The other night at the GOP Presidential debate, several people showed their (ugly) true colors. Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul, “What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn’t have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?” There were people in the crowd who wildly cheered and yelled out, “Yeah!”
Ron Paul made sure to say that he thought that friends, families, and non-government institutions like charities and churches should be the ones to cover the costs for a person who gets sick and has no health insurance. He claimed, “We never turned anybody away from the hospital…We have given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves … that’s the reason the cost is so high.” He may have never turned a person away because they couldn’t afford care, but some some doctors have. I’ve received letters from doctors that said that they would no longer see me because I had accrued so much debt at their office that they couldn’t “afford” to see me anymore. So, while some hospitals might not turn people away, it does happen. And someone’s life could be significantly harmed (or ended) by doctors who turn them away because of lack of money.
And he still hasn’t been able to show that he and his friends were able to provide one of his best friends (who was uninsured because of a pre-existing condition) with adequate health care prior to his death from pneumonia. It seems like seeing someone you care about go through a disease that kills them and seeing them be unable to pay the medical bills might inspire a politician or any person to advocate on behalf of the uninsured instead of advocating against them. According to the hospital that the friend of Paul went to, the multiple medical bills that the friend accrued during his treatment have gone unpaid. The friend, though dead, still owes $400,000 or so. Why did Ron Paul not take some of the money that he puts toward campaigning (even though he won’t win the Presidency) and put it toward taking care of his friend? Shouldn’t he be able to cover it? He is a friend of the man and that is who he thinks should be responsible for covering this kind of cost.
As for the people who cheered and yelled in support of letting people die if they have no insurance, they are truly the worst examples of human beings that I have ever seen. I would hope that they were not fully paying attention, but I don’t think that that is the case. I think they were actually cheering on the potential demise of their fellow citizens and that is just horrifying and sickening to hear.
I’ve been thinking about the Tea Party lately and how it advocates against health care reform, for reducing spending for programs that help people (especially the poor, sick, elderly, and very young), against programs that provide food to the hungry, and against immigration because it takes away jobs from certain people. Most of their arguments seem to end up pointing to their concerns about having money. They are wanting to keep money to themselves instead of allowing it to go to programs that could help people. This craving for wealth and lack of concern for the health and nature of others in the world reminds me of 1 Timothy 6:10:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
This is what their outbursts, protests, whining, and snide behavior makes me think of. People are too concerned with their wallets and not concerned enough about other people. Even if all other things in the Bible might prove false, this one verse seems to be absolutely true. People who care about money to such extremes truly lose what it means to be human and to be good. They lose the ability to perceive the world for what it is, and begin only seeing it in terms of their own selfish agendas. That is truly vile, and I wish that these folks would open their eyes and see what they are really supporting.