jclalor 12
Recommended Posts
I think Ron Pauls answer is lost on many left-wingers. When Conservatives talk about shrinking the size of government, this is exactly what they mean. Because too many people feel they can live their lives irresponsibly and rely on the govt. to pick up their slack, the government has just continued to grow larger and larger until we have finally reached the critical mass that we have today. The only real question is when is is the government too large? For some it's been too large for a long time and they are tired of govt. continuously coming to them for more and more taxes to pay for these irresponsible people. For others it has gotten too large recently. Did anyone notice that the Obama Jobs bill lowers the definition of "Rich" to $200,000 per year? For others, the government can never be too big or do enough for them. Read: They believe others who act more responsibly should pay their bills.
QuoteI work with children, and the parents have the right to decide to let them go if there is no chance of recovery or quality of life. The best you can do is load them up with morphine ( but not too much, that would be assisted suicide) and hope they don't feel much.
you have a huge heart and I could never do your job. We just disagree on who pays for who..
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf I am missing something, please explain.
How about you explain where paul said he's ok with not providing care and letting him die?
How do you interpret this?
QuoteTranscript:
Blitzer >> You're a physician, ron paul, 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 I'm not going to spend 200 or $300 a month because I'm healthy, i don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who will pay if he goes into a coma, who pays for that?
Paul >> In a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
Blitzer >> What do you want?
Paul >> What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major al policy.
Blitzer >> He doesn't have that 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 --
Audience >> [applause]
Blitzer >> but congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
Audience >> [shouts of "yeah!"]
Paul >> 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 hospital. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourself, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea -- that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests, it kowtows to the special interests and the drug company, then on top of that you have the inflation, the inflation devalues the dollar. We have lack of competition. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. We should legalize alternative health care. Allow people to practice what they want.
I think Blitzer was just trying to set Paul up to look like he was cold hearted (no surprise there). I think Blitzer got manhandled by Paul as he made it clear he was going to answer Blitzers hypothetical with one of his own.
That's great that you donate and all. At my work, we have 36 kids, at about $30,000 each a month. 90% are payed for by the taxpayers. I guess if we were cut off by the state, we could have bake sales and things like that to try and raise the $10,000,000 a year.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites