Tea Party Debate Shows Us When It's OK to Cheer a Man's Death (VIDEO)

on September 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Ron Paul Tea Party Debate For the second week in a row, talk of letting people die has elicited cheers from the audience at a Republican presidential candidate debate. If once is a "one-off" or a "one-time" thing, what's twice? The start of a trend perhaps? Death, it seems, gets the Tea Party off.

At last night's Tea Party Express sponsored debate in Tampa, Debate Mediator Wolf Blitzer asked Congressman Ron Paul if a 30-year-old man should be left to die if he suffered a major catastrophe but had no health insurance, eliciting screams of "yeah" and applause from the audience. The screams echoed those shouts of encouragement when last week's mediator, Brian Williams, mentioned Texas Governor Rick Perry had overseen 234 death row executions, more than any other governor in modern times.

Ironic, huh? This is the group that tried to bring down President Obama's health care proposition with wild (and fabricated) warnings that the Democrats would be creating death panels. I seem to remember Tea Party hero Sarah Palin claiming that the Democrats would decide who lived or died "based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy." That, quite obviously, would have been a bad thing.

So what about letting a young man die because he didn't get health care? Or being excited about executions?

Health care and the death penalty may be wildly different issues, but the markedly similar responses at the debates bring but one conclusion: human beings are merely pawns in their political and financial game. They pretend to value life when it pleases them, but when it will cost them money, humans aren't worth a whole lot. That's not simply macabre. It's hypocritical.

It's OK, it seems, if society abandons a man who can't afford health insurance and allows him to die because that person was dumb enough to get hit by a drunk driver, be sitting on their own porch when a train derailed, or be walking down the street when a gang member starts shooting off a gun. And if you want to go by the volume of the cheers -- hey, it worked for vaudeville -- it's even better for society to actively kill a person, to be the one to plunge a needle into his arm. Because despite the fact that nearly 200 people have been released from death row in this country based on wrongful convictions, speeding people's way to the pearly gates is cheaper than making sure you got the right guy.

Does cheering the concept of people dying feel wrong to you? How about hypocritical? Check out the cheers and the "yeahs" during last night's debate:

Image via YouTube

About the author Jeanne Sager

writes articles for The Stir by day, slays closet monsters and bounds through bedtime stories with her elementary schooler by night. Diet Pepsi courses through her veins. The Phineas and Ferb soundtrack reverberates through her brain.

Filed Under: politics, death penalty, tea party

Comments (17)

tinypossum

on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:22 AM

The Tea Party and other uber conservatives scare the hell out of me.

Report this comment

hoticedcoffee

on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM

EYEROLL

shirrose

on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Author, did you even listen to the clip you posted there? The commentator didn't ask "what if a man who couldn't afford health insurance..." he asked "a healthy man, who has a good job, makes a good living" just doesn't want to pay the $300 or $400 for health insurance. I'm about as liberal as you can get, but I think Ron Paul is right. If someone who could reasonably afford health care and chose not to purchase it got sick, it shouldn't be up to tax payers money to help him. Ron Paul even goes further to say that there are other people and organizations (his church, for example) that could help that man. I realize this isn't the answer to your question, and I find it disgusting that people would shout "yeah" to letting him just die. But that's kind of the point. Those people weren't listening to what Ron Paul was saying (he even said the word "NO" to that statement) and clearly neither were you.

Nonmember comment from jenna

on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM

That is not what I heard. What I heard was that the people, the church would step in to fill that need. I at no point heard the crowd cheering the concept of a young man without health insurance dying because he couldn't afford treatment. Did I miss something? Is there another video I should look for?

dirtiekittie

on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:59 AM

there is a difference between someone who can't afford healthcare and someone who simply chooses not to pay for it. one asks me to act out of humanity for someone who needs my (our) help. the other asks out of greed for themselves and their lifestyle. which one do you think i want to help?

butterflymkm

on Sep 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM

This is why the tea party scares the beejesus out of me (and many other people. I really don't care if a guy who could afford insurance chose not to pay for it, in an emergency situation where his life is on the line that doesn't matter anymore! Life is worth more than money. You see the tea partyers with racist signs ect and other conservatives cry that that isn't the majority, that they are being unfairly represented, but come on now. Cheering on a persons death? That's just low.

starrsitter

on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I'm pretty sure the answer to "what would Jesus do?" is not "Yeah, let him die!" (as someone in the audience audibly shouted in answer to Blitzer's "are you saying society should just let them die?"...I was watching it live, btw) regardless of why.

Personal responsibilty is one thing. Living in a society that doesn't care whether or not someone else lives or dies (or starves or suffers) is another thing entirely. These people are the first to pontificate about their religious beliefs and their so-called "pro-life" positions and their (laughable) family values. Hell, I'm more of a Christian than they are.

Facebook comment from Leanne Carnegie

on Sep 13, 2011 at 2:21 PM

I love how people just hear what they want to hear. He said that before all these government programs, when he was working in a hospital, they never turned anyone away and would treat them free of charge, or the community would help to cover it. He also said that such a man should have catastrophic coverage and someone else went over HSA's. I mean, we save for retirement... why shouldn't we save for our healthcare needs? I've been seriously considering switching to a HSA for my family. We pay out $600/mo in health insurance (with a company plan)... we don't use nearly a fraction of that... what, 4 annuals a year and a handful of office visits? We should be saving that money for when we will actually need it.

on Sep 13, 2011 at 2:22 PM

"Personal responsibilty is one thing. Living in a society that doesn't care whether or not someone else lives or dies (or starves or suffers) is another thing entirely. "

Yea, again, that's not what anyone said. Please check your facts before posting.

on Sep 13, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Maybe, Leanne, it's not what you said or even what Mr. Paul said, but I've had an awful lot of conversations with people like those in that audience that boil down to that. The attitude of a lot of small-c conservatives and pretend Christians is that they shouldn't have to contribute to anything that doesn't directly benefit them. I think that's a disgaceful way to live. You're entitled to think otherwise.