In all the coverage of frontrunner squabbling, a little noticed moment when the Tea Party crowd celebrated at the thought of innocent people dying may have indicated the broader problem with the Republican Party today. When Ron Paul suggested a 30-year-old who opted against health care and got sick should die with no chance at government support, the gathered masses went nuts.
As Mother Jones notes in the link, this is just the most recent sign the death and suffering are not reason for intervention but for celebration. Last week, a crowd cheered the fact Rick Perry had signed off on a record number of executions.
But this was the Republican base for Florida cheering Ron Paul's crazy remarks. And it was more disturbing to me to see the revelry than Paul's cold-hearted remarks. He is a crazy right libertarian, and it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted ambulances to pass a bleeding man on the road if it meant saving on government-purchased gasoline. (I do hope this reminds the anti-war crowd that sees the value of Paul in the debates to remember we do NOT need this man to actually become president).
The thing most striking to me, though, is that opponents to ObamaCare always said the hypothetical 30-year-old in Wolf Blitzer's question needed that choice to live without health insurance. That claim was the basis of Bill McCollum's so-far-successful lawsuit against ObamaCare on behalf of all of Florida. And it was always the top complaint from the right. I can hear my brother-in-law now saying 'Why shouldn't a guy who is young and healthy be able to say, I want to save the money and not buy insurance?"
The reason why is that a Republican will some day be in the White House. When that happens, the citizen with no insurance is screwed. Ron Paul said as much last night, and the crowd cheered.
People said Alan Grayson was uncivil suggested the GOP health care plan was 'Don't Get Sick,' and if you do, 'Die Quickly.' Last night, we learned most Republicans will cheer the young people who take their own advice all the way to fast grave.
Update: Grayson has actually responded to this now at HuffPost.
Why it's so hard for young people to run for office
14 hours ago
Maybe it makes me heartless and guiltless as well, but I don't really have a problem with what Paul said. If you're given the opportunity to purchase insurance at a reasonable price - depending on your risk and your ability to pay - and you decline, then you pay for your own care. If you can't pay, you don't get care. I'd be okay with something like Hospice; I don't think anybody ought to suffer unnecessary pain. But I also don't think society as a whole ought to be saddled with the cost of your care when you've shown (through the decision not to join a shared risk pool) that you're not willing to bear anyone else's cost. And that shouldn't have anything to do with who's in the White House.
ReplyDeleteAs far as dying quickly, I think that's a pretty damn good plan. There's too much emphasis placed on artificially prolonging life at the cost of quality of life, and at relatively poor return on investment. On average, if you've survived to 85, all the money you've spent on health care in your life to that point, you're going to spend 50% of that in your remaining average lifespan of 5-7 years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/07.20/10-deathquiz.html
In the face of all the advances in medicine in the last century, an honest discussion about death and dying has been lacking - look at the stigma associated with assisted suicide.
--Tom
I respect where you are coming from, but feel the Blitzer question really showed the fraud in the bill of goods sold to people who opposed ObamaCare. And worse, by talking so much about terrible it was to force people not to buy insurance, it gave the impression buying health insurance was a bad idea, when in fact the number of insured people is why we have problems with the health of the nation today. It also unrealistic in that it implies those people without insurance don't put a burden on the rest of us, but they do when they go to the emergency room not just for emergencies but for standard treatment and care. I will grant that the Paul worldview would eliminate that cost by denying people without insurance any health care unless they bear the full burden, but that is neither politically realistic or remotely human. All that said, I do share your thoughts on the national focus on extending life without ensuring a good quality of life.
ReplyDelete