Let the Man die? In Defense of Ron Paul!
 |
| "Let him die!" |
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was posed with a hypothetical question in which a healthy, 30-year-old man decided not to purchase health insurance. Blitzer asked whether Paul would let the man die if he subsequently got sick and could not pay for the health care he needed. Some foolish members of the tea party yelled "yeah" with cheers from a number of other morons that endorsed the death of a person in need of medical care. Ron Paul did not say directly whether he would let the man die instead he chose to bring up the issue of personal responsibility.
I can't support letting a person die. However, the hypothetical scenario stated that the man did earn a "good living" and did make "good money." In which case he willingly chose not to purchase health insurance. Should he fall sick and require extended treatment, I believe the government should pick up the tab but the gentleman should be held accountable for repaying some of the costs associated with his care should it be sufficiently demonstrated that he had the financial ability to get health care and chose not to. It is a matter of personal responsibility in this case. So the headlines are deceptive in those regards and I must ....ehhhhh......cough cough defend Ron Paul because of the specific details being omitted in his crucifixion....
THE VIDEO OF THE QUESTION...........
The truth is the 47 million uninsured people do consist partly of the type described in Blitzer's hypothetical situation but for the most part it is filled with people who chose to forgo buying a health care policy because it would prove to have a detrimental impact on their or their family's well-being. Suppose the latter fell ill in the same manner, who should pick up their bill? Is it fair to make them experience financial and possibly medical hardship when there was no affordable or practical option for them in the first place?
The major problem is that access to decent health care is too pricey for large segments of middle America. I remember when I got to this country after having access to good public health care in addition to better privatized health care. I was told that it was mandatory that I had to pay thousands of dollars a year to maintain a health care policy. A policy that I used 3-5 times in four years. Expensive health care is crippling and takes money out of people's pockets that could be spent purchasing goods and services, thus stimulating the economy. What is worse is that those that can't afford it are the ones that fall sick and they cost the government even more money in regards to their emergency care. Human capital is a countries most important asset and what good is it if large proportions of them are sick or stressed (to death)?
It is a disgrace that some US citizen have to cross the border to Canada to get quality, affordable health. For all the bad rap the socialism gets without centralizing certain industries, things you run the risk applying the ethics and model of the private section in places it shouldn't be. Heath care should not be a for profit, enterprise by nature. Businesses act in the best interest of their shareholders not the best interest of the people. A country must take measures to protect the health of it's human capital. Private health care options will keep going up and they will keep denying claims because it means a higher profit margin. That's how a business works, that is how it survives. With the way prices are you can continue to see people flee to Canada and other neighbors to take advantage of their socialized system.
Source
Category:
