nopes is a double nope, also known as a dope.
Get it together, Perry. If you’re going to be our best or only chance not to end up with Romney as our candidate, you’re going to have to do MUCH beter than this!
“They’ve prepared themselves good”?
Well this shows where the Perry haters stand on life.
I remember probably 10 years ago having a discussion with a Libertarian here at FR.
I asked him/her if they saw a person lying on the street:
1) Would you step over the person and walk on?
2)Would you call for help?
That person said step over and move on.
That attitude in the audience should make Floridians nervous, if O-Care get instituted. Between the Dummies and Libertarians Life doesn’t stand a chance.
I am sympathetic to his argument, and yet it always bothers me when someone uses that phrase. We don't oppose illegals getting government services because we don't like the sound of their name, or the color of their skin, or their accent -- it's because they broke our laws.
I can sympathize with the children of illegals, because they didn't purposely break the laws. They were brought here without their own choice. And if they have been here for years, they may well be more tied to OUR culture than their nation of origin.
If we could solve ALL the other problems of illegal immigration, I wouldn't mind these few thousand kids being given student visas and green cards so they could go to college and then be productive members of society.
In texas, the total number of immigrants (legal AND illegal) who get in-state tuition appears to be around 11,000 or so. It's not a tidal wave. But so long as we have undefended borders and a government unwilling to send the people who DO choose to break our laws back home where they came from, it's hard to push for special treatment for the small number of children who are caught up in the mess.
Perry. Changing the way we spell “quisling”.
Freedom doesn’t only mean the freedom to make good choices. If someone chooses to be without insurance, they’ve made their choice.
If someone wants to ride a cycle without a helmet, who am I to stand in the way of their stupidity? And if an insurance company refuses to insure the helmetless rider, so be it. Personally I would insure them at a massive premium.
Borders? We don't need no stinkin borders.
goddamitNO~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"We" [The GOVERNMENT] should not do anything of the sort
Ron Paul was 100% CORRECT
People were not turned away from hospitals before government control- people took care of them other ways.
Now that government is involved people go to emergency rooms for every minor scratch.
the person in the audience who said "YES" was reacting to THE IDIOCY OF THE QUESTION.
I think the doctors and hospital should treat the patient if they choose, at their own expense, if they wish, or they should bill the person.
The govt. should not be involved in healthcare.
I can accept his viewpoint and in the general election these comments should help defuse the Obama hispanic vote.
But a HUGE however, I am really pissed he said “because some people dont like the sound of their last name”.
That has nothing to do with it and he should know better. Why play the race card on good Americans who hate illegal immigration?
I agree with Perry here. The question was BS, but I was a little surprised by the audience cheering for this answer. It is a serious matter and though Paul made sense on it and followed up with charities to help the needy and lowering medical costs, the cheering crowd on it looked bad and made we wonder if it was a cadre of Paulites getting excited. Poor taste overall.
The question was stupid, and designed to illicit a negative response that could be used against us.
It was an either/or false choice, and even Ron Paul knew better. We didn’t need government paying for health care to make people take care of sick people without insurance. We did it through charity.
Government became our charity in part because we WERE charitable, and moreso because politicians SAW that WE were charitable, and wanted to take CREDIT for that charity by giving our money away FOR us.
But seriously — this is the heart of the problem with our health care debate. Who among us would say that a person should be left to die on the sidewalk in front of a hospital, because they hadn’t bought insurance and didn’t have money to pay?
Sure, that’s the “Atlas Shrugged” answer, right? Take care of yourself, and if you don’t suffer the consequences? I believe that — until people are dying or I can help them. If somebody stupidly walks on the edge of a bridge, and falls over, I will jump in to save them, not let them drown because it was their own fault.
And I don’t want to leave people starving in the street, or dying on the sidewalk. But that means I can be taken advantage of, because people know we are charitable, and can take advantage of our charity.
I had a proposal once I thought had merit. We DON’T do Obamacare, or have government mandate health insurance. AND we treat everybody, no matter whether they have insurance or not.
But if someone gets treatment and can’t pay for it, then they are OURs. Not a slave, but they now OWE all the money we gave them. We can force them to buy health insurance at that point, because they OWE us for treating them. We can garnish their wages. Maybe we’d have a service program they could participate in. We make them pay for being stupid enough to not provide for their own security.
I’m not sure that would be incentive enough for people to do the right thing. Really, people who take advantage need to get “less-then-gold-plated” care. I don’t want to say substandard, but there has to be a difference in the service people who provide for themselves get vs people who make us pay for them.
Here’s a plan nobody here will support. We actually implement a national health insurance, paid for by taxes. But this is just a catastrophic plan, which provides limited services. No extraordinary life-saving care. No end-of-life amenities like hip replacements. It might even have death panels. Sorry, we have to ration to keep the prices low. Nobody WANTS to use this plan, but if you don’t provide for yourself, it will treat your heart attack, get you back on your feet and on your way.
The problem is we don’t have it in ourselves to be uncompassionate. I don’t think government is the solution for that, but I don’t know how to get us back to where we were compassionate on our own, and I fear the american people won’t stand for going back. They may hate Obamacare, but I believe they are quite happy with government providing a health care safety net.
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.
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.
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.