This comes from the CNN Tea Party debate.
When Senator Paul is asked if a 30 year old without health insurance should be left to die because he did not have a health insurance policy the audience yells "yes" and the Senator says this is what freedom is all about.
Be sure that within five years the Tories will be saying the same thing here.
No, make that three years.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What a load of cobblers. I’m not a Conservative but they ring-fenced the NHS Budget when Labour proposed to cut it (not that they’d admit it). This is just reactionary scare-mongering and it makes you look stupid.
When I hear Tory MPs saying they want a state in the UK like that in Hong Kong – 15% income tax, no VAT, no CGT, noi inheritance tax, very low corporation tax I know I’m telling the truth
This option is on their agenda.
It seems a bit of a leap to say that the Tories will say the same thing here because a couple of unimportant people out of a sizeable audience unthinkingly yelled “yes” in the moment probably (but not definitely) in response to that question?
(You might say the tories would have the same approach as the guy on the stage, but he didn’t suggest people should die)
Far from it
When many Tory MPs now suggest they want a 15% float tax like Hong Kong, no VAT, no national insurance and no taxes on wealth then i see the link as obvious and the consequence inevitable
Many will recall Kenny Everetts “Lets bomb Russia!” at the Tory conference as well-there are always morons among us-of all political persuasions.
Oh no, that’s not a plausible comparison
No one believed Everett
I believe that this is what is now called mainstream thought in the US
Ron Paul is saying that everone got treated for illness back before Big Government got its hooks into it, neighbours paid, the churches paid. Healthcare was cheaper to implement then he says, before the beurocrats and the drug companies got involved.
There is an alternative to government interference and it’s cheaper, it seems to me he’s saying.
Governments like to foster the idea that if Big Government didn’t take care of us there’d be no way we could take care of ourselves. That’s nonsense. It’s pale justification for taking money from us and giving it to its business chums. All governments do this. Ron Paul is pointing out that there is indeed another way, while the announcer clearly suggests that without expensive health insurance the hypothetical young man in question has no option but to die. There’s nothing can save him, he suggests. Absolute nonsense again.
BB
In the 1960s medicine was easy
Take heart attacks. You held the person’s hand and watched to see if they died
That was it
Sure churches could do that
The argument you and Paul are making is from a different world
But you’re boith saying as I see it we should back and see if they die
It’s happening now.
My GP practice no longer informs people that the winter ‘flu jabs are available.
Patients have to ask for them.
The doctor has tried to alter my medication to a cheaper alternative, in spite of their clinic informing them of the correct regime…..which they seemed to not know anyway.
The regular clinics for the chronically ill have been scrapped…..
Soon the hospital will have the regular seasonal increase in patients, but half the beds in the high-dependency unit are shut.
Hospital porters, some of the lowest paid in the country, are being restricted in hours along with an increase in personal pension contributions….
I foresee a future in which the old [those with no money] are offered free euthanasia jobs at christmas.
As an aside…are any private pension plans paying their own way yet ?
Or are they still bilking the taxpayer ?
my doctor has also done the same,took me off certain cancer tretemtsas werent good for me,took me off sleep aids as not good forme,had to be really forced to give me other medication and did the same to my wife causing huge distress(agst consultant),no doubt that they are cutting their costs to get better finance like cutting saturday surgery,less hours in evening,the tories have started the demise and changed it from health to wealth and its only the beginning
Doctors cannot profit from not prescribing as yet so right now that logic does not work: they must have other reasons
I get that a few Tea Party members might have been swept along in the moment and yelled out “YES!” in response to letting someone die in the street for lack of health insurance. Immersed in that kind of atmosphere, where “every man for themselves” attitudes are most likely held by the majority of attendees, I can fully understand how people, believing themselves to be ‘at home amongst friends’, might let rip with their unguarded sentiments.
Do I think this makes them rogue idiots amidst a group of otherwise sensitive types? Don’t be ridiculous. The values displayed there are, from what I can gather, typical of right wing America and certainly typical amongst those present at that debate. They don’t want to pay anything for anyone else and they view taxes as theft by the government.
Why should they pay for someone else’s medical care? Well, if you really need that concept explained to you, you’re not worth the time it’d take to explain.
Are all taxes theft? What do they get for their taxes? Jesus, I paid nearly 50% of my gross income in taxes last month, and that’s just Income Tax and NICs… nevermind VAT and all the other stealth taxes! Of course, I want my streets cleaned at lit at night. And yes, I want police and armed forces… and let’s not be silly – I need to have my doctor available. Oh yes, and my hospital if needed. And schools for the kids… speaking of which, isn’t it a crime that they’re doing away with child benefit? I’ve got a right to child benefit… I’m British! And obviously, if there are benefits to be claimed and taxes to be paid, they need to be administered properly, so I suppose I really do need the civil service… HMRC for when I’m in work and DWP for when I’m out of work…
All hyperbole and silliness aside – we need the state. Government is elected (well, usually… the present shower got a bit of a free pass, but generally speaking there’s usually a mandate) and as such speaks for all of us. Not YOU, not ME, but US. Drug companies, private healthcare companies and insurance companies don’t do that. They exist only to maximise value to their shareholders… end of story. To quote Frank Zappa, “They just look out for number 1… and number 1 ain’t you. Hell, you ain’t even number 2”
I shudder at the thought of living in a world where nobody’s looking out for you. If you do approve of that, if you really want to be that alone in the world, then I respectfully submit that you’re fundamentally broken.
Cameron may have hijacked what was previously a noble sentiment and perverted it in an attempt to divorce himself from any kind of social responsibility… but in it’s purest form it does apply here. Regardless of what the blinkered American right believe, we are in fact All In This Together.
Time to start acting like it.
@Geearkay
“Drug companies, private healthcare companies and insurance companies don’t do that. They exist only to maximise value to their shareholders… end of story.”
I don’t need the state to bail me out when my house burns down, the private insurers do that well enough.
I don’t need the state to provide me with medical when I travel, my priovate travel insurance does that just fine.
I don’t need the state to give healthcare to my dog or provide it with drugs, my private vet, animal insurance company and drug companies do that just fine.
To blindly believe that private companies can never provide a good service is foolish.every interaction I have ever had with private medical care around the world has been more efficient than what I have experienced on the NHS. But of course it has had a cost. It is finding a balance between efficiency of a private provider and the safety net of a public system that is what is needed.
a) I don’t believe you re the NHS – sorry – but it would not have the status it does in our society if that were even remotely true
b) What if people can’t afford your insurance?
c) The transaction cost of that insurance might be 30% – 40% of premiums – which is what is wasted in admin in US system. Do you really want that?
And what if you develop a chronic ailment ?
Such things never happen to the successful
They’re rich because they’re wonderful so they never get ill
Didn’t you know that?
I didn’t say private companies never provide a good service. I said that they exist to provide the maximum value to their shareholders. Boards of directors have a duty to ensure that they do this.
That they provide a decent service may or may not be the case (and from the numerous horror stories I’ve come across regarding private health insurance covering you up to the point that you actually become ill, I wouldn’t take it as gospel that they do) – but the fact remains they provide this service in pursuit of a profit. They’re in it for the money.
And who mentioned pet/travel insurance? Certainly not me.
So let me enlighten you
Companies have no idea how to maximise
And as a result they don’t
I know this because a) I’m an FCA b) I’m an economist c) I’ve runa firm of accountants d) I’ve been an entrepreneur f) I’m a human being and know no one maximises anything
And that blows your whole theory apart
Make no mistake there are people with radical/extreme views in the present government.
Richard may slightly exaggerate matters, but in a responsible way to alert us to a burgeoning conflict developing in this country
There is elite who are evil and avaricious, as is demonstrated by contempt for the world’s poor courtesy of their tax evasion/avoidance/dodging schemes. These individuals care for nobody but themselves and their influential friends — and in their insulated world peasants dieing in the street means little to them.
Those that dismiss this issue as “reactionary scare-mongering” do so at their (and our) peril.
People of that ilk were present in the last government too. Mandelson and Purnell spring to mind here. Government itself would seem to be the enemy here, so isolated by their power that they are indifferent to our interests. Time to read Schumacher (E.F.) again, perhaps?
BB
No – it’s neoliberalism not government
Let’s be specific
And government is not the issue – it is benign