In Monday nights Tea Party debacle, the candidates were asked about health care, and most said the same thing, "WE WANT TO TAKE YOUR HEALTH CARE", and they used clever slogans like "personal responsibility" and Romney even went as far as saying that the patients should get a portion of the entire bill so they could contribute to the health care issue and lower costs.
But lower costs for who? Surely not the patient, and clearly for the insurance provider, but the Tea Party crowd clapped as if this was a great idea for americans!!
The ire of the day came down to Ron Paul and his positions on health care. He claimed that if a person "chose" not to buy health care, that was a "risk" and the federal or state goverments should not pay for medical costs if that person got sick and needed care. He said that a person who does this was taking a risk and they needed care and couldnt afford it, and ultimately they died, it was all a part of the "RISK".
He said that this was a free country, and if people want to "RISK" their lives by not having insurance, then that was a choice.
The problem is closer to home than people knew about with Ron Paul, as his former Campaign Manager Mr. Kent Snyder died of complications of pnemonia and he WAS UNINSURED. The Paul campaign did not provide insurance to its employees and Mr Snyder fell ill and racked up over 400 thousand dollars in debt in medical costs before he died. He could not afford the proper treatment and it cost him his life.
Afterwards, donations were sought from Paul supporters to try and pay the massive debt that Snyder left the hospital where he was treated.
Is this Ron Pauls idea of health care? How many americans should be put in Mr Snyders shoes?
Would the Tea Party crowd clap loudly if this story was presented to them in the debate? A few persons in the Tea Party audience on monday shouted "YEAH" when the question was asked of paul if the patient should be allowed to die if he didnt have coverage.
How dumb can a society be that accepts this idea for healthcare?
The next decate will surely bring up Mr Snyders death and lack of healthcare. I cant wait.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...re-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html
Peace.
But lower costs for who? Surely not the patient, and clearly for the insurance provider, but the Tea Party crowd clapped as if this was a great idea for americans!!
The ire of the day came down to Ron Paul and his positions on health care. He claimed that if a person "chose" not to buy health care, that was a "risk" and the federal or state goverments should not pay for medical costs if that person got sick and needed care. He said that a person who does this was taking a risk and they needed care and couldnt afford it, and ultimately they died, it was all a part of the "RISK".
He said that this was a free country, and if people want to "RISK" their lives by not having insurance, then that was a choice.
The problem is closer to home than people knew about with Ron Paul, as his former Campaign Manager Mr. Kent Snyder died of complications of pnemonia and he WAS UNINSURED. The Paul campaign did not provide insurance to its employees and Mr Snyder fell ill and racked up over 400 thousand dollars in debt in medical costs before he died. He could not afford the proper treatment and it cost him his life.
Afterwards, donations were sought from Paul supporters to try and pay the massive debt that Snyder left the hospital where he was treated.
Is this Ron Pauls idea of health care? How many americans should be put in Mr Snyders shoes?
Would the Tea Party crowd clap loudly if this story was presented to them in the debate? A few persons in the Tea Party audience on monday shouted "YEAH" when the question was asked of paul if the patient should be allowed to die if he didnt have coverage.
How dumb can a society be that accepts this idea for healthcare?
The next decate will surely bring up Mr Snyders death and lack of healthcare. I cant wait.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...re-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html
Peace.