General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTea Bagger - "Person Who Cannot Afford Health Care Will Just Have To Die"
Had a discussion with an actual doctor today who is a member of our state legislature. The focus of the conversation was this doctor's discussion with an uninsured tea bagger about health care. At one point of the conversation the doctor asked this tea bagger what should happen if a person came into the emergency room and could nor afford the care. Their reply was that the afflicted person should be allowed to die. THAT is their attitude folks.
Now I get a lot of backlash when I take that stand of not giving these teabaggers care when they are perfectly willing to let patients die when THEY don't have any money.
When this doctor followed up and asked how they should be treated because they had no insurance they replied that they had the money and could pay for the care. The doctor's reply is how would I know you could afford it if you were not conscious.
I understand why many posters here say we should not deny care to these fools. Yet how do you justify your stance when this same person says that YOU or one of your loved ones should be denied care if they do not have the money or insurance?
People like Senator Inhofe get their care but are willing to let thousands die because they don't have access. The Senator is also willing to go out of his way to make sure his constituents do not get health care.
As long as we do not deny the things to them that they aggressively deny us nothing will change. I do not buy the idea that we will be like them then. There does come a time when you just have to return the favor and give them the message they deserve.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gopiscrap
(23,733 posts)
BootinUp
(47,135 posts)it was one of their relatives or themselves in that situation.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Their stance is not acceptable and not justifiable for any reason.
What we fail to understand is that we are at war with these folks politically. And they are very serious about their position and how they would actually run things. And the real brutal truth is that tea bag policies being used in certain states are causing early death and suffering. People are being thrown off of Medicaid who are on dialysis and have no recourse but to die without it. And there are other diseases that need continual treatment that is being denied.
yuiyoshida
(41,829 posts)Republicans never think the Law or Rules should apply to them. When the US Government was shut down, what did Republicans do? They went to the local Washington Federal parks and memorials and demanded to know why they were not open, and they allowed people to crash the gates that were set up. The World War II Veterans memorial... tea baggers, moved the gates aside and walked in not caring that the place was shut down because it could not operate without a budget.
They are @$$#0(e$...no doubt about it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)could be a John or Jane Doe that is an unidentified victim of a crime that has had their wallet stolen and they are unconscious. It's not like that has ever happened to anyone ever before.
Never mind that it could be a child. Because in tea-bagger world, there is a good person with a gun defending everyone from the tyranny of emergency care when they are the victim of violence, a car accident or knocking themselves unconscious on the pavement when it rose up to attack them when they slipped on ice on the way to their 2nd minimum wage job.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Whenever mandatory health care or helmet laws come up, I always hear about choice and freedom. Here's reality:
You chose not to wear a brain bucket, and now you've spilled your Harley on I-95 at 70 mph. Lucky for you, you somehow didn't die, but you have massive head injuries. Guess we should just let ya die, huh? Nope -- not how we roll. We're going to throw you on a helicopter and take you to Johns Hopkins. By the way, that $10K personal liability policy you bought was spent when they unloaded you from the chopper. Now, you're in for months in the hospital, and then (if you are lucky enough to come out of the coma), months more of rehab. Hell, you might spend the rest of whatever in skilled nursing. If you don't have medical insurance, who picks up the tab? Well, your friends will hold a few pancake feeds, but basically, it's us -- the taxpayers. We'll send a bill for $1M. You'll send $5 a week payments.
So that's why we make your dumb ass wear a helmet, and that's now why we're making your dumb ass buy health insurance.
By the way, nice bike!
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Or do you just support laws that attempt save money by creating restrictions on dangerous activities that don't effect YOU?
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)..and I support law enforcement efforts to ticket those who don't wear seatbelts. I support mandatory installation of breath interlocks for drunk driving offenders (even though I know it's easy to beat).
I don't support banning unhealthy foods (I don't support banning most dangerous activities), but reality is that within my lifetime, soda and snack foods will be taxed like cigarettes. That's the price for the government going into the healthcare business.
And if MY taxes have to pay for the results of YOUR dangerous activity, the it effects ME.
..and by the way, nice Harley.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)"do you just support laws that attempt save money by creating restrictions on dangerous activities that don't effect YOU?"
Why didn't you just say "Yes"?
"That's the price for the government going into the healthcare business"
I refuse to accept your assertion that totalitarian government intervention in every aspect of our lives is the price we have to pay for a reasonable health care system.
"And if MY taxes have to pay for the results of YOUR dangerous activity, the it effects ME. "
You sound just like a tea bagger. If it costs YOU money, it must be opposed.
I support Universal Single Payer. Selfish people are one of the biggest obstacles in it's implementation.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Helmets are common sense, more than anything.
Why didn't you just say "Yes"?
Because the real answer isn't "yes." First of all, you assume I do nothing dangerous (not necessarily true). Second, the fact that tax payers and insurance carriers end up on the hook for these activities. To be sure, that's a two-way street. The avid runner may look at an obese man and say I shouldn't have to pay for your bypass surgery", but the obese man can say "I shouldn't have to pay for your knee replacement or ankle injuries from running. I think for the sake of everyone, requiring reasonable precautions (seat belts, air bags, bike and motorcycle helmets) is reasonable.
By the way, a bicycling helmet saved me from severe head injury, and seat belts have most likely saved my life once and saved be from severe injury once.
I refuse to accept your assertion that totalitarian government intervention in every aspect of our lives is the price we have to pay for a reasonable health care system.
A few things here. First, there's a far cry from "totalitarian government intervention" and sin tax increases. Governments know that taxes on cigarettes have reduced smoking, saved lives, and cut costs. That same logic will invariably be applied to snack food and soda -- maybe even red meat. Second, big corporations are already sticking their noses into the lives of their employees from a health-consciousness perspective, so its logical to suppose that government will do so as well since they have been appointed market manager. Employers aren't engaging in "totalitarian intervention". At this point, mostly, they are just nagging.
You sound just like a tea bagger. If it costs YOU money, it must be opposed
Whenever anybody disagrees with anybody on this board, the next accusation is that one or the other sounds like Ted Cruz. The irony here is that it's usually my conservative friends who lecture me about helmet laws and the nanny state.
Look, I suspect we have more common ground than not. I've voted for Democrats since I could vote. I will likely do so until my death from something caused by long-term consumption of Diet Coke. You are here at DU, so you are most likely similarly inclined. The whole logic behind the ACA and making everyone purchase insurance is that we don't want to keep putting taxpayers on the hook. Based on current projections, it will save the feds a ton of money.
There are pros and cons to single payer. I've heard Canadians who love their system; I've heard Canadian health care horror stories. Ditto England. To me, it's like they are all in this huge HMO -- which is better than nothing. Ireland's system is interesting -- everyone gets a government backed plan like ACA bronze, and the private market offers upsells. That's really what I'd like to see here.
If you are counting physicians and hospital operators as "selfish people" then I'd agree with you.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Is it reasonable to create regressive tax structures to punish poor people for petty vices?
Is it reasonable to make wearing seat belts or helmets a criminal matter?
" Governments know that taxes on cigarettes have reduced smoking, saved lives, and cut costs. That same logic will invariably be applied to snack food and soda -- maybe even red meat."
The same logic could apply in any number of outrageous laws. Laws that seem reasonable right up to the point when you can't afford Diet Coke... Or you get pulled over on the way to work because "It looked like your seat belt wasn't on".
There are pros and cons to single payer. I've heard Canadians who love their system; I've heard Canadian health care horror stories. Ditto England. To me, it's like they are all in this huge HMO -- which is better than nothing. Ireland's system is interesting -- everyone gets a government backed plan like ACA bronze, and the private market offers upsells. That's really what I'd like to see here.
If the government is going to get involved in health care... I think it should strive to bring the same level of treatment to all Americans. If "the private market upsells" by offering rich people preferred care in government subsidized facilities, then I think that system is inherently unfair.
Because the real answer isn't "yes." First of all, you assume I do nothing dangerous (not necessarily true).
Please, humor me and post one dangerous activity that you pursue that you think should be banned and/or highly taxed.
madamesilverspurs
(15,800 posts)you've been chatting with Irene Aguilar? She's a very dedicated physician, and went to the Senate with the firm intent to improve healthcare access across the board. We are so lucky to have her in office, we could use more like her (and fewer of those who gain office via recall).
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)This is what they really want.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I am soooo stealing that. 'Cause it's so true.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)you want.
I'll stop calling them 'teabaggers' when they stop calling us 'baby killers', and not one God damned second sooner.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)I am the kind of person who relocates spiders to other places when I find them in the home. Black Widows and Brown Recluses (thank God I have never encountered one yet) excepted. I don't even like to snuff yellow jackets either. And before I went to Vietnam I could not envision hurting anyone. I never had to when I was there but I also realized I might have to and was hopefully ready and trained to do it.
Sadly there is a point when you have to do something you do not want to. People will cross the line and you have to decide.
I see us as being in a war for the country and what kind of country it will be. Denying vulnerable populations the basic necessities of life and even enjoying it crosses a line for me. And I see that attitude in tea baggers and a lot of gun nuts. If we do not go on the offensive with these people and go after them they will eat us alive because we fail to respond. Some situations are not negotiable.
My position is that you really cannot stand by and allow denial of services like the tea baggers demand. If it takes denying them what they say they will deny others so be it. And right now we have a situation where people will be denied what allows them to continue to live. We have to respond to that attitude and a very aggressive and unmerciful way as far as I am concerned.
As an example this food stamp cut is a critically serious thing. We should be going ballistic over it it is that important.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)is not nearly as offensive as "baby killers", considering that they were the ones who originated that term.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)and not one fucking second sooner.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Liberalism is not about karma.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)One of these days, life will instruct them. I have no doubt.
I'm sure Gandhi and MLK have some very insightful thing to say about stooping to an adversary's level. I'll take their word for it.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)but the rest, F* You!
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)selfishness, self-centeredness, self loathing drives too many people found in growing rightwing extreme. Where so many of us go wrong, you can not debate these people to believe anything else. Like trying to explain what color is to blind person. They lack the understanding on what actual "compassion" means. I hate to say it, but it is a complete waste of time if you believe facts and reality would ever change these people and their views.
The people in the middle are the only hope thats roughly 20% to 30%.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)I've heard libertarians and teabaggers say the same thing myself.
Humans are unique in their ability to believe that bad things happen to other people and not to themselves. That's particularly true for youngish humans. The 20-something on a motorcycle that can hit 150 MPH who is splitting lanes on the freeway and not wearing a helmet is a good example. One of those passed me not long ago. No helmet, and wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops. He apparently believed that he was immune to sudden lane changes by people in a four-wheeler.
Odds are high that that person also has no health insurance and possibly no vehicle insurance, either. If he is lucky, he won't die before he's 30. But, there's a pretty good chance he will, sadly.
Humans can be in denial about a lot of things.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)is buttressed by an anecdote that has no relation to the OP.
IronLionZion
(45,403 posts)up by their own bootstraps?
I'll also add to the ER fees that ambulance and other first responders are not free either. Who is responsible for asking the bootstrap question? Should a paramedic resuscitate the person long enough to keep them awake to ask about their bootstraps first, then pull the payment for that level of service out of their wallet, and then let them die to avoid more costly treatments?
I had to take an ambulance to the ER and got bills for $600 for the ambulance and $800 for the ER even though I had to wash the blood off myself in the hospital bathroom because it was so damn crowded they took too long to see me. It can be less crowded if we let tea party and libertarian folks go find some efficient free market solutions instead of letting them into the tax supported ER.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)if you let people die because of money, they win.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)RZM
(8,556 posts)
TeamPooka
(24,216 posts)A great level playing field question.
I will use it a lot from mow on I'm sure.
Thank you for the anecdote.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He said that people shouldn't get free food. They should get a job. And I said, but there aren't enough jobs available for everyone. He said, get rid of minimum wage and there will be plenty of jobs, and I said that most people wouldn't be able to afford food because they'd be making $2 an hour or something, and he said they can get as many jobs as they need and deal with their expenses. And I asked what would happen for those who couldn't or just didn't work, or who didn't earn enough money. Should they be allowed to starve to death? And he said yes, if that's what happens, it's their own fault for not supporting themselves.
haele
(12,645 posts)...and you can finish it yourself.
Such infantile meanness and petty greed for a group of mainly supposed Christians. I know three year olds with a more advanced sense of justice and mercy.
Of course, they'd be the first to scream and threaten if their own needs were not met.
Haele
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)very few have the nerve to reveal their innate assholery to the world.
I respect the Bagger's honesty while finding just about every other aspect of the Bagger's being repulsive.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)"The GOP health plan: die quickly."