"Do You, as a Candidate for President, Really Believe..."

[paft.livejournal.com]

Susan Grigsby, who lost her brother, Steve, to cancer: What really horrified me about the debate was not the poorly phrased question, it wasn’t Dr. Paul’s answer, and it wasn’t even the scream after Wolf Blitzer asked, ‘Would you let him die,’ and somebody in the audience yelled ‘Yeah!’ That wasn’t as horrifying as was the silence from the stage, from these men and women who are running for office, not a word. Nothing.

This is the reality of the right wing libertarian attitude toward the sick. It is vile. It is inhumane. It is unworthy of Americans.

The question posed by Susan Grigsby needs to be asked of every Republican candidate. "Do you, as a candidate for President, really believe that if an American cannot get, or does not get insurance, that they should be treated the way Steve was?"


When they don’t answer it it needs to be asked again. And again. And again. They cannot be allowed to evade it. They cannot be allowed to look the other way.

Republicans are already trying. Here’s Mitch McConnell when confronted with that clip from the debate and asked if it troubled him:

(Brief chuckle) Look, we have a lot of people running for president, there are going to be a lot of debates, a lot of things said, a lot of audience reactions, I don’t have a particular reaction to what’s going on in the Republican campaign for president right now.

The silence that horrified Susan Grigsby continues.

Prominent Republicans are afraid of coming out in favor of saving the lives of the sick and uninsured.

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with you on this point. The silence onstage
is more frigtening than the audience reactions since they have the
opportunity to be heard -- and they chose not to speak.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What's awful is that her question has to be asked. At one time, the answer would simply have been assumed -- and it would not have been "let him die."

Move On does good work.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That first video is poignant and to the point. Move On did a good job with it.

The message is pretty clear that people without insurance do not deserve a right that some would grant to an embryo. An embryo deserves to live. The uninsured do not. Traditional family values rock.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The left wing: feigning moral outrage for issues they refuse to personally help fix since 1961.

Remember the motto: "I voted for more social spending. What more do you want?"

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the left wing was the one who shot down the public option, right?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The left wing: feigning moral outrage for issues they refuse to personally help fix since 1961.

Remember the motto: "I voted for more social spending. What more do you want?"

Why doesn't a public policy solution to a public policy problem count as helping fix it? Sometimes collective action is necessary.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Right Wing: Chickenhawk Sociopaths objecting to all that is decent in the world since 1789. For one who objects so vehemently to generalizations you certainly seem to object.....selectively....to the concept.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Hello mrbogey.

We all know about your notions of "morality."

Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Did anyone notice that Ron Paul had begun to answer the question when the film maker cuts off the audio, followed by the picture, at eight seconds into the video so that Susan Grigsby can assert that nobody had an answer? My goodness, if the silence were that horifying, you'd think that the video makers would allow a few more seconds to give evidence that their crocodile tears and faux outrage were not baseless, don't you think?

Did anyone notice that even Grigsby admits that her brother was already receiving all kinds of treatment? Grigsby mentions "radiation, some therapy"... That sounds suspciously evasive, doesn't it? He's her brother after all, isn't he? Doesn't she remember any better than "some therapy" what treatment he received, or would a more complete list just be a little too inconvenient to relate? He died, not because people beat him up and stole his money, but because he had a nasty, agressive, mortal illness, which, by the way, the video also conveniently does not identify. I wonder why. Maybe its because he had something that usually kills people pretty dead once its discovered. Susan Grigsby wants to maintain what is probably an artful illusion: that her brother would have lived otherwise.

Now, there might have been more that someone, somewhere could have done for Grigsby's brother. That is very frequently the case in the real world of too little, too late, or errors, or lack of resources or knowledge, etc. The problem is that Susan Grigsby is merely implying that "Republicans don't care," not that there are better answers which are being ignored or suppressed. You see, going "off message" to explicitly state that there was a better solution would have opened the debate up on socialized medicine, again, and socialism has been taking a severe beating in the world of ideas lately. No, it is merely better to imply, with artful showmanship, that your target loves the smell of corpses in the streets. We don't really want to start talking about how the various economic systems ration scarce goods and services because then someone would bring up that whole messy "death panel" argument again, and long waiting lists, and that just wouldn't be good political theater for the left, would it?

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Your response is extraordinarily disingenuous and exemplary of the kind of "silence" the OP rightly condemns.

Did anyone notice that Ron Paul had begun to answer the question when the film maker cuts off the audio, followed by the picture, at eight seconds into the video so that Susan Grigsby can assert that nobody had an answer?

Oh, you mean where she says that Ron Paul's answer didn't bother her so much as the "silence" coming generally from the stage?

Anyway, Ron Paul's response - having to do with extolling the virtues of a free society where the freedom to choose how one deals with their medical risks entails the both the good and bad consequences that can result from such choices - isn't of much application to Grigsby's testimonial, where there didn't seem to be much of a "choice."

Did anyone notice that even Grigsby admits that her brother was already receiving all kinds of treatment? Grigsby mentions "radiation, some therapy"... That sounds suspciously evasive, doesn't it?

Well, she didn't say how they managed to pay for it, either, which would seem to be the sort of thing that would be relevant, too, if you take Grigsby to be making the case that her brother could have been saved by some kind of public solution. But I don't think she's making that kind of case - she's trying to say, "Look, here's what silence means for thousands of Americans and their families." You're talking about people dying horribly and the devastated families they leave behind. Even if Grigsby's brother got some treatment ("all kinds"? Really?), even if his case was ultimately hopeless, there are worse-off people out there dying the sames deaths for no good reason other than, well, our preference for free-market solutions.

He died, not because people beat him up and stole his money, but because he had a nasty, agressive, mortal illness, which, by the way, the video also conveniently does not identify.

Is "lung cancer" insufficiently precise for you, or were you just not paying attention?

We don't really want to start talking about how the various economic systems ration scarce goods and services because then someone would bring up that whole messy "death panel" argument again, and long waiting lists, and that just wouldn't be good political theater for the left, would it?

I think the point of a video like the one posted is to make the moral case for addressing just these kinds of arguments. Sure, let's look at the problems with "socialized medicine" and really think about whether they're inevitable features of such systems or whether, you know, we might learn from the several such systems that are already in place throughout the first world.

Really, this insistence that socialized medicine would result in "death panels" and "long waiting lists" is just intellectually lazy and moral cowardice. People rely on these horribles because it allows them, in some kind of rough, back of the envelope moral calculus, to assert they're worse than just letting people die of treatable diseases.

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

To answer your question in the subject line, the answer is NO. Democrats are going to continue to rant and rave about this because at this point they're grasping at straws to justify why Obama should be President for another term. Reasons why Obama should be voted out: Solyndra, LightSquared, Fast and Furious. Meanwhile, Democrats are holding onto the actions of a few idiots within the Republican party.

If I had a dime for every dumbass thing a Democrat said/did that didn't get a reaction from a Democratic member of Congress, Warren Buffett would be asking me for a loan.

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The problem is that Susan Grigsby is merely implying that "Republicans don't care,"

Actually, the real problem here is that paft is directly claiming that a)libertarians don't care and b)that all Republican presidential candidates are libertarian, both of which are stupidly wrong.

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[paft.livejournal.com]

MC Did anyone notice that Ron Paul had begun to answer the question when the film maker cuts off the audio, followed by the picture, at eight seconds into the video so that Susan Grigsby can assert that nobody had an answer?

Grigsby acknowledges Paul's answer. Her complaint is that nobody, including Dr. Paul, had anything to say about those yells of "Yeah!" from the audience.


mc Did anyone notice that even Grigsby admits that her brother was already receiving all kinds of treatment? Grigsby mentions "radiation, some therapy"... That sounds suspciously evasive, doesn't it?

Here is her full, detailed account of what happened to her brother.

I won't call you the names she calls those those people who were cheering on this death at the debate. But believe me... They did occur tome.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/13/1016557/-That-was-my-brothers-death-you-were-cheering,-you-a$$holes

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Welcome to politics, mein Freund. It's not for the faint of heart and if this bothers people, well, this is talk POLITICS, not Talk Disneyfied Abstractions.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I must be missing something here. This guy had no money, and qualified for nothing, but still was able to get some treatment, and yet "we" just let him die?
My dad had super medical coverage, AND a reasonable amount of money, yet with all the treatment in the world he still died. Frankly he would have been spared a lot of suffering if they would have LET him die 3 months sooner.

How in name of all that's rational do you answer a question like "do we just let him die?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How in name of all that's rational do you answer a question like "do we just let him die?"

You're expecting rational thinking where none exists. Consequences make the left uncomfortable, so they simply ignore them or mock them.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

It's not clear how he got coverage from the video, but I've read many stories about people not being able to afford, or get, check-ups that could have detected terminal illness early enough to address it. It might be that he didn't go to a doctor he couldn't afford until he had no choice, and by then it was too late. But I think the point of the video (insofar as MoveOn ever really has a point) is that her story is what letting people die actually means: it's horrible and unnecessary, and it's scary that none of the candidates onstage went out of their way to say that we should at least try to give people a chance to get through such illnesses. If medicine can't address it then so be it, that's a technological limitation. Failing to put policy in place that solves a relatively straightforward problem is a political limitation, a failure of willpower, and that's abominable.

As for a rational answer, there are several:

a.) I hate that such tragedies happen, but many other tragedies happen all over the country and all over the world, and it's not the federal government's place to intervene every time.

b.) We have laws mandating emergency care in place, the insurance mandate isn't necessary.

c.) We should focus on strengthening our economy so every could afford health care to begin with.

d.) No, we should put stronger policy in place for such scenarios, but that would be cheaper than what we have now.

Etc., etc. The Republican candidates don't seem too keen on policy knowledge though, so we just get the predictably vague answer of "less government solves everything."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

OK, I know the Republican Party has a lot of troublesome aspects but really, the silence might as easily be attributed to them being stunned at 1) the question being both asked and phrased as it was and 2) a conviction that however they chose to answer they were likely to lose the spin anyway so why bother. The latter might not be too admirable a motive but it sure is a political one.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

...Nah.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

It said much, much more about the Tea Party audience than it did the candidates. Since they were so hot for Texas' high number of executions, I wasn't surpised that a sick man should also be cheerfully given a death sentence. If any of them were in a similar situation, I suspect their attitude would be different.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

It said much, much more about the Tea Party audience

and these scary people in the audience represent the entire tea party? and the tea party has taken over the republican party. and OMG they are so scary and dangerous!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Putting aside paft's example, the idea of leaving an uninsured person to die is not the kind of thing a first world nation should consider.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

And yet, the question was asked. Even having to ask such a question tells a lot.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I find myself agreeing with you. IMHO it is inhumane, and it is unworthy of Americans in the 21st century.

Not being American, however, it rather looks like chiding if I were to point this out regularly: and no-one likes a scold.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You wouldn't have to wait long before you've been responded to with: "But the British Empire killed X million people, so shut up!"

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

What really horrified me about the debate was not the poorly phrased question, it wasn’t Dr. Paul’s answer, and it wasn’t even the scream after Wolf Blitzer asked, ‘Would you let him die,’ and somebody in the audience yelled ‘Yeah!’ That wasn’t as horrifying as was the silence from the stage, from these men and women who are running for office, not a word. Nothing.

I think this is going to be the basis of a powerful Democratic Party campaign ad for the upcoming elections. Currently, the Republicans have an ad that shows unenthusiastic faces in a college crowd that Obama is speaking to. Something like this could be the answer to that.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

they were silent because they hadn't thought of a ready answer for that kind of question yet. They were individually stunned that they weren't ready for it. So they said nothing as their brains worked furiously to try to come up with some spin that "fit" both the question and their ideology.

The problem is that their ideology doesn't "fit" the reality it is meant to address when it comes to health care. So there's no good answer for them to find. So they'll stay silent until they come up with a good trick to turn the topic in another direction.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's also an irrational question that has no answer.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Frankly I think they just took the age old advice of...

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything"

As Geezer_Also said above ^ "This guy had no money, and qualified for nothing, but still was able to get some treatment, and yet "we" just let him die?
My dad had super medical coverage, AND a reasonable amount of money, yet with all the treatment in the world he still died. Frankly he would have been spared a lot of suffering if they would have LET him die 3 months sooner.

...How in name of all that's rational do you answer a question like "do we just let him die?"

But calling the lady an irrational busy body-body on a national stage would have been a major faux-pas so they said nothing.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Seriously.

(frozen) (no subject)

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"Do you, as a candidate for President, really believe that if an American cannot get, or does not get insurance, that they should be treated the way Steve was?"

I'm neither a Republican or a candidate but I'll answer it: Hell yeah, it's a small price to pay to keep from being railroaded into an intrusive nanny state.

Also, I'm not doctor admittedly but this is lung cancer, right? Was Steve a smoker? Because if so, he should've done what I did to keep from getting lung cancer. I quit smoking.

(frozen) (no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

my father passed away from lung cancer 30 years after he stopped smoking.

jus' saying.


and can i ask, why do you have the maternal instinct?