Uninsured by Ron Paul, His 2008 Campaign Manager Died Owing $400,000 for Medical Care

[Emit]

Ron Paul knows something about uninsured men dying without health insurance. Kent Snyder, who was Paul's 2008 presidential campaign manager, died on June 26 of that year without any medical coverage. His hospital bills had accumulated to $400,000 at the time of his passing.

~snip~

So, an aide who was pivotal to the political fortunes and fundraising for Paul wasn't even given health insurance - in his hour of need - by the libertarian Congressman.

By now, almost all BuzzFlash at Truthout readers know or saw how the bloodlust of the Tea Party roared with approval when Paul said that people without health insurance are taking their own risks, and that is the way it should be.

A Pensito Review article from 2008 noted, "Snyder's death and his lack of health insurance has triggered a behind-the-scenes debate among Paul supporters and libertarian activists over whether or not the Paul campaign should have provided health insurance to its staff."

~snip~

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13007

[nobodyspecial]

1. So, who paid the bill?

Typical. They don't want to pay for anything and then walk away with others holding the bag.

[alittlelark]

10. WOW..... You are in the wrong forum.

[EFerrari]

19. I believe the poster was criticizing libertarians of Paul's stripe.

[nobodyspecial]

22. Yes, that's what I meant

I didn't realize it was that unclear. And it's not just libertarians. Look what the GOP has done to the country. Who starts two wars and cuts taxes?

[salin]

41. Not to mention Paul's own smarmy response

he worked in a hospital and they never turned anyone away... friends, churches and neighbors used to step it (or something like that said he)... but here when he had a chance to do the 'charity' and 'taking care of our own'... he didn't. Ugh. If he and his own campaign don't take the "responsibility" actions that they want to legislate on the rest of us (ala - take care of each other, but without the fed. govt. and any safety nets) - imagine what the country would devolve to under their "care."

[vets74]

53. Plus, that campaign managers are cheap. Dime a dozen for False Front scams.

Ron Paul is a phony anyway. He runs a False Front scam operation, designed to present traditionally leftist positions on enough issues to confuse social conservatives with lefty economic views. Paul is a circus act aimed at the Reagan Democrat / Macomb County MI Union-Member voters.

Here's Paul at CPAC :::

<object><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JM8d_Arjz6g?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Paul sticks consistently to a Far Left agenda. Listen to the silly CPAC economic-lefties as they cheer Paul wildly. The list below is exactly what Ron Paul has been using to rope blue collar isolationist/peacenik whites into voting for Tea Party authoritarian candidates. For example :::

-- I still think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are unnecessary

-- I still think those who authorized and carried out torture should be punished.

-- I still think The Patriot Act etcetera were an anathema to our core values as a nation. ("attack on the Fourth Amendment")

-- I still think the whole "war on terror" is just a reaction to self induced fear.

-- I still think the MIC is a ridiculously expensive waste of our nations resources.

-- I still think unemployment is a scandal.

-- I still think those in DC live in a bubble and are at the beck and call of the wealthiest.

This is political fakery at the very highest level. An astonishing scam.

Then when rubber hits the road, every single election, Paul endorses Far Right corporatist candidates.

Paul also hinges his "libertarian" system on opposing abortion. That's got to be about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

This technique is almost exactly what the fascist parties did in Italy and Germany in the 1920s. They came on all gang-busters to break up the big companies, punish war profiteers, and empower the labor unions. Once in power, they went all the other way -- like America today.

For a more complex reading of national requirements Nation Strategic Narrative is what you get with adults in the room. But for now we have the Republican Party operating as a collection of False Front scams -- Ron Paul amounting to as much as 10% to 12% of their Election Day turnout.

Health insurance ??? Paul doesn't give a hoot. What's in it for him ?

[Dutchmaster]

67. Political fakery? Hardly.

Criticize Paul all you like, but at least do it on one of the many issues where he is dead set against progressive values. The things you listed above are true core values of Ron Paul, always have been and always will be. And he has 30 years of voting records to back it up. Say what you want about Paul, but the man does not lack integrity. He believes in what he says. Do you see him pandering to anyone? I don't. I saw him get booed by people he earlier in the night had eating out of his hand. Why? Because he said what he believes in regardless of whether or not that's what the crowd wanted to hear.

If only he had progressive economic and social welfare policies, he would be a great candidate.

Again, criticize him all you want, just don't come on here and start making shit up about the man just because you don't like him or his policies.

[JanMichael]

71. I don't doubt his core beliefs - It's idiot "liberals" that somehow think he's on...

...their team that piss me off. Toss in bonifide "leftists" that do the same and I can only laugh in sadness.

That is the draw that makes it political trickery. It's not that different from Hope and Change. One trick ponies (suckers) think that the person that has totally opposing views to them, on real solid issues, that jumps on that one trick pony and rides it for a minute is their personal trick rider. That is the scam.

[Dutchmaster]

74. If your top concerns are endless war and civil liberties then yeah . . .

. . . he is on your team. If regulated economy, social welfare, etc . . . are more important to you, then he is decidedly not on your team. Believe it or not, there are liberals to whom Ron Paul is a very viable, and in my mind understandable, choice. Think hardcore pacifist. I'm talking Quaker style, refuse to fight in a war even if imprisoned types. I am not going to stand in judgement of them because they choose global mass murder in the name of America as their top policy issue. Frankly, I'm glad that they have an actual anti-war candidate that they can consider.

Ymmv.

[JanMichael]

75. Since I'm not a one trick pony I agree with his war stances...

...but none of his economic or social welfare stances. Nor the ass-holish son making his way off a name or the anti-abortion (states rights) positions.

It's like Hope and Change. There's little to really give a shit about. One trick ponies are prostitutes. Short on commitment but great on making you feel good for a while.

Most hard core pacifists that I know care about more that one or two issue and have an education to boot. They are people that are not swayed by one or two issues.

Know your enemies.

[freshstart]

76. Personally, I think there is more to Ron Paul than

we know. How does a guy that won a special election in the 70s and then lost the next election get appointed to a "shadow cabinet" in the late 70s?
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bgFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ukoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6913,1208676&dq=ron+paul+shadow+government&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3PtHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1386,3755771&dq=ron+paul&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cuAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UDgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=1315,3368064&dq=ron+paul+shadow+government&hl=en


David Koch was financing him back in the 80s.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vOxYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HFcMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2817,3848869&dq=koch+ron+paul&hl=en

Both he and his son are hooked up with the "Right to Work" anti-union group. That remains the same.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4FxiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O3YNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2830,208638&dq=ron+paul&hl=en

And, he seems to have an issue with "labor costs" i.e. wages and seems happy that jobs have moved overseas. Ron Paul from the congressional record in 2001.
"But today’s economy is unlike anything the world has ever known. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world trade has had results, some good. Labor costs have been held in check, industrial producers have moved to less
regulated low costs, low tax countries while world mobility has aided these trends with all being helped with advances in computer technology."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=3427&dbname=2001_bound_record

[vets74]

83. Koch megamillions =PRODUCES= a voter net for 9/11 CT believers, Birthers, Audit the Fed...

and combinations of these factors :::

1. Anti-Abortion Pro-Life sentiments, ranging widely

with any one or more of the following :::

2. Oppose Iraq and/or Afghanistan, call for criminal investigation of the financial scams, the feeling of bloated government, libertarian issues other than marijuana, etc.

Voters who score for 1. plus any-of-2. are the lawful prey of this False front scheme. It works to beat the band. The Koch brothers are professional managers who know how to hire effective employees.

They reward success.

Investing some $200-million to Libertarian and Paul-led efforts has held together as much as 10% of the Republican vote pool. Damn cheap. This effort uses social science research going to the Reagan Democrats, specifically the Macomb County, Michigan, union member voters.

Big money + competence = results.

Btw: I'm always astonished at the incompetence of counterattacks on this voter net.

"Paul isn't going to get the nomination" out of Debby the DNC Chair was typical. DNC hasn't a clue that the Kocks are copying the European fascist parties of the 1920s -- when they all started out sounding far-leftie-nationalist. Debby & Co. seem to have no idea how these long games are played. $200-million over 30 years... no problemo... and that's the main threat to American democracy.

"Democracy is not the solution to our problems.
Democracy is the problem."

-- adjustaquote from The Gipper

[saras]

82. He seems to be exactly as much of a liar and fraud as 90+ percent of other politicians...

...and whatever stupidity he is guilty of (and I'm not denying there's a lot), that above list of values is REJECTED by the large majority of "mainstream Democrats" according to polls repeatedly quoted here on DU.

Or perhaps it's that lesser of two evils thing, where you're supposed to believe someone who consistently works against these values is actually for them just because someone else is working even harder against them.


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are unnecessary - yep.
Those who authorized and carried out torture should be punished. - yep.
The Patriot Act is an anathema to our core values as a nation. - yep.
The whole "war on terror" is just a reaction to self induced fear. - yep.
The MIC is a ridiculously expensive waste of our nations resources. - yep.
Unemployment is a scandal. - yep.
Those in DC live in a bubble and are at the beck and call of the wealthiest. - yep.

So where's the mainstream Dems (not the progressive fringe, the mainstream) arguing for these values? I'd never consider supporting Ron Paul, but I'd love to have some Dems to support.

[CTyankee]

85. I guess Dr. Paul didn't "step in" for his own employee, huh?

Oh, well, maybe they passed the hat and he pitched in $20 bucks...yep, that's stepping in all right...

[aggiesal]

55. Only 1 person has ever done it ...

in the history of Humanity ... GWB

[nobodyspecial]

21. Um, no I'm not

What is it around here? Do I have a target? Do you send each other PMs about me to harass and stalk me?

[bluestate10]

36. You will learn to ignore posts of some people. Just don't set them to ignore,

because doing that is chickenshit behavior. By not setting to ignore, you reserve the right to paste jackass posts. BTW, welcome to the DU.

[arikara]

49. Chickenshit behavior to enjoy civility?

I think not. Personally I enjoy the board so much more now that I've taken advantage of ignoring a few assholes. And if it just means that I can't paste jackass posts, then I can live with it.

[Wait Wut]

48. Not allowed to say.

But...um...what the hell was that you ate for lunch?

Welcome!

[global1]

11. I Don't Think The Guy Walked Away.......nt

[nobodyspecial]

23. Yeah, I guess not

I didn't say literally.

[Enthusiast]

51. At least your name is appropriate.

I always try to see the best in people.

[WingDinger]

69. It was thrust at his mother. Who also was destitute.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The guy should have taken personal responsibility for his health and his finances

and bought his own insurance. Isn't that what freedom is all about?

:sarcasm:

[global1]

9. At Least Ron Paul Isn't Hypocritical About This......nt (sarcasm)

[WingDinger]

70. Couldnt he pay with two chickens?

[DrunkenBoat]

3. Why didn't ronnie treat him for free? Fact of the matter is, no one can afford medical care these

days, even the insured.

Ronnie fudged when he was asked if we should let the hypothetical patient die -- "No, the churches used to take care of that."

But that's kind of bullshit. The churches (especially the Catholic Church) used to own charity hospitals that were funded through a variety of means -- including the free labor of Catholic brothers & sisters. They no longer do, much.

No charity could afford to pay for all indigents' medical care these days. It's just too expensive.

[global1]

7. Did Any Church's React To Paul's Statement?.....

I'd like to hear if they can afford to take up the cause.

[DrunkenBoat]

16. dunno. I doubt any of the winger churches would except to say, "Oh yeah, we'll do that --

if you give us some government subsidies."

The hypocritical pharisees. They already gladly collect government subsidies for drug rehab & homeless programs. I hate their lying asses.

[mopinko]

20. those catholic hospitals are money making centers now

several in chicago are being threatened with revocation of their not- for-profit status due to their refusal to give enough free care.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Why, did the guy die in childbirth?

That WOULD be wierd.

[Angry Dragon]

4. This country is fucked-up

It will not change until the greedy bastards are taken care of..............

[DeSwiss]

45. Bingo. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

5. Send the bill to Ron Paul's church.

[Tx4obama]

8. [phone]. n/t

[DrunkenBoat]

17. Great idea. In fact, that would be a good publicity stunt.

[hlthe2b]

6. That damn well needs to get into the MSM...

At least to KO, O'Donnell, Rachel, and Ed.

[Emit]

12. Yeah we can spread this far and wide n/t

[southmost]

13. and the truth gets uglier

Eom

[alarimer]

14. A libertarian Congressman who HAS GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE

Fuck you Ron Paul, you heartless piece of shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Ugh, can we stick to facts?

RP does not accept a paycheck, federal retirement, nor insurance for his work. None of it.

Stick to the fact that he stood by and let a business partner that one would presume he trusted, and worked with, die.

Edit: Correction, he gives a large portion of his paycheck back to the treasury, and refuses the congressional pension plan.

[Yavin4]

15. This Is One of the Reasons Why Our Health Costs Are Soaring

Not to be cruel, but that $400K will be paid by other insured people and higher health care costs.

[frazzled]

24. It also helps to understand why the individual mandate is necessary

I didn't realize so many people choose to be uninsured. I always thought it was because they couldn't afford it, and for that I have great sympathy. But since the big health care debate I've learned that a lot of people just don't think they need to have it. It's always about the big one.

Ron Paul was at least correct to say the hypothetical person should be carrying major medical insurance. He must have been sobered by this incident among his own staff.

[pepito]

26. do you understand

that having insurance will not stop you from being bankrupted,or running out of money for treatment?...better rent SICKO and get your facts straight

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

[frazzled]

27. Not the point

And under the new Affordable Care Act the protections are much, much better. Insurance will be regulated in ways it never has been.

[pepito]

28. absolutely THE point

if somebody doesn't have enough money to pay co payments,or medicines,or uncovered treatments,he will DIE anyway,as Grayson says.Insurance is just the BEGINNING of a medical condition..single payer for all,everybody in,nobody out. or we all will be exposed to CONTAGION wise up

[AverageJoe90]

30. wtf? n/t

[frazzled]

44. Don't you understand that the new law does away with most of these issues?

Insurance will have strict new regulations on what it must cover and pay for. And there will be no == absolutely no--annual or lifetime limits on what an insurer will pay. As of 2012 they will have to pay up to $2 million a year if you get sick, and after 2014 there is no limit whatsoever. This will get rid of the preponderance of bankruptcy problems.


They also can't deny coverage for any illness or medically necessary treatments. There will be NO uncovered treatments (except for optional ones).

I'd suggest you read the Affordable Care Act so you know what you're talking about. NOT having the act will continue the abuses you talk about.

[a2liberal]

81. Please point out the provisions and ENFORCEMENT mechanism for your statement

"They also can't deny coverage for any illness or medically necessary treatments. There will be NO uncovered treatments (except for optional ones)."

I can't honestly say I've read every single word of the bill, but in all my reading about it and my skimming of it, I've seen no such measures. In fact, if such a rule existed, wouldn't that make so-called "Cadillac" plans a non-entity as all plans would be "Cadillac" plans? Yes, there is an appeals process, but appeals do you no good as you're getting sicker or DEAD, and the insurance company still ends up better-off financially. It is absolutely naive to believe that the same companies that were supposed to be covering things all along are suddenly going to up and stop taking the same measures to prevent "medical loss". Why do you think the provisions become effective in 2014? To give them ample time to find all the little loopholes just like banks did using the delay in the credit card bill.

Please enlighten me on the existence of these measures if they do exist. Otherwise, please stop giving false hope to those oppressed by the corrupt insurance industry.

[Missy Vixen]

29. NO, they're not

We've priced what we'll be paying a month. It is the equivalent of an additional primary mortgage payment.

I guess we'll be deciding whether we eat/have utilities, or have health insurance.

>Insurance will be regulated in ways it never has been.<

Insurance companies are ramming through double-digit increases every year in anticipation of 2014. You can bet that those increases will be even faster before the "safeguards" kick in.

:eyes:

[rosesaylavee]

52. Well it ain't now.

I pay 700/month for healthcare I can't use. If I use it, the premium goes up.

If the premium goes up, I can't pay it. But yes, I have "health care insurance".

[a2liberal]

54. The "Affordable Care Act" PROMOTES

high deductible plans by putting higher taxes on more comprehensive plans. So, buy coverage you can barely afford to pay for, and then can't afford the deductibles to actually use, so you die anyway... only difference being that you also had to pay premiums for coverage you couldn't afford to use. And that still has very little regulation to prevent the insurers from coming up with bullshit reasons to not cover the treatment you need to survive even if you can afford the deductibles. Go watch Sicko for examples of all the people WITH insurance who die because of denied treatment. I still don't understand how any progressive can believe that strengthening the already corrupt insurance companies by forcing everyone to be a customer (more profits = even more lobbying power to keep the status quo) of a good idea. The whole concept of a healthcare system where some entity profits from denying people care is nonsensical. Doctors add value to the system. Hospitals add value to the system. Heck, you could even say competition among private drug companies adds value to the system. Private insurance add absolutely no value to the system, it only extracts wealth, and extracts more wealth by denying more care. And no people can't comparison shop because by the time you know your insurer sucks it's too late and you're dead.

[OwnedByCats]

32. True

I remember 30 years ago my parents having good insurance that had affordable premiums and the cost of copays and prescriptions were low. They even paid for me to have experimental surgery for my left eye even though the accident which caused me to be partially blind in that eye happened 6 years before I was insured by them. Getting insurance like that now is almost unheard of. Many people are in a position where they either can't afford the premium or can afford the premium but not the copays and therefore can't afford to use their insurance. My husband had insurance when he went to the hospital on 3 seperate occasions for kidney stones but now owes the hospital $15,000 anyway for those visits which we can't afford to pay at present, all because the crappy insurance didn't cover very much of the bill and the premiums eat so much of your income. I am seeing this more and more. It's very hard for me to justify paying the insurance company a premium of $900 a month for both of us just to end up owing thousands and thousands for medical bills anyway!

I lived in England for 10 years and between my ex-husband having Hodgkin's disease twice and medical issues of my own, it was so nice not to have to worry about medical bills. The care is not "free" persay - but it's affordable. It's like paying a very low premium every month, no copays for doctor or hospital visits (regardless of the type of doctor you're seeing, brief or long hospital stays and nothing for surgery or any other treatments you need). We did have copays for medications, but it was very cheap. People who had low enough income could even get their meds for free. They even paid to store my ex-husband's sperm sample at a private facility for a period of 10 years in case the chemotherapy left him sterile. You can go private in the UK, either you can pay out of pocket or enroll in a private insurance plan - but it's entirely by choice. I know some people have said the health care in the UK isn't good, but that wasn't my experience. The first time my ex had cancer, he was stage 4. The reason it wasn't discovered early was because he wasn't very good about going to the doctor over little things that bothered him. When the symptoms became too much to bear, that was when he finally let me make him an appointment. Hodkgin's is one of the easiest cancers to cure, but with him being in the advanced stage he was in, we weren't sure how well it would turn out. His hematologist was awesome. To make a long story short, after his treatments he was in remission but it returned a year and a half later. After those treatments, it never came back. He's been in remission now for 11 years. The government NEVER interferred with my care, I was never told I couldn't have something done. If my doctor said I needed it, it got done. Women are advised in the UK to have their woman's checkup (PAP smear) every three years unless they are prone to abnormalties. I wasn't comfortable with that and when I told my doctor, he said I could have one every year if I wanted. I was never refused a yearly exam even though they were found to be normal every time. I had heard women say they had been refused yearly exams, but I never was. All in all, I really no compaints about their system and I didn't see my friends and family there have problems with the NHS. I've heard the horror stories, but they can happen in any system. It's not like our system is ever free of mistakes.

When I moved back home to the US 4 years ago, I was SHOCKED by how bad things had gotten here. I remember before I left the US for the UK in the late 90's, I didn't have too much trouble paying for check ups even though I had no insurance at the time as I had been kicked off my parent's policy when I was 22. Back in 1997 I paid about $150 for my yearly gynocologist visit which included the PAP smear, breast exam, tests for diseases and blood and urine tests. 4 years ago I went to see my PCP for the first time just for a checkup and she wanted to do a blood test. The bill from that visit was about $80 which is bad enough since I only saw her for about 10 minutes - THEN I found out I was to be billed seperately by the lab that conducted my blood test. This was a standard blood test, nothing special about it. I got a bill for $800!! I ended up in the emergency room later that year because I had a seizure from medication I was taking. Between the ambulance ride, head CT, the ER visit and bill from the doctor I saw, I owed $5,000. I was only there 4 hours. A few months ago I went to the ER because I had a tooth abcess which was infected and on the pain scale was a 12 - a 14 if I laid down. Normally I would not go to the ER for something like that, but I was desperate for relief. It was a Saturday night and I had a dental appointment that Monday morning to have the tooth removed and I knew the ER wouldn't be able to pull it so really I was just there to get some pain meds to keep me comfortable until Monday. It wasn't busy there thank goodness and I was in and out within 20 minutes. They took my blood pressure, gave me a Vicoden to take immediately and a script for Tylenol #3 to get filled. Between the hospital bill and the bill from the prescribing doctor who I saw for a whopping 2 minutes, I was charged $600. What was the most insulting was the doctor tried to send me away with just Motrin. MOTRIN?? For an infected tooth abcess? If that worked, I wouldn't have been there! Why would anyone go to the emergency room for pain if ibuprofen would be good enough when they could just go to the store, buy the ibuprofen (or have some lying around the house) and save themselves $600? I realize some people drug seek, but you could clearly see the abcess poking out of my gums and my blood pressure was through the roof because of the pain. I told her I had taken a ton of ibuprofen already and that changed her tune awfully quick as she feared I would burn a hole in my stomach. Oh and dentists, I can't believe how much they charge now also! They charged me $150 to remove the tooth and another $150 because it was an "emergency" visit that they had to squeeze in. It took the dentist less than a minute to pull the tooth - plus he was stingy with the novacain and it still hurt like hell. He didn't even offer to give me another injection. Needless to say he won't be getting my business again if he can't be bothered to keep me comfortable during an extraction.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm really worried. If health care costs keep going up in the rate it has been, in a few years the only people who will be able to afford medical care are the wealthy. Makes me wish I had stayed in the UK.

[area51]

35. Welcome to DU. OwnedByCats.

As you said, we're rapidly approaching the point where only the wealthy will be able to afford health care. Is there any way you can move back to the UK for your health's sake? At least it's a civilized, first world country where health care is a basic human right. Or perhaps you could move to Canada. The U.S. is not a civilized country. We really should change this country's name to the United States of Sparta.

[alstephenson]

47. Thanks for posting.

Your story really puts things in perspective. Welcome to DU! :hi: :hi: :hi:

[livetohike]

50. Welcome to DU!

:hi: Thank you for sharing your story :hug:.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. excellent post. welcome to DU

:hi:

[conflictgirl]

33. I HAVE insurance and can't afford to use it

My insurance has a $4000 annual deductible, and everything is 100 percent out of pocket before that point. That's almost 10 percent of my household income and I have kids to support. I have to pay 100 percent of office visits, tests, even medications, until I reach that deductible - and even then it only covers 60-80 percent. I've had prescriptions that cost over $500 that I had to leave at the pharmacy because I didn't have that kind of money. I don't go to the doctor unless I'm really sure it's a life or death matter because frankly I can't afford it.

I have another friend, also insured, whose husband was diagnosed with cancer last year. Even after their insurance coverage they still owed a quarter of a million dollars to the hospital. She's been sued by the hospital and will likely lose her home. And that's WITH insurance, remember.

Given the fact that we've had no wage increases at all in four years - while meanwhile the cost of everything else has gone up - I've thought several times about giving up my health insurance. Seems that if I get something serious I will be bankrupt either way, insured or not.

[Raster]

68. Oh please. Don't kid yourself. The NUMBER ONE REASON people do not have health insurance....

...IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. No one just chooses to be uninsured. No one. People make the precarious decision to be uninsured because of prohibitive cost.

[JanMichael]

72. Read Jack London's "How I became a Socialist".

"Not only was I not looking for Socialism at the time of my conversion, but I was fighting it. I was very young and callow, did not know much of anything, and though I had never even heard of a school called "Individualism," I sang the paean of the strong with all my heart."

That's why.

"This was because I was strong myself."

Again.

"By strong I mean that I had good health and hard muscles, both of which possessions are easily accounted for."

Again, ignorance.

"I had lived my childhood on California ranches, my boyhood hustling newspapers on the streets of a healthy Western city, and my youth on the ozone-laden waters of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I loved life in the open, and I toiled in the open, at the hardest kinds of work. Learning no trade, but drifting along from job to job, I looked on the world and called it good, every bit of it."

Again a blind ignorance.

"Let me repeat, this optimism was because I was healthy and strong, bothered with neither aches nor weaknesses, never turned down by the boss because I did not look fit, able always to get a job at shovelling coal, sailorizing, or manual labor of some sort."

Is more needed?

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2550/

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. No churches were there to help him?

:shrug:

[Capitalocracy]

39. Seriously, where's the church?

Nobody would ever get turned away! That's crazy talk!

[hugo_from_TN]

25. Does the Obama campaign provide healthcare for all it's employees?

just askin.

[ibegurpard]

31. sounds like something he'd run on

[LeftishBrit]

34. And I've even come across people on DU from time to time...

who thought that Paul was not that bad; that he was a 'truth teller'; that his opposition to the war on Iraq outweighs everyting else.

Well, it's great to be opposed to the war on Iraq; but it isn't an excuse for supporting what is essentially a war on poor or even just not wealthy people; sick people; elderly people; etc. He has said in an article that he posts on his own website that just because people need medical care does not mean that they are entitled to it. Just a slightly longer way of saying 'let them die'. Utterly vile from any member of the human race; even viler coming from a doctor.

[anneboleyn]

37. I agree. It is sick that a former doctor would say/do the crap that Paul does. Sadistic.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. He'd make a great secretary of defense.

[RockaFowler]

38. Well, why didn't Ron Paul help him??

This guy and all the other Repukes make me sick. Let Him Die is their new slogan.

And yes Grayson was absolutely correct in 2009

[Ilsa]

40. So, HE got medical care, even without insurance.

They are hypocrites because they know he couldn't pay for it, but he went out and got his medical care anyway.

Let's hope the other candidates rub Paul's nose in it.

[Chimichurri]

42. Ron Paul is on the government dole and get's his Cadillac health care paid for by us. But

f*ck everyone else, as far as he's concerned. He got his.

These people are cruel and heartless.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. See post 62

You will be humiliated if you go up against the paultards with non-facts.

[CanonRay]

43. If a Libertarian dies from lack of health care, is it suicide?

Just asking.

[Jim_Shorts]

46. Hey, thats a good idea

Why don't we all just quit paying for these outrageous insurance premiums and just go to the emergency room every time we get a hang nail. I'll just say "put it on my tab".

I would rather owe them the money then cheat them out of it.

[Clouseau2]

56. Interesting tidbit of info from the page raising money for his wife

"The presidential campaign for which Kent worked so tirelessly provided no medical benefits to any of its employees, thus putting the entire burden of these expenses squarely on Kent and his family."

[earcandle]

57. My son battled Burkitts Lymphoma and won, but his bill is $261K. The doctors told him no to worry

about it... it would be taken care of.. but of course they
sent the bill.  What next?  Medical Bankruptcy for him?  We
need Universal Healthcare. NOW.  Gee whiz, I am reading
Eleanor Roosevelt's Auto Biography and she is citing
Yugoslavia as having Universal Healthcare in 1951.. we are so
behind the times.. 

[Jim_Shorts]

60. Behind the times, for sure

If you average it out, the rest of the civilized world had some type of universal healhcare 40 years ago and we pay twice as much as they do. It's beyond frustrating.

[fascisthunter]

58. Ron Paul is a Sociopath...

You have to feel no empathy for those around you to condemn them to such a cruel existence and end.

[former9thward]

59. "Uninsured by Ron Paul"

Please name the candidate -- of any party -- who gives his campaign manager health insurance. And this person died three years after the campaign ended. Please name the candidate -- of any party -- successful or not -- who gives their campaign manager health insurance three years after a campaign has ended.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Thank you.

Maybe save a couple people from sallying forth and looking like morons.

[SOS]

78. According to the article

Snyder died on June 26th, 2008.

How is that three years after the campaign ended?

On edit -
To answer your question:
Name one candidate who gives his campaign manager health insurance?

Answer:

"The campaign provides health insurance to all its employees, their spouses, partners and children" said Jay Carson, a Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman.

[former9thward]

80. Everything is in the details. If you know anything about national campaigns you would know

campaign managers are almost never "employees" They are independent contractors and are paid salary lump sums. But let's say the Clinton campaign was an exception. Congrats you might have come up with one. But I assure you it is the rare exception. Most national campaigns do not have the funds to provide health insurance for their workers. It is hypocritical to jump on one candidate for a practice that is done by almost every campaign.

BTW since Synder ran up 400k in health bills it is obvious that his lack of insurance did not mean he did not have health care. He clearly had 400k worth of health care.

[RedCloud]

66. So he was murdered by Ron Paul's greed.

[Auntie Bush]

77. You'd think that experience would have taught him a lesson and softened his heart a little.

But no! It's still as hard as a rock.

[In Jest]

79. Liberty!

:sarcasm:

[vi5]

84. I keep reading that his mom got the bill

What am I missing? Even if she was the executor of his "estate", wouldn't the bills only be payable if his estate itself had the assets to cover it? I mean bills don't just get transferred to relatives to pay, or am I wrong about that?

If an estate has no assets when someone dies, then those bills just don't get paid, correct?