Here's what happens when leftists don't get their way....

Here is what happens when the Right-wing doesn't get it's way because they serve such a small percentage of the population that they don't have the votes to win in a fair election.

Will the 2012 elections reflect the will of the American people?
That question seems increasingly relevant today in the wake of a new report suggesting many Americans will have a harder time casting ballots next year - and a finding last week that voting machines can be hacked with "just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education."

The report, from the liberal think tank the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, found that new laws put in place this year could "make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012."

The study points to GOP-driven voting reform efforts that Republicans say prevent fraud - but which some Democrats suggest are specifically designed to disenfranchise the young, minority and low-income voters who largely vote with their party.

"Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have," reads the Brennan Center for Justice report. "Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting."

The most significant change, the report suggests, is the fact that new laws will be in effect in five states - Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin -requiring photo identification at the polls, something the Brennan Center suggests could make it harder for 3.2 million Americans to vote.

Republicans say it is ridiculous that Americans must routinely show photo identification in their daily life but have not been required to do so when casting ballots. Democrats say that more than 21 million Americans don't have such identification and that Republicans are seeking to disenfranchise them while claiming concerns about voter fraud, which Democrats say is a relatively minor concern. At least 34 states have introduced voter identification laws this year, according to the Brennan Center.

Among the other new laws are measures eliminating early voting on Sundays in Ohio and (on the Sunday before Election Day) in Florida, when some African-American churches organize voters to go to the polls. A ban on election-day voter registration was instituted in Maine, which will likely reduce the number of new, largely-young voters casting ballots.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20114841-503544.html

 

Yeah I'm pretty sure Paul said that they have to choice to not buy insurance with the implication that they also have the choice to die.

 

Now it's a choice issue, huh? Kind of a stretch from "some on the right have openly stated that they are fine with just letting people die" even for you. Oh just face it, iq-less popped off, he can't back it up & you aren't able to defend him.

 

I think it is an interesting question. Healthy 30 year old man, has a good job, makes a good living but just decides he doesn't want to spend money on health insurance. What is the taxpayer's responsibility, morally or monetarily, towards this person? It is not like he couldn't afford insurance or was denied insurance. He made a conscious decision to not have insurance.

Personally, I tend to think he had better hope he has a generous family, neighbors, boss, company, co-workers, church, hospital, charity, etc to help him out before anyone goes looking to the public to foot the bill because I would rather those public funds go to the people who couldn't get insurance.

 

But that is exactly what Ron Paul said and that got translated to "actually does not care if those old people do die..." Sounds like you are on the wrong side of IQless1 and moen.

 

I think it’s entirely the wrong question. Why does his life or my life or your life or anybody's life come down to money? This hypothetical question wouldn't even be an issue in a not-for-profit health care system. Because we have allowed businesses to profit from a basic human necessity instead of providing a system of health care that treats people like human beings instead of revenue streams, we find ourselves in the position of asking hypothetical questions like this one without realizing the absurdity of the question we are asking in the first place. We have the technology, the expertise, the knowledge to save this man’s life but we stop ourselves because it would be more cost effective to let him die. It’s certainly a lot cheaper to abort a child than to spend 18 years raising it; why don’t we abort all children? Think of the money those little SOBs are costing us. When it comes down to a question of money, it’s easy to justify any societal cruelty.

 

Ron Paul actually never answered the question directly. He dodged it but the implication of his statement was that he would let the guy suffer the consequences of his own choice. An absurd choice.

 

What if he is a field service engineer, decides he doesn't want collision insurance, he gets in a wreck and loses his job? Does the government get him a new car? We don't want him to be unemployed do we? Or to go hungry? What if he decides not to have home insurance and his home burns down? Does the government get him a new place to live? We don't want him to be homeless do we? What if he retires, takes his life savings, bets it on Red and loses? Do we fund his retirement? We don't want him to be destitute in his old age, do we?

And 'Not for profit' doesn't mean that it doesn't cost money or that someone doesn't have to pay for it.

 

I only worry about being on the right side of myself.

 

I am glad someone has some sense here and I am not being facetious.

 

A car isn't a basic human necessity. A home is nice but he can live in an apartment just as comfortably. Look, we can play the "what if" game all night and no one advocates compensating everyone for every single loss they suffer. You and I both know that is a straw man argument.

Social safety nets are exactly what keeps people from dying in the streets as they did during the Depression. When people have spent their entire lives making this country better for the next generation, society owes them a debt. Making them save for retirement through Social Security is a barging that benefits all of society except those few at the top that are already wealthy and uninterested in giving one additional penny they don't have to give to the nation that allowed them to become wealthy. We all have a share in this country and we all deserve a piece of the pie even if some have a bigger piece. No one guarantees everyone a large slice of the pie but neither should we be willing to watch people starve to death while the privileged few stuff their pie holes.

 

Oh, that was the "implication". Now I see. I wasn't the answer but it was the implication.
You know, I'm still waiting for iq-less to either back up his statement or admit he was wrong. I wonder what will happen now? Either dr moen, phd will come to his rescue again with a lame justification or he will adandon the thread altogether. Wonder which one it will be........

 

The question you posted to begin with is a fallacy for the argument that you are making about letting people die. In the question that you posted, he is in a coma. It is an acute condition and he will be treated under our health care system anyway. No changes needed. The real question is who is expected to pay the resulting bill that is a direct result of his conscious decision to not get insurance. Just like the other questions I asked and you dismissed.

 

Pretty typical of the far leftist extreme. They know everyone who needs treatment will receive it but the "dying in the streets" argument just gets more attention & it's easy for the uninformed to sieze upon it and repeat it like it were true.
Dr moen, phd...if nothing changes in our healthcare system, do you really believe 50-100 years from now people will be talking about "people dying in the streets during the Obama Economy" just like you stated happened during the depression?

 

I don't know which question I posted you are referring to but given the parameters you just laid out, there is a fallacy here. Of course he would be billed for the medical expenses. There is no question about that happening. It already does happen. In the debate, Blitzer’s follow up question was whether or not we let him die. That’s why people in the audience yelled, “Let him die”. Here is the exchange.
Where does Paul think churches are going to get the kind of money it takes to pay today’s medical costs? Somebody should tell Ron Paul that the 1960's were 50 years ago. Things have changed.

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just — you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so 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, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical
policy, but not be forced –
BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, 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 –
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. 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 hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. 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 insurance companies and the drug companies, and 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. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

 

Too funny listening to you when patients get dumped on inner city streets for lack of insurance. People are denied life saving chemo drugs because their insurance won't cover the costs. 55 million people do not have health insurance in this country and therefore do not have access to basic medical care. Free health clinics across the country are drawing 10 times the number of people they can serve. Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage.

There certainly is an extreme position being taken here and you are the one taking it. Have you absolutely no shame?

 

Are you ignoring the audience members yelling out "Yeah!" when Wolf Blitzer asked if we should just let people die? I'm guessing you dismiss that as well, but I don't. It shows a willingness on the Republican side to let people die, rather than provide funding. You can ignore that point all you want now.

 

You need to make up your mind about something though, do you want me to wait for you to comment so I can answer immediately or can I go to work and wait a day or two to answer?

 

What were Republicans charging Democrats of doing not too long ago, that was an utter lie? "Democrats want old people to die!" or some such BS. Don't remember that though eh? That's the blinders... try taking them off once in a while and look around a bit.

 

The point I am making is that some Republicans are hypocritical, and are 'convieniently blind'. Not long ago the party said that Democrats wanted old people to die, which was an outright lie. Now audience members yell out "Yeah!" when Blitzer asked if society should just let people die (if they can't afford proper treatment). I say some Republicans are 'conviently blind' because some have an amazing ability to ignore the truth when those truths are an inconvienience. See: "David".