http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff2/ron-paul-campaign-manager-no-insurance/
According to a Wall Street Journal article from 2008, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s former campaign manager Kent Snyder, died of pneumonia in 2008 because he didn’t have any health insurance.
The resurfacing of this article comes on the heels of Paul’s statement last week at the Tea Party debate about individuals with no health insurance.
“That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—,” said Paul in response to a question on whether the state should pay for an uninsured person’s health bills.
Is this ironic? Or is it nitpicking by the media?
So let me get this straight, someone contracted an inflammatory condition of the lungs because he didn't pay into a risk premium pool? Call me crazy, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.
So Blitzer pressed on, asking if he meant that "society should just let him die," which earned a chilling round of approving hoots from the crowd. Paul would not concede that much outright, instead responding with a personal anecdote, the upshot being that in such a case, it was up to churches to care for the dying young man.
That is such a lame answer. And I don't care if it was a high-pressure situation for Paul, the "what about the poor?" point is raised in nearly every political debate with liberals and other welfare statists. He ought to have enough experience in dealing with it to give a better representation. "Beg the churches for help" won't help persuade young progressives, it'll just reinforce their belief that libertarianism is somehow tied to religious fundamentalism. However, I do agree with John James. It's not clear how a socialization of Snyder's hospital bills or public health insurance would have saved his life. In fact, you can give this story a libertarian twist: the medical market has become so distorted that it's become incredibly difficult for an individual to purchase services without the involvement of a bureaucracy of some kind. This is not the case with many other industries, in fact, we see an opposite trend in many areas of the economy. A proper analysis of the situation should start there.
Sphairon:However, I do agree with John James. It's not clear how a socialization of Snyder's hospital bills or public health insurance would have saved his life.
Not only that, just follow how the argument goes:
bleeding heart: "This man died because he didn't have health insurance."
sane person: "How's that?"
bh: Obviously he didn't have insurance, so he didn't have the money to pay for treatment when he got sick.
sp: But hospitals are already legally obligated to provide care to anyone in immediate danger. In fact, that's why you always get to say "everyone's already paying for them anyway" when I argue against socialized medicine.
bh: But he didn't have insurance.
sp: And yet he still received care. Evidently, the better side of half a million dollars worth of care.
bh: But he died. And now his mom is left with that bill.
sp: Wasn't your argument that he died because he didn't have health insurance? What difference would the insurance make if he got the treatment anyway?
bh: But he didn't have insurance. And now his mom is left with that bill.
sp: I weep for the future.
John James, give them more credit than that. They will say he died because he didn't recieve care in time. They delayed his care because he didn't have insurance.
Respect your enemy, so that you may be better suited to defeat him.
I read about this in a comment on Cafe Hayek. Didn't the campaign and Ron Paul help this man out financially but in the end there was nothing the doctors could do?
limitgov: John James, give them more credit than that. They will say he died because he didn't recieve care in time. They delayed his care because he didn't have insurance. Respect your enemy, so that you may be better suited to defeat him.
You deal with more sophisticated enemies than I do, my friend. Or should I say, "more sane, and therefore more desperate (for a way to make their ideas work)."
As an American living in western Europe, this is all I hear from the locals, "how come Americans do not have socialized healthcare?" "Why do Americans think universal care is communism?" Etc.
As a human being imprisoned* in America by the US gov't, this is why I've given up all hope for the future of the US in terms of freedom, yada, yada, yada. Europe and Britain amply demonstrate that there are no limits to the levels of exploitation which the properly softened and indoctrinated public will endure. And the rest of the world demonstrates that there are no limits to the levels of brutality that the properly cowed and terrified public will endure. So, those are your choices folks... brutal repression and poverty or unlimited economic exploitation.
Clayton -
*It's a metaphor, folks
So let me get this straight, someone contracted an inflammatory condition of the lungs because he didn't pay into a risk premium pool?
Viruses these days look specifically for the uninsured. Damn bugs.
About that slavery graphic:
I was interested whather this could indeed be true and looked up the source of the data. There they said that the slaves had a significant difference in opinion when the interviewer was white and when he was black. I am not sure whether this invalidates the whole study, but I think I would like to investigate the claim a bit more before using it as a piece of evidence to dislodge the statist mindset.
Well doesn't that kind of debunk the idea that hospitals don't turn away sick people today?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael