2 votes

Clarence Page: Ron Paul's harsh definition of 'freedom'

September 18, 2011

Let's be fair to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Contrary to a widespread impression, the libertarian-minded Paul did not say during a recent Republican presidential debate that people without health insurance should be left to die. It is only his idea of "freedom" that might cause you to think so.

This impression was unfortunately encouraged by some of his less-temperate supporters during the recent CNN/tea party presidential debate in Tampa, Fla. Moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Paul, a medical doctor and fierce libertarian, if a seriously ill young man who had decided on his own to forgo health insurance suddenly needs expensive hospital care, should the state pay for it?

Paul, shaking his head, lectured, "That's what freedom is all about. Taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody. ... "

At that point Paul was interrupted by a burst of applause from the tea party-filled audience.

"But congressman," Blitzer persisted, "are you saying society should just let him die?"

"Yeah," shouted at least two voices in the crowd. But Paul, to his credit, said, "No."

So who pays? Paul asserted that in his experience, friends, neighbors, churches and charities step forward to help.

[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0918-page-20110918,0,4993328.column[/url]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
reedr3v's picture

Page and his ilk remind me of the

"compassionate" folk who once thought black slaves were incapable of taking care of themselves and needed their slave masters to house, feed, and give them structure and security in this harsh world.

One day humans will be free of the overlord bureaucracy and look back on them as dead weights that held back humanity from advancinbg its potential.

see they really could have

see they really could have made this question ALOT harder. It is a freedom to choose to not have insurance.

But they could have up'd the ante and asked what if it was a 30 yr old man with a pre-condition who could not get health insurance. THEN what do you do Mr. Paul?

the answer is simple

If the federal government had never been in the health insurance business, there might be multiple alternatives including budget health insurance that covers specific conditions ONLY (still saves the company money that way).
The insurance industry could provide the cheaper health insurance if they weren't in competition with a government program that has no limit to its funding because the money is printed from thin air!

"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."

true. Im just saying they

true. Im just saying they would have truly tested his mettle over that issue, then over the simple one they asked him.

Excellent response

clear, and to the point! Well said!

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Government control is what is harsh

Note, most health insurance is highly regulated, like a state utility, giving you darn few choices. High risk drivers can still get auto insurance, why can't we have high risk insurance, or even better deals for health savings accounts.

What is harsh is that Kent Snyder was taxed to pay for other people's healthcare, when he needed to save that money to prepare for his own healthcare requirements.