The Ron Paul HealthCare Plan: 'Let them die'.

[rubato]

What the article does not mention is that the reason he did not have insurance is that he was HIV+ and could not afford the premiums; "that's what freedom is all about".

__________________________________

http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-cam ... -uninsured

Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured

At CNN's Tea Party-indulging debate on Monday, Ron Paul, a medical doctor, faced a pointed line of questioning from Wolf Blitzer regarding the case of an uninsured young man who suddenly found himself in dire need of intensive health care.

Should the state pay his bills? Paul responded, "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—"

He never quite finished that point, letting the audience's loud applause finish it for him. 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. So basically, yeah. He'd let him die.

Ron Paul's Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and UninsuredAs it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.

According to the Wall Street Journal's 2008 story on his death, Snyder was more than just a strategic ally: He was the only reason Paul thought he ever had a shot at the presidency in the first place.

"It was Kent more than anyone else who encouraged and pushed Ron to run for president," said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul. "Ron would not have run for the presidency if it had not been for Kent. Ron was really hesitant, but Kent drove him forward."

And so, what started in February 2007 with one laptop in Snyder's Arlington, Va., apartment, quickly grew into a $35 million campaign employing 250 people. In the fourth quarter of that year, Snyder raised a stunning $19.5 million for Paul — more than any other Republican candidate had raised at the time.

After Snyder's death, Paul posted a message to the website for his Campaign for Liberty — a pre-Tea Party organization which served Paul as both presidential marketing tool and platform to promote his non-interventionist, free market ideals.

He wrote:

"Like so many in our movement, Kent sacrificed much for the cause of liberty. Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for freedom. He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family."

And that, friends, is what freedom is really all about.

*The Kansas City Star quoted his sister at the time as saying that a "a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive." [The Political Carnival, photo via Ron Paul's Flickr]
________________________________________________


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

That "pre-existing condition" would have made coverage unobtainable at any price, at least for any illnesses that could be connected to it.

And how could the bills have become his surviving mother's responsibility? Last time I checked, parents don't bear any responsibility for covering their adult children's debts. Or was the hospital trying to play a fast one?

[BoSoxGal]

If he left any estate and she was the executor/beneficiary, the hospital may have been asserting a claim against the estate. Otherwise no, she would not be legally responsible.

There is an interesting debate in the comments following the article on Gawker.

[Scooter]

It is indeed. What it comes down to is that libertarians believe that the functions of government should be limited to those which they see as benefiting them directly.

[dgs49]

There are countries that have made a policy decision to "backstop" the healthcare of the entire society. This is a huge policy decision with potentially infinite financial ramifications.

The U.S. has NOT made that decision. Indeed, we have declined to do so despite several decades in which we have been able to see how it is working out in those countries where that decision was made - most poignantly, Canada. Further, the one area where we have made a similar decision (Medicare/Medicaid) is the most out-of-control area of federal spending, the one that will bankrupt us before the SS Ponzi scheme has a chance to.

A pox on politicians and reporters who would try to override the tacit choice of the U.S. and all of its legislatures based on anecdotes and sob stories.

The appropriate response to the question was:

There are dozens of possible resources to be called on to pay the young man's medical costs. His personal resources would be first. Those of his family would be next. Failing that, hospitals are required by law to provide for the indigent. Other local and national charities provide for the indigent. The local, county, and state governments are all free to provide for such situations, if they choose to do so.

The U.S. Federal government has not chosen to "backstop" these situations, for very good reasons. If we chose to do so at the national level, all of the other resources would instantly refuse to contribute, as has happened with the poor elderly vis a vis Social Security.

If the U.S. taxpayers want to assume this burden, all they have to do is notify their Congresspersons and president that this is what they want - and that they (we) are willing to pay for it.

Until that happens... fuck him.

[Scooter]

The U.S. has NOT made that decision. Indeed, we have declined to do so despite several decades in which we have been able to see how it is working out in those countries where that decision was made - most poignantly, Canada.

Because, didn't you know, there are people dropping dead in the streets up here on a daily basis, which is why we exceed the U.S. on pretty much every health care measure (and yet still lag behind many European countries that have even MORE gov't involvement in health care than we do).

Ask yourself why more and more U.S. insurers are sending people to India to get procedures done, if your way is working out so well for everyone.

[quaddriver]

The U.S. has NOT made that decision. Indeed, we have declined to do so despite several decades in which we have been able to see how it is working out in those countries where that decision was made - most poignantly, Canada.

Because, didn't you know, there are people dropping dead in the streets up here on a daily basis, which is why we exceed the U.S. on pretty much every health care measure (and yet still lag behind many European countries that have even MORE gov't involvement in health care than we do).

Ask yourself why more and more U.S. insurers are sending people to India to get procedures done, if your way is working out so well for everyone.

2 is more than 1. 5 is more than 2. 10 is more than 5.

therefore, it is theoretically possible that this is true.

In any meaningful way however?

lets see how it stacks up with those who still choose to come *here* vs those who come to india.

[rubato]

'We're better than India.' There's a tough standard to match.

There's stupid, and then there's "Quad stupid". Its a whole different thing.

yrs,
rubato

[Liberty1]

Ron Paul in unelectable. Who cares what he says.

[quaddriver]

there is reading, then there is rube reading

'We're better than India.' There's a tough standard to match.

There's stupid, and then there's "Quad stupid". Its a whole different thing.

yrs,
rubato

I did not bring up the subject of india, either in causal conversation or as a perjorative. Try a little harder?

In fact, continuing on the same vein, lets see how ANY other country stacks up vs the number of people that come HERE

[Gob]

lets see how it stacks up with those who still choose to come *here* vs those who come to india.

[Long Run]

Ask yourself why more and more U.S. insurers are sending people to India to get procedures done, if your way is working out so well for everyone.

[Scooter]

Yes, and...?

Was I not speaking the truth?

[Long Run]

I was simply pointing out that you first noted that people go to India for medical care, and Quad was responding to that. I am a bit surprised that insurance companies do that, though I know of people who have gone to Canada for the non-insured procedure of LASIK (when it was more expensive here). Yes, something wrong in Denmark if that is going on.

[Scooter]

Employers, Insurance Companies and Medical Tourism:

Medical tourism is one of the fastest growing industries within healthcare. Medical tourism offers a unique opportunity for employers to receive significant savings on major healthcare expenses, such as major surgeries, while providing their employees and dependents a high level of quality of care. Several insurance companies have implemented medical tourism or “pilot” programs in medical tourism such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, WellPoint, Swiss Re and others. Several self funded employers have implemented medical tourism such as Hannaford Brothers and others.

Many employers are offering medical tourism because the cost savings is up to 90% of the cost in the U.S. while the quality can be equal to or in some cases better than the patients would receive in their home countries. American patients who have received medical care overseas “rave” about personalized treatment and being treated like “royalty" while there.

Many employers are surprised to learn that many Americans are familiar with medical tourism and a large portion of Americans are open to the concept. In a 2009 Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans said they would consider traveling abroad for medical procedures such as Heart Bypass Surgery, Hip or Knee Replacement, and Cancer diagnosis and treatment.

I don't see what's wrong with it if the level of care is comparable, the patient is willing, and the insurance company or employer can save over $100,000 for, say, bypass surgery even after taking travel costs into account. Plus, it provides funding to build health care capacity in developing countries. Sounds like a win-win.

[rubato]

They should build law schools in India.

yrs,
rubato