Stunned

I was listening to ABC radio news tonight and their second story was about how attendees at Republican Debates had cheered people being executed in Texas, cheering an example of someone dying for not having health insurance, and booing a gay soldier at this past Thursday's debate.

For the health insurance question, it was pretty clear that it wasn't the "audience," it was one or two people who cheered and they were cheering for a completely different point.

So, as you can see, there wasn't any applause for letting the man die. There were some cat-calls from the audience saying "Yeah," but this, too, has been misinterpreted.
The scenario set forth by Blitzer was, "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 something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it."
Should taxpayers be responsible for his decision not to insure himself?
If I buy auto insurance, but fail to get collision because I don't want to spend the extra money, should taxpayers pay for my repairs if I get into an accident? No.
If my house is paid off, and I choose not to buy fire insurance, should taxpayers pay to restore my house if it burns down? No.
If I choose not to buy life insurance and I die before my kids graduate college, should taxpayers financially support my children and my wife if she needs it? No.
I live in an earthquake area but choose to not pay what I think is an exorbitant premium with a very high deductible for earthquake insurance. Should taxpayers foot the bill if my house gets taken out by a massive quake? No.
So why should taxpayers cover the medical costs of a "healthy 30-year-old young man [that] has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? [He's] not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because [he's healthy and doesn't need it]?
He's decided to "self-insure," and therefore has taken a calculated risk on his own that has nothing to do with the society. Maybe he wants to spend that $200 or $300 a month on a fancier car. Or a nicer apartment. Or a larger TV set.
But that's his choice NOT the taxpayers'.
This is what the applause and the cat-calls were about Monday: we make decisions how to spend our money, and we alone should be responsible for those decisions NOT the taxpayers. . . .

For the gay soldier, it was again just one or two people out of some six thousand people. As for the death penalty, I don't know how the news media knows what was going through people's minds. Could it have possibly been because the audience supported the death penalty because it saves lives?