Ron Paul: 'f**k off and die already'

[RandomGuy]

The irony of this anecdote is too delicious to pass up. The guy didn't die of flourdie poisoning, but close enough.

There is also quite possibly a thread about this already. Tough titties, I just read it this morning.


--------------------------------------
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.

As 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 freedom to leave your familiy so far in debt with medical bills, they have to go to bankrupcty court, or force the hospital to take the loss and socialize the costs anyways? --RG

*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]

-------------------------------------

Funny thing is that they had to resort to begging other people to take responsibility for his debt:


http://www.redpills.org/?p=1230


I have just recently learned that Kent died without medical insurance. As reported in the Kansas City Star, http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/695651.html, his friends have started a fund to collect the $400,000 in medical expenses with which his family has been saddled as a result of his early and untimely death.

Several blogs (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer179.html) are urging friends of Kent to “chip in” by making an online contribution to help defray those expenses

The people in the richest, most powerful country on earth have to have fucking bake sales, and collection jars with pictures at counters, because we can't provide people with health insurance.

Seriously?

[lefty]

Cool

[cheguevara]

he is that niga

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2011_06/RonPaulFakeAdBeer.png

[DisAsTerBot]

where did he say "fuck off and die already"?

[cheguevara]

Indeed, says Donna Paul, when Ron Paul first set up shop in 1968, he was the only obstetrician in town. "So he went for like three years without ever leaving Lake Jackson; 24-7," she says. "He had no [other doctor] to sign out to."

Eventually Paul got so busy he took on a partner. Jack Pruett, who was then fresh out of his obstetrics/gynecology residency, says when he first sat down in Paul's office, he was told there were two stipulations he would have to agree to before joining the practice.

"He said, 'No. 1 is we will not perform any abortions.' And I said, 'That's fine; I can live with that. What's No. 2?' " he remembers.

No. 2, says Pruett, was that the practice would not participate in any federal health programs, which meant, as Paul described it, "that we will see all Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, and they will be treated just like all of our other patients, but we're not going to charge them and accept federal funds."

[Drachen]

RG - The one thing that I can say that I admire about Ron Paul is that he walks the walk. If business people crave certainty, then they would push for his election because (for better or worse) he will do exactly what he says.

I am not saying that I agree with everything he says, just that I have the utmost confidence that he will not deviate from his stated plan.

[RandomGuy]

where did he say "fuck off and die already"?

The single hash quotes are a common editorial convention for paraphrasing, not actual quotes.

That is my interpretation of Ron Pauls' implication that he would let the uninsured die in the debate.

[coyotes_geek]

where did he say "fuck off and die already"?

He didn't. That's just RG's strawman....

[RandomGuy]

Indeed, says Donna Paul, when Ron Paul first set up shop in 1968, he was the only obstetrician in town. "So he went for like three years without ever leaving Lake Jackson; 24-7," she says. "He had no [other doctor] to sign out to."

Eventually Paul got so busy he took on a partner. Jack Pruett, who was then fresh out of his obstetrics/gynecology residency, says when he first sat down in Paul's office, he was told there were two stipulations he would have to agree to before joining the practice.

"He said, 'No. 1 is we will not perform any abortions.' And I said, 'That's fine; I can live with that. What's No. 2?' " he remembers.

No. 2, says Pruett, was that the practice would not participate in any federal health programs, which meant, as Paul described it, "that we will see all Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, and they will be treated just like all of our other patients, but we're not going to charge them and accept federal funds."

More irony.

RP essentially reduced his income, by passing up paying customers.

This is, economically, the exact same thing as paying taxes.

If all doctors did the same, I would be perfectly happy with a Libertarian health care system of "fend for yourself".

Anybody care to give me odds that doctors would, in such a system, spontaneously rise up and give up 20% of their income or whatever % it would take to provide care to all indigent?

Then give me the mechanism that would prevent abuse of such a system.

[RandomGuy]

He didn't. That's just RG's strawman....

The emotive content is quite a strawman.

RP made it quite clear though, that he was ethically comfortable letting someone bleed to death if they didn't have insurance.

C'est va?

[coyotes_geek]

The emotive content is quite a strawman.

RP made it quite clear though, that he was ethically comfortable letting someone bleed to death if they didn't have insurance.

C'est va?

Your OP makes it quite clear that whoever wrote your OP wants that to be how people perceive RP's stance, but I don't see a direct quote from RP saying that specifically.

[boutons_deux]

Ron Paul's blindly ideological, heartless, sociopathic, inhumane social/economic Darwinism is repulsive, as is the blood-thirsty, spittle-spewing Roman Coliseum Repug/libertarian crowds giving thumbs-down to the victims.

Did Paul, very probably a millionaire several times over, give any money towards Snyder's medical catastrophe?

[cheguevara]

:lol discussing healthcare

the 2 main problems right now with this country is the banks stealing money and the country becoming a police state. Ron Paul is the only one with balls to discuss these.

but if you rather talk about your next genital wart exam :rolleyes

[Viva Las Espuelas]

the germans bombed pearl harbor?

[DarrinS]

Cool story

[Winehole23]

RP answered with an anecdote, so the dispute over what it means was foreseeable.

If Ron Paul thinks charity ought to pick up the slack for indigents, does that mean hospitals will allow them to languish for lack of treatment or that Mr. Paul will require hospitals to suspend care for non-payers? Doubtful.

[nkdlunch]

this is as stupid as Palin's death panel theory

[Winehole23]

Saying that RP would, or wants people to die from lack of care is a speculation about state of mind -- an unfalsiable in any case -- that does appeal superficially to reason.

Why is Ron Paul apparently unwilling to answer no to the question?

[coyotes_geek]

this is as stupid as Palin's death panel theory

Precisely. Red team has their "death panel" fear mongering. Blue team has their "uninsured people bleeding to death in the streets" fear mongering.

red team = blue team

[cheguevara]

and randomguy = palin

[Winehole23]

waving the bloody shirt, we used to call it

[Winehole23]

cool thing is, you don't need any actual blood to characterize someone as bloodthirsty and pitiless. you just play on base fears.

[Winehole23]

and artful parsing

[boutons_deux]

death panel is exactly what we already have in the Repug-protected for-profit insurance scam denying coverage to diseased people.

increasing death panel effect is exactly what Ryan's kill Medicare/good-luck-with-tiny-voucher insanity.

and of course Repug/VRWC's targeting EPA for destruction will cost 10Ks lives and diseases.

RP waffled on the answer, but the Coliseum answered for him loud and clear.

[boutons_deux]

"he will not deviate from his stated plan."

nor will he EVER be elected to be able to propose his plans, which will be filibustered to death by Senate Dems.

[cheguevara]

"he will not deviate from his stated plan."

nor will he EVER be elected to be able to propose his plans, which will be filibustered to death by Senate Dems.

the DEMS will filibuster bringing our troops home and not bombing Iran??

the DEMS will filibuster indicting Wall Street thieves???

[Winehole23]

nope. the antiwar candidate is the bloodthirsty one.

[boutons_deux]

the DEMS will filibuster bringing our troops home and not bombing Iran??

the DEMS will filibuster indicting Wall Street thieves???

it will be close, as always, but the Pauls/Repugs don't have 60 in the Senate to overcome Dem filibuster.

There are war-monerging shoot-first/ask-never Blue Dog Dems and neo-con Dems like Hilary Clinton want to expand the murderous UCA Empire, not retract it.

[coyotes_geek]

Why is Ron Paul apparently unwilling to answer no to the question?

The American Public's conscious is incapable of comprehending anything short of an extreme. Everything must be all-black or all-white. Everything must be short and simple. A rational response along the lines of conceptually believing that taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to provide healthcare for the uninsured, but that there are certainly situations that merit exceptions to that concept is far to complicated for us. The public needs to simplify that answer and will do so by using the exception to invalidate the entire concept. "He says he's for this, but he's really not. He's a flip-flopper."

The same situation happened when the republican candidates were asked if they could accept a debt ceiling deal where there were $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes. There was only one way the candidates could answer and that was "no deal". Any rational response about compromise and how the cuts would far and away exceed the tax increases would merely be turned into "this guy wants to raise taxes" and amogst republicans, that's a death blow.

[Winehole23]

yes it is

[Winehole23]

in other words, by refusing to say yes or no RP is essentially pandering to a bloodthirsty and obviously vicious GOP political base?

[Winehole23]

as he must, to remain relevant in a primary

[coyotes_geek]

in other words, by refusing to say yes or no RP is essentially pandering to the bloodthirsty and obviously vicious GOP political base?

I wouldn't call it pandering. More like avoiding a question there's no correct answer to. If he says yes, he gives the RG's of the world ammunition to portray him as a bloodthirsty extremist. If he says no, his message gets clouded.

[Winehole23]

More like avoiding a question there's no correct answer to.nuance. not generally welcome in these parts...

[Winehole23]

makes one appear squishy

[Winehole23]

like life itself, perhaps

[hater]

it's a stupid theoretical question. as bad as that Joe the Plumber question posed to Obama. Wasting time on shit like this is what they want you to do.

[Winehole23]

+1

[coyotes_geek]

nuance. not generally welcome in these parts...


makes one appear squishy

Supporting evidence for my earlier point about our unwillingness to accept anything short of an extreme. :)

[boutons_deux]

it's not a theoretical question at all.

RP's social/economic Darwinism/AynRandism/MiltonFriedmanism policies very definitely have consequences, just like Massey/BP's no-safety policies have fatal consequences.

[Winehole23]

yah

[Winehole23]

its just like running a mine

[Winehole23]

the president runs the coal mine of health care. that's genius.

[Th'Pusher]

The American Public's conscious is incapable of comprehending anything short of an extreme. Everything must be all-black or all-white. Everything must be short and simple. A rational response along the lines of conceptually believing that taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to provide healthcare for the uninsured, but that there are certainly situations that merit exceptions to that concept is far to complicated for us. The public needs to simplify that answer and will do so by using the exception to invalidate the entire concept. "He says he's for this, but he's really not. He's a flip-flopper."

The same situation happened when the republican candidates were asked if they could accept a debt ceiling deal where there were $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes. There was only one way the candidates could answer and that was "no deal". Any rational response about compromise and how the cuts would far and away exceed the tax increases would merely be turned into "this guy wants to raise taxes" and amogst republicans, that's a death blow.

I take issue with this. I think the American public is more than capable of a nuanced response to the hypothetical posed. RP could have said the Hippocratic oath requires the doctor to provide service, but the user would be responsible for any services provided or something to that effect.

The same applies to the debt ceiling/tax question. The bottom line is a 10 to 1 cuts to tax increase would be a really big win should any player on the stage be able to negotiate that deal. It's absurd that not a single republican presidential candidate could effectively explain that to the audience.

[coyotes_geek]

I take issue with this. I think the American public is more than capable of a nuanced response to the hypothetical posed. RP could have said the Hippocratic oath requires the doctor to provide service, but the user would be responsible for any services provided or something to that effect.

The same applies to the debt ceiling/tax question. The bottom line is a 10 to 1 cuts to tax increase would be a really big win should any player on the stage be able to negotiate that deal. It's absurd that not a single republican presidential candidate could effectively explain that to the audience.

The overwhelming majority of the American public only needs to see a "D" or an "R" after someone's name to feel adequately informed to cast a ballot, so I respectfully disagree that we're interested in thoughtful responses to questions that can't be summed up in a headline. We want multiple choice, not fill in the blank.

[DarkReign]

the DEMS will filibuster bringing our troops home and not bombing Iran??

No.


the DEMS will filibuster indicting Wall Street thieves???

Yes.

[greyforest]

time for this again huh?

Healthcare expenditure per capita, private vs public

http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/oecd-health-expenditure-gdp-per-cpita.PNG

[RandomGuy]

I wouldn't call it pandering. More like avoiding a question there's no correct answer to. If he says yes, he gives the RG's of the world ammunition to portray him as a bloodthirsty extremist. If he says no, his message gets clouded.

Honestly, the fact he dodged it like a punk ass chump says more than if he had stuck to his guns.

I have a lot more of a problem with a non-answer.

[coyotes_geek]

Honestly, the fact he dodged it like a punk ass chump says more than if he had stuck to his guns.

I have a lot more of a problem with a non-answer.

:lol

Welcome to politics.