Paul Ryan: "We are not going to give up on destroying the healthcare system"

[Indy Texas]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/paul-ryan-accidentally-says-he-is-destroying-the-health-care

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't he stick to non-controversial topics that won't offend people, like rape?

[anvi]

Obviously, he meant "Obamacare."  Hey, I'll take a Bismarck system over Obamacare any day, and there are obviously a lot of flaws in ACA.  But just as a basic political calculus question, don't the Pubbies need to wait till at least 2017 to dismantle the law?  It survived a SCOTUS decision and a national election, and it isn't going to be taken down by empty waves in the House.  This is the only issue that can keep the base fired up?  It's going to give them any leverage at all in budget negotiations?  No on both counts.  What's the point?

[Old Man Svensson]

We know, Ryan. We know.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

[Landslide Lyndon]

So, is this what passes for wonkery in today's Republican party?

[King]

i bet paul ryan has a tiny dick

[badgate]

i bet paul ryan has a tiny dick

Like a bean

[minionofmidas]

At least he's honest about it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

Survival of the fittest.

[bballrox4717]

Honestly, I don't blame them for doing everything in their power to defund it and ruin Obamacare now, because once it starts for real, the Republicans are done. I can't wait for Democratic candidates run advertisements on loop of every single Republican that opposed Obamacare and tried to repeal it with statements like Ryan's.

[Obamanation]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

Because they're libertarians and believe in "liberty".

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

Survival of the fittest.

Yes, "fitness"=how much money you have.

Because rich people are clearly better people than poor people. Obviously, being poor is a crime that should be punished severely.

[DC Al Fine]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

There's a huge difference between "Should someone help?" and "Should the state help?"

[traininthedistance]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

There's a huge difference between "Should someone help?" and "Should the state help?"

Due to their massive bargaining power, the state is the only entity capable of helping in any real manner.  For healthcare, as with a select group of other needs (such as national defense, infrastructure, and protection of natural resources), your question is irrelevant because it is a distinction without a difference.

[Sopranos Republican]

Wow that was horrific. To my party: please, please, just stop trying to destroy Obamacare. You don't have enough support to override Obama's veto. Try to actually get some real work done, to help us all, instead of trying to repeal this. And by the way Ryan, are you trying to scare people? Is that your goal?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

As I recall, in the US the emergency rooms are required to take people in regardless of whether they can pay or not, generally took people in for free occasionally even before that, and rarely had such problems, so "one lives and another dies" is more relevant to the other "progressive" systems. The real problem is that people go in for a surgery and come out with a hundred thousand dollar bill, and that's a whole different problem that won't be solved by making everyone pay third party.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

How in the world is this related to Obamacare?

[Sbane]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

Do you have any proof this happens in rich, developed countries with universal healthcare?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

Do you have any proof this happens in rich, developed countries with universal healthcare?

What do you consider proof to be? Whatever the case, there is the infamous problems that have been cropping up in the UK. My own country's system has a lot of problems too, but I doubt I could find anything conclusive offhand.

[Sbane]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

Do you have any proof this happens in rich, developed countries with universal healthcare?

What do you consider proof to be? Whatever the case, there is the infamous problems that have been cropping up in the UK. My own country's system has a lot of problems too, but I doubt I could find anything conclusive offhand.

You made an accusation that people are actually left to die in countries with national health care in the name of cost-cutting, and that it is decided by the state. That is a ludicrous accusation and it turns out that you have no proof and were just spouting off ideology masked as facts. While there have been cases of hip replacements and procedures for other non-life threatening conditions being delayed in these countries, that does not come even close to the accusation you made.

[opebo]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

Because killing the poor is the bedrock of our social system.

[fezzyfestoon]

It's a shame the people aren't afforded the same kind of fanatic support our fully government-backed corporations have managed to accrue.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

Do you have any proof this happens in rich, developed countries with universal healthcare?

What do you consider proof to be? Whatever the case, there is the infamous problems that have been cropping up in the UK. My own country's system has a lot of problems too, but I doubt I could find anything conclusive offhand.

You made an accusation that people are actually left to die in countries with national health care in the name of cost-cutting, and that it is decided by the state. That is a ludicrous accusation and it turns out that you have no proof and were just spouting off ideology masked as facts. While there have been cases of hip replacements and procedures for other non-life threatening conditions being delayed in these countries, that does not come even close to the accusation you made.

Don't bother reading the post or the sources or anything, please just argue right past me.
I have plenty more sources, if you want.

[anvi]

The rationing identified in that report seems to be attributed to the £20 billion in cuts that have to be implemented by 2015.  This is a problem everywhere isn't it...growing demand + increasing costs + budget shortfalls = rationing mechanisms in health care markets.  That's not unique to one system.  But there are big differences in how the rationing is meted out among these systems.

[Sbane]

Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another should die from common, treatable conditions based on the size of their banking account?

I don't know. Why do people continue to believe that one person should live and another die from common, treatable conditions because they ended up on the wrong end of a waiting list, weren't pals with the surgeon, or were considered "expendable" by the state?

Do you have any proof this happens in rich, developed countries with universal healthcare?

What do you consider proof to be? Whatever the case, there is the infamous problems that have been cropping up in the UK. My own country's system has a lot of problems too, but I doubt I could find anything conclusive offhand.

You made an accusation that people are actually left to die in countries with national health care in the name of cost-cutting, and that it is decided by the state. That is a ludicrous accusation and it turns out that you have no proof and were just spouting off ideology masked as facts. While there have been cases of hip replacements and procedures for other non-life threatening conditions being delayed in these countries, that does not come even close to the accusation you made.

Don't bother reading the post or the sources or anything, please just argue right past me.
I have plenty more sources, if you want.

Do you even read your own links, or do you not understand the concept of procedures for non-life threatening conditions? Your previous links did not have any evidence that government actions led to anyone's death. As for the link provided in this post, I do not know whether the procedures are necessary or not. Very old people may still be recommended for procedures that may not lengthen their life by their GP, but may die within a few months due to other reasons. By imposing a waiting time, you can ensure that some of those patients die naturally before more costly procedures are done on someone who would die anyways. Of course, this is an assumption on my part. If they are doing this for life saving procedures, that is indeed wrong. They should adopt a tiered approach in that case. If you don't want to pay anything, you need to wait. Or you pay a portion of the costs and can get the procedure done sooner. In any case, you still have not provided robust evidence that the government is killing their citizens by not providing care they need to survive.