Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-6:30pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-6:30pm ET on CNN.

September 14th, 2011
07:19 PM ET

Ron Paul's view on health care

Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul faces criticism over his stance on how to treat people without health insurance. CNN's Brian Todd reports.

Post by:
Filed under: 2012 election • Brian Todd • Debates • Health Care
soundoff (17 Responses)
  1. Samantha

    While I see both sides of the coin as to who should pay, the individual, the community/state or the federal government I see another issue on the rise. That being the issue of Children with mental / physical limitations. If we are to tell a man, absent insurance of his own choice, who has worked and paid his fair share of taxes that we will not help him because he made a choice. What are we to tell the parents of those born with permanent impairments? Are we to tell them the same? If not, why not? Why help someone who has not nor never will contribute to our system if we refuse to help those who have contributed? As to the church matter, they simply do not have the funds, nor the members to generate the funds. I agree with Ron Paul on many issues, I part ways on this one.

    September 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  2. Thomas

    Wolf, I thought that this was a leading question that would be hard for anybody to answer on short notice. If this guy couldn't pay his medical bill that's a problem. It would be just as logical to me if the government decided to just take everything you owned to pay for this guy's bills as it would for the government to take money from everybody. Somewhere people have got to be weaned off government support. A better solution would be for charity organizations to set up places for people to contribute to help people in this situation. The old boy should then later be required to pay the bill if it takes the rest of his life. If he doesn't want to pay put him into jail or forced labor for wages. I feel bad for the old boy but I'm not wanting to cover his every need just because he is too irresponsible to do it himself. I pay a tremendous amount of my income for insurance. I don't mind this guy taking a chance with his life and health just don't call me about it.

    September 16, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  3. David

    A 30 year old in good health with a good job making good money who refuses to buy health insurance should have never been allowed to graduate from any school. I say triple the size of the Dept of Education. See where we are heading.

    September 15, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
  4. Randy F.

    Sorry Wolf, you missed a important question. Yes, church and friends paid for $50,000 of his $400,000 bill. Then the rest of the bill is going against his estate. lol. Makes it sound like the estate is paying the rest. What if there is nothing in the estate. The question is who pays for it. As a business person we can not sell to people that don't pay. By law hospitals have to take emergency cases. So then wouldn't the $350,000, that would have to be written off by the hospital, be a expense that all hosptals would have to incur. And as a expense would need to be markedup for profit. Then the insurance rates would go up, and that needs to be marked up. Then less people and companies can afford insurance. AND then......

    September 15, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  5. kathy

    this is not about CHOICE it is the tea party plan to population control

    September 15, 2011 at 5:48 am |
  6. Geoffrey Riggs

    To Wolf Blazer -

    Something curious occurs to me with respect to your exchange with Ron Paul on public health care -

    While I understand that Ron Paul speaks for a distinct point of view - the point of view that prefers that local community services (churches, charities, et al) take care of uninsured emergency cases instead of government - the "stance" reflected by two in the audience is quite different from Ron Paul's. You specifical­ly asked if _society_ should let the uninsured man die, not government­. And it was the question with respect to _society_ that received such a surprising "yeah" from two people in the audience. To the best of my knowledge, no Republican official, including Ron Paul, has ever gone that far (Is that right?). The outburst from these two in the audience raises a troubling question, Just who were these two guys in the audience who affirmed with such enthusiasm that not even society, let alone government­, should step up and save an uninsured'­s life? It surprises me that no journalist has pursued this question.

    It's plainly two people who believe that the uninsured should never be cared for, no way, no how, that we're looking for here, not two standard-issue Republicans. I'd be really interested in any ongoing effort that may be afoot to identify both of them - perhaps even to interview them? I imagine that many a viewer on both sides of the aisle would be keenly interested in tuning in. I freely admit I'd be agog myself to tune in and to hear whatever those two audience members have to say.

    Yours cordially,

    Geoffrey Riggs

    September 15, 2011 at 4:04 am |
  7. Terri Fawcett

    I thought that Wolf did a good job with the CNN debate but I do have to say I was disappointed that he wasn't able to get an answer to his question to Michele Bachman regarding the 30 year old who chose not to purchase health insurance but then became very ill- who pays for it? She ranted on about Obama's health care and never answered his question. I heard him mention before the debate that he was going to be strong on getting the answers to his questions and didn't feel that was accomplished and I would have loved to hear her answer or all of them answer that
    question!!

    September 15, 2011 at 12:06 am |
  8. Douglas O'Brien

    Why was the comment by Ron Paul about the govt driving up health care costs ignored in the light of his friend and employee (uninsured/prior condition) leaving a $350,000 bill at the hospital which will be paid by increased costs for those who are insured. Wolfe plays softball with these guys and won't challenge their obvious lack of logic. Each and every stance allowed to go unchallenged only feeds the total lack of logic of the Tea Partyers.

    September 14, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • tannim

      O'Brien, Kent Snyder was uninsured because a pre-existing condition gave insurers a loophole to not cover him. However, you are inaccurate in your claim as to who paid for it, because a fundraiser by Paul's supporters raised the cash to pay the bill, so it was not absorbed by anyone else, causing thie prices to go up. You really need to do your homework better.

      So says this person who donated to the Snyder Fund.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
      • Douglas O'Brien

        I only restated the "facts" as spoken by Ron Paul. The total bill was $400,000. The friends and colleagues of Kent Snyder
        contributed $50,000 (Ron Paul statement). That leaves $350,000 of costs for society. The total cost of uninsured health costs for 2009 was $125 billion dollars – a lot for friends, colleagues, churches and others to "make up". The sad fact is that more and more of our country is unwilling to view our fellow citizens as part of our community.

        September 16, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
  9. Dtm4u2

    God bless Ron Paul. If people end up in this situation I believe without government involved in healthcare costs would come down substantially. Also if we had a sound money if a dollar was still a dollar instead of approximately 15 cents family friends churches could afford the cost. On the question of a 30 year old that could afford insurance but did not get it he should be on the hook for his care. Thats what freedom is about taking risks. Most people if they could afford it would get a emergency policy if they knew the government would not back them up.

    September 14, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • Dan in Albuquerque

      We have had proof for years that leaving anything up to corporations, including health providers and drug companies results in uncontrolled rate hikes, refusal of coverage or cancellation if it begins to cost an insurance company for catastrophis disease.. Despite the Hippocartic oath, profits are the main driver and people come second. Nice of Paul to help raise $50,000 for his friend, but his estate was left with $350,000 in debt. Multiply that by many thousands each year and ask the evanglistic supporters of Rick Perry if they're willing to part with their money for uninsured people so that taxpayers don't have to. I suspect not. Besides, Affordable Health Care has serious provisions to actually save money and create private sector jobs. Only the government can institute much needed national programs to give everyone coverage and reduce waste and fraud, despite all th rhetoric to the contrary. In New Mexico, Voices for Children says expansion of coverage to the inunsured would create enough private sector jobs to pay for the increase snd more. About 38,000 to 47,000 jobs.. Lack of coverage means more deaths, spread of diseases, etc. When we make people more important than corporatre profits and political contributions, we'll work it out.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Germane

      Everytime I see someone make a comment about how much more affordable things would be "if a dollar was still worth a dollar," I have to wonder if that person is malicious or deluded. what makes you think that lower or non-existent inflation over the last several decades would result in you being paid the same amount of money in nominal terms, while everyone else would get less. If price inflation is general and your income and expenses increase proportionately, you are no worse off. Health costs increase faster than average costs because doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers, etc. have greater market power than the average person. As long as the alternative to paying for treatment is dying, health costs will always increase faster than general income.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  10. ashley

    I don't understand why...his point was no one was ever turned away...what's the problem?....how do you get something negative out of that?....stop looking for things to complain about, and listen to WHAT he is saying...having to deal with an audience that cheered for such a thing, is something you should be concerned about; not twisting a speakers words around, because you weren't paying enough attention.

    September 14, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • Germane

      Do you really believe that charities and family can pay for the health care needs of tens of millions of Americans? How much free chemotherapy does the church provide? Medicare was created because charities, churches and family COULDN'T meet the need. Plus Dr. Paul is pulling a rhetorical fast one, conflating someone who is down on his luck with someone who won't take responsibility for themselves. And what about pre-existing conditions? How does personal responsibility figure into that?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  11. AMF-FL

    Another idiot! He deserves the outcome of his own beliefs. Hopefully his constituents will wise up or maube not. Is thaT why TX. Is burning?? Let them burn without federtal assistant money

    September 14, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
  12. Chris Salinas

    How can you wait until last to ask Dr. Paul about healthcare reform? He's been a physician for 40 years and you give him a hypothetical question. What a stupid question and horrible approach, Wolf!!

    September 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.