There's a lot of controversy over a question asked to Ron Paul at the Tea Party debate and the response yelled by a handful of audience members. Here it is....
BLITZER: ...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)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die? (Handful of people in the audience: YES!)
PAUL: No....
First of all, as per usual when dealing with the Left, the actual question here is regularly being taken out of context. In Blitzer's question, he wasn't referring to someone who couldn't afford insurance. He was talking about someone who had the money and just decided to spend it elsewhere.
One of the dirty little secrets of health care in this country is that a lot of the people who don't buy insurance can afford it, but choose not to do so. For example, if you're one of the 10 million illegal aliens in this country, why would you pay for insurance? You're going to get free care when you go to the emergency room anyway and you won't ever have to pay your bills since you're here under an assumed identity. Then there are young Americans. A lot of them are willing to roll the dice, forget about insurance, and hope they don't get seriously ill. If we're perfectly honest, we should admit that MOST OF THEM will win that bet. Should they buy insurance anyway? Yes, it's the smart thing to do because even though they PROBABLY won't become seriously ill, the downside risk is so extreme that if they come up snake-eyes, they could pile up more debt than they could pay off in a decade or two.
What we should recognize, however, is that this is a health care problem we have largely created for ourselves. If we tell people, "Whether you buy health insurance or whether you don't, we'll still treat you and then, if you get too far in over your head with the bills, we'll let you declare bankruptcy" -- well then, millions of people will do just that. Because we start with that ludicrous proposition as a given, we've gotten into a place where so many people feel like they have to run the Constitution through a shredder in order to force people to buy health insurance as a condition of citizenship.
Here's an alternate idea: How about we give out tax credits that allow every American to buy health insurance if they want it and if they choose NOT to do so, then we let them suffer the consequences? Some people would make the "wrong" decision and then they'd get ill and be unable to afford treatment. At some point, churches, foundations, or wealthy Americans would probably step in to provide clinics to try to give those people SOME help, but there would be people who fall through the cracks. That's the downside of having a truly free society. However, the alternative of having an all-powerful government that tries to control every aspect of our lives to make sure we all "do the right thing" is much worse.
Instead, why not let people take more responsibility for their own lives, allow more people to choose their own health insurance, watch as the cost of care drops, and as a bonus, we wouldn't have to throw the Constitution out the window.
Follow John Hawkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn
Joan E. Dowlin: The Scariest Thing About the Sept. 12 GOP Debate Was the Audience
Advocacy group challenges GOP candidates on 'let him die' question
Why libertarianism fails in health care
Tea Party Audience: Let Him Die
GOP's dueling orthodoxies in health care: 'Let him die' or Party of Life?
Why is the discussion about a mythical man who could have afforded health insurance when in the real world millions of American families cannot?
Back in the '90s I was forced into early retirement by so-called corporate downsizing. My package included 50% payment of medical insurance. By the time I turned 60 my HALF of the insurance was $1200/month....actually exceeding my pension. So for years we lived with a gun at our head. If we had had a major problem, even if the emergency room tended it, we would have lost our house, etc.
And the emergency room myth! Anyone who has ever had to go to the hospital for a real emegency knows that the first thing they ask you is for your insurance card. If you cannot produce one they push you off into another room and after they have taken care of those who produced cards and if you are still alive they will tend to you. I have had it happen to me when I had super insurance and just didn't realize I had to carry the card. I had an auto accident head injury, they gave me a rag to hold on the bleeding, and I lay in wait for hours until the welfare doctor came and stitched me up. I have known people to die waiting for ER attention.
Thank you, exactly.
The refusal to look at this rationally is destroying Western economies.
Human beings are simply NOT perfectly rational robots as libertarians would like to imagine. People carelessly forget to pay their insurance bills. Studies have shown that younger people are simply less risk-averse & and more reckless than older people, and this of course affects whether they feel they need to buy health insurance. And tons of people are not financially literate or able to make sound business decisions.
Your basic point is that these people deserve to die — just for having poor judgment. It's an insane, cruel concept and no other developed country operates this way.
If we really want to compete with other countries in the global marketplace, we could lessen the burden paid by companies for hiring US citizens if the government provided basic health care — just like every other developed nation.
If you don't agree and recognize the reality of this position, you really aren't a libertarian, you are just a dreamer that assumes that the safety net was maintained by magic.
I can't believe libertarian ideas are actually drawing this much ire. It's just insane. We don't want more freedom. We want more government! Really?
Isn't the real problem that health care costs so F-ing much? Why don't we try fixing that before we hand it over the government. They've done such a bang up job with everything else.
Government created healthcare has had the unintended consequence of jacking up healthcare prices to the point that it is un-affordable if you are on your own.
The cost for having a baby in 1950 was around $86. Adjusted for inflation that is $755.00
I was on Medicare when I had mine, it $7000. If they raise the cost of healthcare, the gov. will just pay for it. They have created a monster that is going to be difficult to get back in control of.
I do like your idea of tax credits as an incentive to purchase health insurance. That would be a step in the right direction.
Lord have Mercy on us all.....