Skip to comments.Perry 'taken aback' by debate crowd reaction (on hypothetical case of young uninsured sick man)
Posted on 09/13/2011 1:53:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
TAMPA, FL -- The morning after a sometimes-rocky appearance in front of a Tea Party debate audience, Gov. Rick Perry said he was "taken aback" by cheers from some crowd members on a hypothetical question of whether a young man who decides not to buy health insurance should be refused care if he develops a life-threatening illness and be left to die.
"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa.
"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."
Perry distinguished from that the issue of "justice," reiterating his strong support and "respect" for the death penalty on a state-by-state basis. "But the Republican party ought to be about life and protecting, particularly, innocent life," he added.
Perry also responded to the crowd's negative reaction to his support for allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, saying his campaign has "the right message" on opportunities for children who were brought to the United States illegally "by no fault of their own."
"This issue is about education, it's not about immigration," he said.
"These kids showed up in our state by no fault of their own, some 2-3 years of age. And they've been in our schools, they've done their work, they've prepared themselves good, they want to be contributing members of society. So it would be I think the wrong message to say somehow or another that you can't go to our colleges, or we've going to punish you because of the sound of your last name."
"When people really think about it, I think they'll understand what we did in Texas was the right thing for Texas," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
we REALLY have to control our people - if indeed they WERE “our people”.
ANYTHING like this, even a small number of audience participants will allow the Drive By Media to blast us - and our candidates and cause.
I think more and more folks are getting sick and tired of being FORCED at the point of a government gun
to pay for the irresponsibility of others.
Nope to the first. Nope to the second. Two nopes is a double nope, also known as a dope.
Get it together, Perry. If you’re going to be our best or only chance not to end up with Romney as our candidate, you’re going to have to do MUCH beter than this!
“They’ve prepared themselves good”?
Well this shows where the Perry haters stand on life.
I remember probably 10 years ago having a discussion with a Libertarian here at FR.
I asked him/her if they saw a person lying on the street:
1) Would you step over the person and walk on?
2)Would you call for help?
That person said step over and move on.
That attitude in the audience should make Floridians nervous, if O-Care get instituted. Between the Dummies and Libertarians Life doesn’t stand a chance.
I am sympathetic to his argument, and yet it always bothers me when someone uses that phrase. We don't oppose illegals getting government services because we don't like the sound of their name, or the color of their skin, or their accent -- it's because they broke our laws.
I can sympathize with the children of illegals, because they didn't purposely break the laws. They were brought here without their own choice. And if they have been here for years, they may well be more tied to OUR culture than their nation of origin.
If we could solve ALL the other problems of illegal immigration, I wouldn't mind these few thousand kids being given student visas and green cards so they could go to college and then be productive members of society.
In texas, the total number of immigrants (legal AND illegal) who get in-state tuition appears to be around 11,000 or so. It's not a tidal wave. But so long as we have undefended borders and a government unwilling to send the people who DO choose to break our laws back home where they came from, it's hard to push for special treatment for the small number of children who are caught up in the mess.
Perry. Changing the way we spell “quisling”.
Freedom doesn’t only mean the freedom to make good choices. If someone chooses to be without insurance, they’ve made their choice.
If someone wants to ride a cycle without a helmet, who am I to stand in the way of their stupidity? And if an insurance company refuses to insure the helmetless rider, so be it. Personally I would insure them at a massive premium.
Borders? We don't need no stinkin borders.
RE: That person said step over and move on.
There are Christian Libertarians and Atheistic Libertarians. I would guess this person you talked to is the latter.
"We" [The GOVERNMENT] should not do anything of the sort
Ron Paul was 100% CORRECT
People were not turned away from hospitals before government control- people took care of them other ways.
Now that government is involved people go to emergency rooms for every minor scratch.
the person in the audience who said "YES" was reacting to THE IDIOCY OF THE QUESTION.
I think the doctors and hospital should treat the patient if they choose, at their own expense, if they wish, or they should bill the person.
The govt. should not be involved in healthcare.
I can accept his viewpoint and in the general election these comments should help defuse the Obama hispanic vote.
But a HUGE however, I am really pissed he said “because some people dont like the sound of their last name”.
That has nothing to do with it and he should know better. Why play the race card on good Americans who hate illegal immigration?
I agree with Perry here. The question was BS, but I was a little surprised by the audience cheering for this answer. It is a serious matter and though Paul made sense on it and followed up with charities to help the needy and lowering medical costs, the cheering crowd on it looked bad and made we wonder if it was a cadre of Paulites getting excited. Poor taste overall.
True, but that kind of reaction is NOT helping the Repub chances of winning in 2012.
The Dummies are already working on a tv ad.
Because it works to end discussion on an issue you know you can't defend.
The question was stupid, and designed to illicit a negative response that could be used against us.
It was an either/or false choice, and even Ron Paul knew better. We didn’t need government paying for health care to make people take care of sick people without insurance. We did it through charity.
Government became our charity in part because we WERE charitable, and moreso because politicians SAW that WE were charitable, and wanted to take CREDIT for that charity by giving our money away FOR us.
But seriously — this is the heart of the problem with our health care debate. Who among us would say that a person should be left to die on the sidewalk in front of a hospital, because they hadn’t bought insurance and didn’t have money to pay?
Sure, that’s the “Atlas Shrugged” answer, right? Take care of yourself, and if you don’t suffer the consequences? I believe that — until people are dying or I can help them. If somebody stupidly walks on the edge of a bridge, and falls over, I will jump in to save them, not let them drown because it was their own fault.
And I don’t want to leave people starving in the street, or dying on the sidewalk. But that means I can be taken advantage of, because people know we are charitable, and can take advantage of our charity.
I had a proposal once I thought had merit. We DON’T do Obamacare, or have government mandate health insurance. AND we treat everybody, no matter whether they have insurance or not.
But if someone gets treatment and can’t pay for it, then they are OURs. Not a slave, but they now OWE all the money we gave them. We can force them to buy health insurance at that point, because they OWE us for treating them. We can garnish their wages. Maybe we’d have a service program they could participate in. We make them pay for being stupid enough to not provide for their own security.
I’m not sure that would be incentive enough for people to do the right thing. Really, people who take advantage need to get “less-then-gold-plated” care. I don’t want to say substandard, but there has to be a difference in the service people who provide for themselves get vs people who make us pay for them.
Here’s a plan nobody here will support. We actually implement a national health insurance, paid for by taxes. But this is just a catastrophic plan, which provides limited services. No extraordinary life-saving care. No end-of-life amenities like hip replacements. It might even have death panels. Sorry, we have to ration to keep the prices low. Nobody WANTS to use this plan, but if you don’t provide for yourself, it will treat your heart attack, get you back on your feet and on your way.
The problem is we don’t have it in ourselves to be uncompassionate. I don’t think government is the solution for that, but I don’t know how to get us back to where we were compassionate on our own, and I fear the american people won’t stand for going back. They may hate Obamacare, but I believe they are quite happy with government providing a health care safety net.
But Perry's use of the catchphrase "because of the sound of your last name" is itself extreme prejudiced and a form of vile namecalling against any who disagree with his position on the issue, because it tars all who disagree with the inferred epithet of anti-Hispanic racism.
And Mr. Perry amped up his utter disrespect for all who do not share his opinion by that "take that!" toothy assertive and aggressive grin he would end it with.
It ties in with his utter disregard for fellow Texan adults who are the parents of kids upon whom he forced the wart vaccine gardasil.
Speaking to the insurance issue here.
What is wrong with multi-tiered insurance? If you are in a restaurant, you can order the more expensive dish, or the cheaper, or opt out and go somewhere else for a sub. On insurance, if you pay, you should get better service than someone who doesn’t. Ultimately, that might mean triage for the deadbeats.
This solves a lot of the problems of freeloading. For example, take motorcycle helmets. I can see the safety argument for them, and the freedom argument against them. But, if you’re riding without a helmet, and without some insurance payment, with the assumption that the goverment (i.e., the rest of us) are happily guaranteeing the same level of brain care as for someone with a helmet and insurance, I think it’s freeloading.
A friend of mine told me that in Austria, they’re explicit about this, and there’s a two-tiered level of care. So, if you get cancer, but you don’t pay for private insurance, you might be told there’s an opening in six weeks at a clinic 500 miles away. But, if you were paying the additional private insurance, there would be an opening immediately at a nearby clinic.
This is where the Obama mandate goes wrong. (One of many ways). Instead of recognizing that there’s a benefit to wealth and payment, it pretends that in the interest of fairness and social justice no such benefit exists. Instead, it mandates a co-erced payment. Wouldn’t it be better to say “If you pay, we’ll do this for you, but if you don’t we’ll do the best we can. Not nothing, but not top of the line care, either.”
I was on a cruise boat a couple of years ago, and one of my tablemates was an ICU nurse. She was generally liberal and hated insurance companies because they tried to deny care to minimize expenses. But, then she said, “Do you know who gets the best medical care? Illegal aliens, because there’s no gatekeeper.” How she could be liberal while observing that is another story.
It would be much better to have a vague link between payment and care than the current system.
Let’s not fall for the subtext of these articles, which are suddenly ramping up. Notice the highlighting that this was a Tea Party debate. The subliminal message is that those crazy, far-right, cruel, vicious Tea Party people LAUGHED at somebody dying. See - look how crazy and dangerous the Tea Party is.
The mainstream media knows that a whole lot of Americans think that Obama is in over his head. They now are starting to lay the groundwork to slander those of us who believe in limited government (i.e., those with a Tea Party state of mind) in order to try to convince enough voters (to get to 270 electoral votes by hook or crook) that Obama is better than any alternative.
Obama can’t run on any record of accomplishment, so they are laying the groundwork NOW to try to make a belief in limited government somehow “beyond the pale” and get enough guilty white voters to vote for Obama again.
the answer about this hypothetical person is, we already have medicaid.
Made Perry look REAL liberal when he said that.
What are you? A policeman?
You think we should wave our flags when he praises lower tuition for illegals?
So the WSJ will print their letters?
I have to admit, and I will get flamed for this, but I am reconsidering my position on in-state tuition for children of illegals brought here at a young young age. Some of these kids speak English better that Spanish and many can’t read or write Spanish. Are we going to send literate English speakers to a country where they are illiterate? I know these cases are few, but maybe they should be reviewed. What I am against is then trapping us into citizenship for the Parents because you “can’t separate the family”. Baloney, my 20 year old goes to a school 500 miles from home... happens all the time.
What does “step over and move on” have to do with the person’s political or religious belief’s? I know plenty of people all across the political and religious spectrum that would help that person and I know a few who would not. In general those that would refuse to get personally involved have no problem saying the government should help them.
The difference I see is that while a libertarian may help that person (or not) he would never force someone else to help that person.
I have strong libertarian leanings (the principles not the party) and I would say that the state should not help that person even though I would.
Guy is SICK!
Atheistic Libertarians believes in less gov. because there is no such thing as "good". In the absence of "good" there is never any reason for one person to force another to do anything.
On the other hand, Christian Libertarians see that God created Natural Laws and Natural Justice to govern man. Any attempts of men to force other men to bend to the will of God are all made in vain. Men living by virtue, shunning vice and following the word of God will most of the time be rewarded here and always in heaven. That is Natural Justice. No government regulation can protect you as well as living a clean life can.
I think the patient and his family should be responsible for making such a healthcare decision and they should be responsible for paying the bill when it’s all over. Once their resources have been exhausted, the taxpayers may be able to cover the shortfall but the patient and his family should be required to pay the taxpayers back with interest even if it means wage garnishment, tax refund forfeitures, etc. The healthcare system is a shiity mess. It got that way because the US government laid its hands on it. We shouldn’t entertain the notion that the system will get better if we let the government have even more contact with it.
Let me try to get the idea of what the "right to life" really means. I, too, am a libertarian conservative. At the core of any logical and reasoned based philosophy is that life is an a priori right. That means that MY life belongs to ME. Any arguments about that are between me and G_d. For earthly matters, it means I can do with MY life what I please as long as I perpetrate force nor fraud upon another (therin violating their right to life). To be clear this means that no person or government has the right to tell me how I should or should not act in any said situation. Forcing a person at the point of a gun (which is what government boils down to) to give up a portion of their life to do this or that is patently wrong. That means that my time and my money (a representation of my life) are mine to do with as I please. Anything outside of that is theft.
I have just about had enough of Perry. I will vote for him if he wins the nomination, but no way will I vote for him in a primary.
Not buying it. I say they were plants. Perry's right. We're the party of life. We don't let innocents die. That's the other party.
Hell yes they can go back to Mexico as English speaking only citizens. not one inch of ground will we cede to these invaders. Not one step backwards. This is war, there will be scorched earth and broken hearts.
I fail to understand your point concerning in state tuition for illegals and sending English speaking children to Spanish speaking countries.
Is your belief that we should not deport the children? That is a different subject than in state tuition for illegals.
The man in the hypothetical question was not innocent. He made a deliberate and conscious choice. Are you saying he should not be responsible for his choice?
Yep. Illegal means illegal. He also needs to stop with the pro life bit when he allows executions. I am for capital punishment, I just think he looks bad saying he is pro life and that is why he supported gardasil, yet he supports the death penalty. For me that is a minor irritant when compared to his pandering to the illegals. He made a big tadoo about the feds not helping with the border. I have a sinking feeling that he wouldn’t deport illegals even if the feds helped him to do it, that he would come up with some excuse not to deport them.
He isn’t getting my vote. He tried to make it about race instead of rule of law when he said it was because of their ‘last names’. He can stick it!
There is a place for compassion but it is not via the force of government arms. Compassion belongs to individuals and their voluntary associations. There is no such thing as a compassionate government.
You would force all of the rest of us to support your compassion. How do you reconcile such a thing? You would cause the IRS to seize my personal property in order to help those you believe should be shown compassion.
There is nothing to stop you from spending ALL of your wealth to help someone. You even said you would risk your life so what is spending all you have compared to that? So go ahead and have at it but DO NOT force the rest of us to go along with it.
You mention if people do not pay they should get help but less than those who pay. I am curious where does your compassion end? After you have the government take our money to pay for getting the dying man off the street, will you also have us pay for his kidney transplant? You wouldn’t pay for it personally would you? Even though you would die helping him from getting run over buy a bus.
Good question, but let me ask you this, would the people against in-state tuition be happy if these kids were charge out of state tuition? If the answer is no, they want the families deported, then I would have a problem with deporting the young adult children. If the answer is YES, I would be happy if only the children paid out of state tuition. I could appreciate this position but this minuet difference of in-state vs. out of state tuition doesn't seem worthy of presidential debate.
So the real issue is, as you elluded too, are we going to give these children a path to citizenship. Here is where I am not so sure. My position was to deport but now I am not so sure.
Those were Ron Paul’s people. Did you see how many Paul signs were shown at the remote locations?
Sorry mac, a man who is a hedonist, and thinks only of himself until he gets a terminal illness, is NOT an innocent life.
Goes double for perverts.
This is the Dream Act, a rolling amnesty that would give up to 3 million legal status and eventual citizenship. And once they reach age 21 they can sponsor their siblings parents, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. to enter the US thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification.
And where is the fairness to those "kids" who don't want to go to college? Shouldn't we be willing to help them so that they "can be productive members of our society?" We need electricians, carpenters, lawn maintenance personnel, etc. If you are going to be generous with other people's money, let's help them all.
Playing the race card, albeit obliquely, is so lame.
I don't care what his last name sounds like, he is not entitled to the benefits of citizenship.
If he/she/it has caught the "American Spirit," he can dispense with the aztlan BS, diligently work to become a regularized immigrant, and then claim the rewards of citizenship.
Perry can run for office in Mexico,
No chance in hell that I would ever vote for him.
Public announcement : I will vote for a third party candidate or write-in candidate over Perry in a second. If that allows the great Bulls****er to win reelelection, I did not force it. Business-as-usual Republicans did.
A rejoinder to Blitzer would be, “Who pays for the medical costs associated with the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country?”
There are 60 million people on Medicaid, including the children in the CHIPS program. And there are 12 to 20 million illegals who use our ERs as free medical clinics. I guess Blitzer is more concerned about a few working American citizens getting on the socialist gravy train. We need more Americans paying so we can expand the freebies to others.
Easy solution, as I learned 30 years ago from one of the homeless town drunks. Every October he’d throw a brick through a jewelry store window and wait patiently until the police arrived to take him to jail. By spring he’d received better medical and dental than most Americans and he was out for the summer, all fixed up and rearing for six good months of Wild Irish Rose binges.