- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214776
The cheering from the Republican Debate audience last night over a hypothetical in which they would let someone die rather than pay taxes to save an uninsured injured man is making Republicans nervous. Even Perry is distancing himself (after last week's cheer for 234 executions) from the Tea Party today.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/09/perry_yep_it_was_weird.php?ref=fpblg
The Democrats won't be making a big deal about it, but then they don't have to.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/dont-expect-democrats-to-make-a-big-deal-out-of-debates-let-him-die-moment.php?ref=fpb
Originally posted by KunsooWatch the clip.
The cheering from the Republican Debate audience last night over a hypothetical in which they would let someone die rather than pay taxes to save an uninsured injured man is making Republicans nervous. Even Perry is distancing himself (after last week's cheer for 234 executions) from the Tea Party today.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/09/per ...[text shortened]... 011/09/dont-expect-democrats-to-make-a-big-deal-out-of-debates-let-him-die-moment.php?ref=fpb
The cheering was in response to Paul's statement that he should take his own risk and responsibility, not that he should be left to die.
When the moderator asked about letting him die, a few yahoos screamed "yeah!" but there was no applause.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214776
Originally posted by sh76Then why is Perry distancing himself?
Watch the clip.
The cheering was in response to Paul's statement that he should take his own risk and responsibility, not that he should be left to die.
When the moderator asked about letting him die, a few yahoos screamed "yeah!" but there was no applause.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I agree with watching the clip.
Watch the clip.
The cheering was in response to Paul's statement that he should take his own risk and responsibility, not that he should be left to die.
When the moderator asked about letting him die, a few yahoos screamed "yeah!" but there was no applause.
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --
BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --
(APPLAUSE)
JS357 comment: Observe when the cheering starts during the above statement. Also, "risk" is mentioned, not responsibility, at this point. It is probable that audience events of this type have cams on the audience and the degree of agreement among the audience in their cheers could be ascertained.
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
JS Comment: this last comment isn't in the clip I saw. It should be noted that Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio is a Catholic hospital, so Paul's experience with church involvement is not typical.
Supporting cites for my claim that it's a Catholic hospital are too numerous to count but here's an interesting one:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Catholic-hospital-at-center-of-suit-1051648.php
So Ron Paul says "the churches took care of them." Maybe at his hospital. Is there a record of the churches taking care of the ~50 million uninsured now, stepping in then there is risk of death?
Here's a different slant and a deeper analysis of the situation and how churches now deal with it:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/
Originally posted by sh76And the difference is?
The cheering was in response to Paul's statement that he should take his own risk and responsibility, not that he should be left to die.
Or do you suppose that Paul meant that if the man doesn't take his own risk and responsibility that he shouldn't be left to die?
Thought not.
So, you're using semantics to muddy up the clear message.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThe difference is that the crowd was sheering the idea of personal responsibility, not the idea of leaving someone to die, as the OP implies. In fact, when the moderator asked that questions specifically about letting the person die, the candidate said that the person should NOT be allowed to die.
And the difference is?
Or do you suppose that Paul meant that if the man doesn't take his own risk and responsibility that he shouldn't be left to die?
Thought not.
So, you're using semantics to muddy up the clear message.
You made the same mistake as the clip in not looking at the whole context. Of course, it's not your fault since the clip also cuts off the referenced follow up question. It's a gross example of taking an exchange out of context.
Originally posted by sh76I didn't watch the clip.
The difference is that the crowd was sheering the idea of personal responsibility, not the idea of leaving someone to die, as the OP implies. In fact, when the moderator asked that questions specifically about letting the person die, the candidate said that the person should NOT be allowed to die.
You made the same mistake as the clip in not looking at the w ...[text shortened]... the referenced follow up question. It's a gross example of taking an exchange out of context.
Right wingers make me puke.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76According to what I heard and the transcript, the statement that Paul made that triggered the cheer, did not include the word "responsibility." If you watch carefully you see that it was at the mention of "risks" that the cheer erupted.
The difference is that the crowd was sheering the idea of personal responsibility, not the idea of leaving someone to die, as the OP implies. In fact, when the moderator asked that questions specifically about letting the person die, the candidate said that the person should NOT be allowed to die.
You made the same mistake as the clip in not looking at the w the referenced follow up question. It's a gross example of taking an exchange out of context.
Paul also mentioned church support of individuals needed it, referencing his experience -- at what turns out to be a Catholic hospital.
I don't see how any reasonable person can defend the cheer.
quote previous post:
PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --
(APPLAUSE)
JS357 comment: Observe when the cheering starts during the above statement. Also, "risk" is mentioned, not responsibility, at this point. It is probable that audience events of this type have cams on the audience and the degree of agreement among the audience in their cheers could be ascertained.
end quote.