Yahoo's Headline Implies GOP Debate Audience Wanted Uninsured to Die
Rachel Rose Hartman's Tuesday item for Yahoo! News's "The Ticket" blog carried a misleading headline ("Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die") implying that the majority, if not all, of the audience at Monday's GOP presidential debate thought that the critically injured who are uninsured should be left to die. In reality, only a handful cheered and/or laughed in response to Wolf Blitzer's question.
Despite this headline, Hartman did acknowledge in her lede that "if you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party [sic] Republican presidential debate." She then recounted how Blitzer, who moderated the joint debate with the Tea Party Express organization, turned to Rep. Ron Paul and "asked a hypothetical question...about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months."
The writer failed to point out that the CNN host actually hounded Rep. Paul over his hypothetical. Both her account and the video included with her post left out the part of their exchange before the Texas congressman's "freedom" answer:
BLITZER: You're a physician, Ron Paul. So, you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question: a healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend 200 or $300 a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy. I don't need it. But you know, something terrible happens. All of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it? If he goes into a coma, for example, who pays for that?
REP. RON PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not before-
BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it and he's- and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. (audience cheers and applauds) This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody- (audience cheers and applauds)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
Hartman later noted how "the audience got involved" and that "several loud cheers of 'yeah!' followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question." So, despite twice acknowledging that it was only "several" members of the audience, the Yahoo! News headline made it seem like it was a lot more people involved.
Towards the end of her article, the Yahoo! News writer somehow thought it appropriate to turn to a pseudo-conservative, Andrew Sullivan, instead of a mainstream center-right figure for commentary on the exchange from the debate. Despite his endorsement of same-sex "marriage" and his equating of Sarah Palin with Hitler, Hartman still labeled Sullivan a "conservative":
Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room. "America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can," Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: "Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers."
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
scurrying for soundbytes!
Submitted by kata on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 7:04pm.
Having heard the question it would have been hard not give into impulse and answer snark with snark. I commend Ron Paul for taking this positively idiotic question and trying to answer it seriously.
Ann Coulter wrote a very humorous article about this exchange to illustrate said idiocy : So a Comatose Guy Walks Into A Bar.
If a healthy 30 year old man
Submitted by MikeB on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:04pm.
If a healthy 30 year old man decides not to buy health insurance, that was his decision! He chose to assume the risk of paying for his health when he chose not to buy health insurance.
If that 30 year old man goes into a coma after choosing not to buy insurance, where in the Constitution does it say it becomes the responsibility of the taxpayers to save him from his own stupidity? The man's family can apply to any charities established for this situation (if any). Otherwise, the man's family needs to sell off his assets in order to pay for the man's care. Charities are voluntary. The man's family might start a drive for funds to pay for his care. BUT IT IS NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY. It was the man's responsibility, and he failed in it. Lack of planning on his part does not constitute an emergency on my part. I have my own expenses to meet.
Great quote
Submitted by mang on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:56pm.
"Lack of planning on his part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Excellent quote right here. If the same concept applies regarding government swooping in to the rescue, should the government pony up the $500,000 for the life insurance he should have had to protect his family too?
Right On!
Submitted by Bodini on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 4:31am.
We all make choices. If Bubba rolls the dice and winds up dying, its not my fault, I shouldn't bear the cost, nor should my children, or grandchildren! Send the bill to Doof Bullshitzer or Yahoo!
Charity hospitals
Submitted by Vonu on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:17pm.
Will fill the void once government gets out of the way.
I thought the same thing when I saw this article title
Submitted by djwolf12 on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:18pm.
The American people are really starting to hate the manure that keeps getting shoveled under our noses. We are not going to take this BS anymore. Also, Yahoo is running a story of how Justin Bieber loves to wear female pants. What a joke.
I'm gonna make one change to your witty quote....
Submitted by Jarhead68 on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 1:09am.
"This country is going to hell in a Prius". - Me, 2004.
;-)
Too giddy to bash the Tea Party
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:28pm.
Trying to make it look like the Tea Party in general is in favor of uninsured people dying is in several left wing blogs. The shameless headlines are supposed to make it look like Tea Party policy.
Do they really think the public is that stupid to believe their BS? I think those blogs will only bring condemnation down upon themselves.
I've read a few of the comments and the writers of those pieces are getting torn up pretty bad. They've embarrassed themselves and hurt their credibility. -bidn-
"Do they really think the
Submitted by MikeB on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:06pm.
"Do they really think the public is that stupid to believe their BS?"
Well, the public did elect Ear Leader, did they not? That is some pretty strong evidence that the public is dumber than homemade poo.
Even those with insurance can make a choice not to be treated.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:30pm.
Just because someone has health insurance does not obviate the need for them to have an advanced directive if they are of legal majority age (18 or over) or have an authorized representative (parent, guardian, custodian, executor) who makes this choice for them. Many, many patients faced with a potentially terminal illness choose not to be treated for many reasons. Some don't want to go through the side-effects (for example, chemotherapy) or have experienced past complications of treatment they do not wish to repeat. As long as they have no underlying mental illnesses which by legal standards would preclude them from taking care of themselves and making their own informed judgments, medical ethics require that we respect the patient's choice. All treatments (drugs, surgery, radiation, diagnostics, etc) carry side-effects and it becomes a calculation of risk to benefit and proper patient or authorized representative education to make an informed choice. Barring that, even a patient with the best medical insurance money can buy is free to refuse treatment.
ABC has it too
Submitted by exLib on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:00pm.
ABCNEWS.COM also has a story with the same headline and the story is not much better.
Liberals justify their bloodlust with these lies
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 11:34pm.
To the person not seeking an answer, no answer is good enough. This was all that libutards (and even well-intentioned friends of mine who vote Democrat) needed to fuel their 'See! See! They're evil!' bloodlust. Whether they're making commercials that show Republicans pushing old people off cliffs, or twisting hypothetical fantasies about healthy young people who wind up falling victim to their own bad choices. Liberals need no encouragement to weave twisted fantasies about how Republicans want to 'kill the elderly', 'kill children', 'eat babies', 'suck the blood of the poor' and other concoctions born of their prejudices.
It is perhaps the only warmth they feel in their cold, dead hearts - the flaming desire for revenge against Republicans. All because their Black President and all his liberal dogma is crashing and burning in real life (though wildly successful in the eyes of the DemoRats).
Even scarier...
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 12:33am.
..was the comments posted by yahoo users and readers who took the ball and ran with it. There was no shortage of idiots spouting off about how awful the tea party is for laughing at a dying man. We are living in a nation of uneducated sheeple.
So...
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 2:05am.
Doesn't one have to assume that they only let members of the Tea Party be in the audience in order to believe the premise? I thought I heard derisive laughter, as in, you've got to be kidding me you freaking jerk.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Right to die
Submitted by phryingphish on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 12:18pm.
If Obamacare is not repealed (God Forbid) but the penalty for not buying insurance is removed:
Anyone that refuses to buy insurance (their right) should be considered to have submitted an advance directive stating that they refuse treatment. Either this or prove the ability to self insure to the tune of $500,000. I do not like the idea of refuseing service to someone but THEY made the choice, I am only abiding by it.
Whats next, if you don't have life insurance and die at 30 the goverment must pay your family for the rest of their lives?.....oh wait, that's what Social Security is for, isn't it?
Yahoo = DNC
Submitted by Utherpend on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 12:50pm.
I am always amazed at the "News" that Yahoo puts up, most of it so slanted it is embaressing.