Tea Party Patriots Attack Family Who Lost Daughter And Grandchild

w1z4rd

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
A group called the Chicago Tea Party Patriots publicly heckled a grieving family and suggested that the couple fabricated their tragic story.

At a town hall held by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) on Nov. 14,, Dan and Midge Hough spoke about how they believed the death of their daughter-in-law and her unborn child were caused, in part, by a lack of health insurance. Twenty-four-year old Jennifer was uninsured. According to her in-laws, she was not receiving regular prenatal care and was not properly treated when she got sick. She ended up in an emergency room with double pneumonia that developed into septic shock, had a heart attack, a brain bleed and a stroke. The baby died and Jennifer died a few weeks later.

Midge Hough was heckled by anti-reform crowd members. "You can laugh at me, that's okay," she said, crying. "But I lost two people, and I know you think that's funny, that's okay."
Click to expand...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl5Jo0GnX-k&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
A local Tea Party organizer falsely claimed that the couple had made up the story and tried to justify the town hall behavior, according to the Southtown Star.
Click to expand...

The rancid right are icky :(

Shows you the morality health insurance lobby money can buy (very easily).

Read more at : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/tea-party-patriots-attack_n_367475.html
 
90% of hospitals in the US operate under Medicare and Medicaid banners. I.E. they receive subsidies from government but in order to get the subsidies they have play by governments rules, I.E. people must have health insurance.

This was no doubt inacted by government for the insurance companies by their lobbyists.

As a result truly private hospital care (No government subsidies) is very expensive as the only way to compete with someone who gets money/revenue for nothing (Through subsidies) is to offer a better service as you can't compete on price. So "private" healthcare is incredibly expensive.

The U.S system is already mostly socialised and thus poor care and really expensive private care is a result.

For those of you who think private care never helps the poor you need the opinions of doctors who can enlighten you as to how the industry works. Before government intervention private doctors always helped the poor and they got better treatment as a result.

Look up Ron Paul the Texas congressman who is a doctor and has delivered 4000 odd babies in his career. He will tell you if you want better care for all and every cheaper rates you need to privatise the whole thing.

Instead of privatising the whole thing they wanna go more socialist. Makes no sense.
 
Neither did your post :D but hey, its a free world!

Nice post and all (you gave it some thought), but I didnt follow your reasoning and logic patterns.
 
Poor americans. Stuck with the idealogy of Capitalism above all else.
"socialism" has become almost a swear word in america. Public controlled (government) systems are necessary in some regards(imho). Imagine if the fire service was privatised or for that matter the police and courts.
Systems and services that enable you to live your life without being exploited should never be privately funded imho.

My other kinda gripe is how much influence a company/individual with funds has on their government. Through money at your issue and lobbyist will appear as if by magic in all the corridors of power there.

But yeah, heart goes out to this woman and her family.
 
Was waiting for someone to take the bait.

I dare anyone who thinks a socialist health care system would or could work to read all the following articles on healthcare:

The Free Market: Four-Step Healthcare Solution, A
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

The Health-Insurance Market Is Not Free
http://mises.org/story/3727

Health Care Interventionism: A Case Study
http://mises.org/story/1133

Health Care For All!
http://mises.org/daily/1239

The Relentless Process Of Socializing Health Care
http://mises.org/daily/2946

The Free Market: Socialized Health Care In America
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=458

Health Care and Insurance On A Desert Island
http://mises.org/daily/3799

American Health Care Fascialism
http://mises.org/daily/3793

Malpractice On The Market
http://mises.org/daily/3753

Understanding The Cost Of Health Care
http://mises.org/daily/3708

Is Emergency Care a Failed Market?
http://mises.org/daily/3699

Can Government Fight Epidemics?
http://mises.org/daily/3792

No Such Thing As A Free Flu Shot
http://mises.org/daily/3782

Doubt anyone who believes in socialized healthcare will actual bother to read all of these. Kinda like asking someone who doesn't believe the holocaust happened to read history books or speak to people who were in concentration camps.
 
armitage said:
Poor americans. Stuck with the idealogy of Capitalism above all else.
"socialism" has become almost a swear word in america. Public controlled (government) systems are necessary in some regards(imho). Imagine if the fire service was privatised or for that matter the police and courts.
Systems and services that enable you to live your life without being exploited should never be privately funded imho.

My other kinda gripe is how much influence a company/individual with funds has on their government. Through money at your issue and lobbyist will appear as if by magic in all the corridors of power there.

But yeah, heart goes out to this woman and her family.
Click to expand...

We pay for fire departments, police and courts anyways? With regards to regular markets more competition increases quality and decreases costs. So we are saying the same characterstics cannot be applied to public services?

I would rather pay directly for the fire department. Then if they don't come running when my house is on fire and arrive in a certain time I can sue them for breach of contract.

Under the present system its like, if they arrive cool, if not tough you pay through taxes either way.

Same with the police.

As far as I am aware there are only 3 cases for social services from government. I.E 3 justifications for government.

1- External defense (Military)
2- Internal defense (Police)
3- Arbitration (Legal system, courts)

As for possible solutions to the above without government.

1- Militia (Private contractors are not the solution but since the free market thrives in the absence of war in a "free" market world there would be much less need for armies)
2- Security companies, private investigators (We already use these a lot if we want justice anyway. South Africa is actually a good case study for "privatised" police)
3- Arbitration in the absence of government has been used before(Always used with great success before government existed) and is still used today. If you have a legal dispute with someone you can both write into a contract that you will allow Mr/Mrs XXX to judge the dispute and their judgement has to be carried out as you signed a contract.
 
Odd that the daughter in law of a "Representative" couldn't afford health insurance. What job did she have? What job did her husband have?

Just because she didn't have health insurance doesn't mean she couldn't afford it. What about the parents, could they not subsidize their daughter in law and grandchild?
 
Last edited:
about the parents, could they not subsidize their daughter in law and grandchild?
Click to expand...

Nope, they were ANC voters; they needed the guavament to do everything for them.

Actually, they just let her and her child die to prove a point.

That's the democrat way :D
 
armitage said:
Poor americans. Stuck with the idealogy of Capitalism above all else.
"socialism" has become almost a swear word in america. Public controlled (government) systems are necessary in some regards(imho). Imagine if the fire service was privatised or for that matter the police and courts.
Systems and services that enable you to live your life without being exploited should never be privately funded imho.

My other kinda gripe is how much influence a company/individual with funds has on their government. Through money at your issue and lobbyist will appear as if by magic in all the corridors of power there.

But yeah, heart goes out to this woman and her family.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that only in America do people/institutions/companies influence governments ?

This happens in all governments, democratic/dictatorship etc. They are just called different things. Simple fact is that a government has to listen do what people say. Its just done differently.

- Americans call then lobbyists
- Zimbabweans call them war veterans
- South Africans call them Cosatu
- French call them farmers
- Germans call them Opel
- Brits..... You got me there. Nobody knows why Brown does what he does.
 
Democracy

Apart from the arguments & Counter Arguments and the issue at hand here

Take a look at how full that hall is.

Americans take "having their say" seriously -- it is the ONLY way to make Democracy work.

In SA if you have FIVE people turn up to an important Parent Teacher meeting it is a LOT


MW
 
True. Then again on the odd occasion when more than 5 people pitch it normally breaks out into a gun fight :o
 
The problem with democracy is that it is a heavily flawed way of doing things but its viewed as the "best" method of determining national governance.

I think the root words of democracy means arbitrary rule by the majority.

2 crude examples that illustrate this point or the flaw with the system:

1: Imagine 5 robbers break in to you home and try to steal your TV. You catch them in the act and shout at them to stop. Since they happen to be philosophical robbers they say "Fine, lets have a vote.".

"All those in favour of stealing the TV, raise your hands."

The 5 robbers all raise their hands.

"All those in favour of not stealing the TV, raise your hands."

The house owner raises his hands. They robbers then say, sorry we won fair and square and they take the TV.

Thats democracy.

The 2nd example is that I believe Hitler was initially democratically elected to power. He changed the rules afterwards to stay in power but he gained power democratically in the first place. So much for democracy.

Since governments are elected by the majority, who in South Africa are uneducated and have little or no understanding of how the real world works. They only want government to take from someone else and give to them.
 
As flawed as democracy is, it is by far the best system.

Look around and see from which type of systemm people are currently try to flee from and to which type of system they are risking their lives to get into.

You could always go to Zim if dictatorship is your thing. Or North Korea or Venuezuala.
 
I would prefer a proper Republic or Anarchy. I personally don't believe we need government.
 
Nope not even close... an anarchist system still operates with laws that all stem from private property rights. Since there is real freedom, most problems get solved a lot sooner than later. If we had an anarchist system with crime like this essentially criminals would start losing all rights.

If it gets too the point where it is as bad as crime in SA, then the system adapts. You trespass I have the right to shoot to kill. If I only injure you, you have no recourse at all, you can't sue a person for legitamately defending his property. Even if you try an justify the reason for trespass. By trespassing you assume the risk that you might be shot. If you are, tough.

In otherwords an anarchist system is not based on the total absence of law.

South Africa might be called a republic but we have a democratic system not a republic system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X