Here is my question for Ron Paul supporters.
Imagine that your mother got laid off her job and lost health insurance and needed emergency treatment. But imagine that your mother could not get insurance because of a preexisting condition. Would you let your mother die under these conditions? Would you support the Obama view that people with preexisting conditions should at least be covered?
I have tried to be fair to Ron Paul, but what he said in the Sept. 12 debate is scary. Of course it would be great if churches, and others, would care for these people, and in many cases they do. But on matters of life and death, this is a cop-out. What if they don't?
To Ron Paul supporters, if your mother faced any of the situations I described above, would you place your libertarian philosophy ahead of your mother's life and let her die because of it? Or do you believe, as I do, that the Obama plan is right about preexisting conditions, at least?
Please, no cop-outs. We all hope churches and others would take care of people, but they do not always do this. What if they don't? What comes first, your libertarian philosophy of responsibility, or your mother's life? And what about insurers who deny coverage to some people who want insurance? Should your mother die if she were one of those people who had no chance to be responsible because insurers wanted to make more money?