And on the subject of Republicans running for National office my buddy rightly points out that in my video clip of the Tea Party Debate Dr. Ron Paul answered “no” as the audience lustily cheered for the death “yes” of the hypothetical 30 year old who used his liberty to avoid paying for health insurance.
I wasn’t really intending to highlight the “no” of Ron Paul. Mine was more a rhetorical question and it was aimed more at the Tea Party who cheered the theoretical death so lustily. Most of the GOP candidates were to some extent pandering to their audience for applause or to avoid boos.
In fact, Congressman Paul deserves credit with sticking to his guns even in the face of boos on all issues. Even so Ron Paul’s answer to Wolf Blitzer’s question deserves comment.
So, after giving the audience a ringing defense of libertarianism and our right to make dumb, shortsighted and foolish decisions at the expense of the larger community’s interest when asked: should we just let an uninsured man die, Dr. Paul softly lets his hippocratic oath kick in – “no.” We shouldn’t let the young fool die.
OK Then! What the hell are we supposed to do Dr. Paul? We can’t force the young fool to buy insurance. We can’t force the young fool to pay taxes on federal guaranteed insurance. We are supposed to let him gamble that he won’t get sick and then we will have to make sure he doesn’t die! How, Dr. Paul? Force taxpayers to pay for his emergency room visits? Force Doctors and hospitals to take the hit and pay for the treatment the young fool wrongly gambled he wouldn’t need?
Dr. Paul, honorable and honest man that you are, what do you propose? Doing the same ineffective thing we’ve been doing for decades only less of it? Dr. Paul that “no” may have been an honest answer. It may have been a decent answer. It was not a good answer. For you it was a very bad answer and that means it was a very bad answer for America.
So there, Buddy. That’s my bigoted explanation.