Dumbass Quote of the Day

From Rick Santorum, showing that Mitt Romney isn’t the only Republican presidential candidate who seems completely unaware of the fact that there are people in this country who die from not being able to afford important medications.

“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

Except they’re not buying an iPad every single month, for crying out loud.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Reginald Selkirk

    “People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with…”

    It just doesn’t occur to him that it’s not necessarily the same “people.”

  • MikeMa

    Romney doesn’t care about the poor. Santorum doesn’t respect the poor. Newt will eat the poor. The GOP ticket has a huge empathy gap.

  • bartmitchell

    predicted sales of ipads in the US – 28 million

    Approximate population of the US 312,900,000 million

    Number of people living in poverty 46,935,000

    How in the world can he think that all the poor people are buying ipads and not buying life saving drugs?

  • Mr Ed

    The GOP field is turning out like bizzaro le miserable. In this case it is the rich leading the peasants in a revolt against the poor.

  • ‘Tis Himself, OM

    Which should I buy, iPod or life-saving drug? Hmm, I’ll have to think about that for a while. :-þ

  • Chiroptera

    Reginald Selkirk, #1: It just doesn’t occur to him that it’s not necessarily the same “people.”

    It also doesn’t occur to him that when some of us buy an iPad, we tend to save up over a time to be able to pay for it, but when we need life saving drugs we kind of need them right now.

  • MikeMa

    Santorum has never really seen some one in real need. What a dick.

  • matty1

    Put together with the demoniiation of the unemployed it is apparent that many right wingers simply don’t know what poverty is. In their world everyone is given as much money as they want and the only difference is where it comes from. Private money whether wages or investments = good, public money (except their own salaries and those of suitably ‘patriotic’ soldiers and cops) = bad. The idea of not being able to afford something just doesn’t compute.

  • Mr Ed

    Chiroptera # 6

    It also doesn’t occur to him that when some of us buy an iPad, we tend to save up over a time to be able to pay for it, but when we need life saving drugs we kind of need them right now.

    I don’t think you are looking at this correctly. Don’t think of the under lying disease, infection or condition as something to be treated with drugs but as a gift from GOD.

  • osteenq

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    …said the jackass who gets free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayers.

  • Phillip IV

    Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.

    Where would, where could anybody ever get that idea anywhere in the U.S.?

    But I guess it’s a sign of progress that Santorum only fantasies about poor people having iPads – after all, that’s already a few notches down from the Cadillacs Reagan imagined them to possess.

  • eamick

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    …said the jackass who gets free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayers.

    Sorry, no. For one thing, he’s no longer in the Senate; for another, even when he was, he got the same kinds of healthcare benefits all Federal employees get, and they aren’t free.

  • http://www.rodlamkey.net reverendrodney

    eamick:

    It was my understanding that if somebody has been in Congress for even one term, that person gets a pension for life, and free medical care. Is this wrong?

  • John Hinkle

    Phillip IV says:

    Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.

    Where would, where could anybody ever get that idea anywhere in the U.S.?

    A family member (X) is on Social Security disability, food stamps (whatever they call it now), Medicare, and I think Medicaid as well. Probably 99% of X’s health care is in effect free. That other 1% is subsidized by other family members.

    The thing is, X can’t work and thus really needs this aid. It’s not that X has been conditioned to think it should be free. And no, X has no iAnything. Apparently Santorum is unaware these people exist.

  • David C Brayton

    $900 for a life saving medicine would be a bargain. Last time I was in the emergency room, I spent $12,000 for about three hours of treatment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000263140906 Donovan

    I’m poor, have no I-Pad, and still can’t afford to go to the doctor to get something checked that has a decent chance of being serious. I need $5,000 up front to be seen. And I’m an FSM damned college graduate. What the hell is a high-school graduate, or worse, drop out supposed to do? I hope Santorum looses his coverage while at the same time gaining cancer. I would love to stand over him as he writhes in pain begging for help and tell him I’m going to need money up-front (of course, I have a conscience and would probably help him anyhow).

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    You’re damn right we shouldn’t have to pay for it. Why do I pay taxes while people die of preventable disease? To offset Exxon’s operating costs? To insure BoA’s insane gambles? FSM damned Christians.

    Sorry, got a little upset.

  • eamick

    eamick:

    It was my understanding that if somebody has been in Congress for even one term, that person gets a pension for life, and free medical care. Is this wrong?

    It’s wrong, if you mean completely free medical care. The only free medical care members of Congress can get is outpatient care at military hospitals and clinics in the DC area. Otherwise, members of Congress and other Federal employees can choose from a variety of private insurers, but they pay with payroll deductions like other people. Most Federal retirees can keep their health insurance, but they still pay premiums. The pensions are also nowhere near as lavish as people think—they’re tied to length of service and age, and the maximum pension is around 80% of their highest salary. Members who serve less than five years get no pension, BTW.

  • Doubting Thomas

    Math = Science.

    Conservatives: Science bad.

    No wonder they can’t get it.

  • dingojack

    Why pay those free-loaders in the Capital anything?

    Surely it’s a privilege to serve. [/Shagbag McGill]

    Dingo

  • scienceavenger

    Bart Mitchell said: How in the world can he think that all the poor people are buying ipads and not buying life saving drugs?

    Because its bla… poor people’s fault that they are poor, and if they weren’t spending so much on Ipods they’d be able to afford their medicine like all us wh… responsible people.

  • otrame

    Erm…..

    iPads don’t cost $900. The most expensive one, with 3G capability and a huge amount of memory is about $800.

    And yeah, Santorum, you asshole, it also doesnt cost $900 a month.

    And the worst part is, those people who vote for him don’t pay that $900 a month out of their pockets either, yet despise those that have to if they want to live. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

  • Johnny Vector

    eamick @17 is somewhat overstating the federal pension system. It may be different for congresscritters, but normal civil service folks haven’t had the pension option he mentions for about 2 decades. There are still people covered under the old system, but us younger (middle-aged and below) civil servants are mostly covered under FERS, which is a tiny annuity plus social security plus a 401k program (actually not technically a 401k, but it’s the same kind of thing). And yes, we pay some of our health premiums (employer pays 75% up to some limit; typically they end up paying 60-70%).

    But as far as plans go, the Federal Employees Health Benefits is among the best. It requires coverage of pre-existing conditions, for example. By law. So you can easily change companies amongst those providing coverage in the plan (and there are multiple options). Basically APA extended the same kind of rules to everyone. Santorum needs to zip up his pants; his privilege is showing.

  • harold

    eamick said –

    It’s wrong, if you mean completely free medical care. The only free medical care members of Congress can get is outpatient care at military hospitals and clinics in the DC area. Otherwise, members of Congress and other Federal employees can choose from a variety of private insurers, but they pay with payroll deductions like other people. Most Federal retirees can keep their health insurance, but they still pay premiums.

    There is no such thing as completely free medical care for anyone anywhere. Medical care consumes resources. Almost all medical care in the rich world is provided on the insurance model, that is, people pay into a pool, via either taxes or premiums. Sometimes the very poor are not required to make such payments or make reduced payments.

    Essentially all rich nations except the US have a mainly public system that covers all residents, but in all cases, it is an insurance system, into which all or many pay, but from which only those who experience a health problem withdraw. When someone needs medical care, the taxes or premiums that were paid in are expended. This is the way it works with other insurance systems as well. Multiple people pay fire insurance premiums, but only those whose houses actually experience fires receive payouts.

    The reason that almost all medical care works this way is that, in the rich world, medical treatment is often highly effective but is also often inherently expensive at the level of the individual course of treatment for a medical condition. If an individual is uninsured (meaning not covered by either a private or social insurance system), and requires health care, they often cannot pay for it. If they cannot pay for it, they may suffer personal bankruptcy, and the institution and professionals who provided the care may suffer a financial setback.

    However, while we would expect a prosperous individual like Rick Santorum to make some sort of tax or premium payment into the health insurance system, Santorum receives excellent and affordable health care coverage due to his tenure as a government employee, while simultaneously engaging in callous mockery of those who do not, and hypocritical claims to reject government systems.

    Although it is technically true that his health care is not “free”, the general gist of that comment – that he is a callous hypocrite – is correct.

    In fact, Santorum even campaigns hypocritically against the concept of health insurance, public or private! http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-mocks-medicare-food-insurance-propo. These statements are so stupid and dishonest that it borders on a national crisis that someone of this ilk has been a senator and is viewed by the media as a reasonable candidate for president. For example, nations with universal coverage actually have lower health care costs, most people don’t need food insurance because they can easily afford food out of pocket, we do have food insurance – social programs that provide food to those who literally can’t afford it – etc.

    There seems to be a lot of criticism of basic programs that provide FOOD coming out of Republican mouths this election cycle. The logical extensions of this are quite disturbing.

    The pensions are also nowhere near as lavish as people think—they’re tied to length of service and age, and the maximum pension is around 80% of their highest salary. Members who serve less than five years get no pension, BTW.

    “Lavish” is a subjective term. I consider senatorial pensions to be quite lavish. Every federal senator serves a six year term, so they all get a lifetime pension, regardless of personal resources. That pension is based on a salary that is currently in the $175,000 range, if I recall correctly.

    I am repelled, appalled, and disgusted almost to the point of nausea by already wealthy ex-politicians, who collect their, yes, relatively lavish public pensions at taxpayer expense, while simultaneously campaigning on hideously callous proposals to eliminate the pension and social programs that support the truly needy and vulnerable elderly.

  • d cwilson

    And the worst part is, those people who vote for him don’t pay that $900 a month out of their pockets either, yet despise those that have to if they want to live.

    But, being a slave to your employer for your health care is liberty as Jesus intended it. A single-payer system in which people would have more incentive to start their own businesses is job-killing socialism.

  • ricko

    iPads don’t cost $900. Where has he been looking?

    I got mine for less than the $499 price, and I got it from Apple.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    This is a rather poor formulation of the conservative idea that the problem with skyrocketing health care costs is that people don’t have enough “skin in the game”, that they rely too much on insurance and don’t pay enough out of pocket. It’s not a completely insane idea. You could probably improve things significantly by creating more competitive markets in health care when and where it makes sense (though it does not make sense for the really expensive stuff like emergency care).

    Unfortunately I have yet to see any sensible plan at all from the right for how to use market forces to hold down costs. It’s all vague musings about how there’s too much insurance, about how everything will magically correct itself once people are forced by economic desperation to bargain and haggle with the person saving their lives using procedures they do not understand. You get the impression after awhile that the real impulse is not to hold down costs, but to yank away the comfort and peace of mind that insurance and defined benefits brings.

  • kermit.

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think education for children is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think military protection is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    “Because you’ve been conditioned to think law enforcement is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

    Most citizens understand that we pay for these things through taxes. The burden is shared collectively, and the benefit goes to those who need it (gasp! Socialism!). Second, it sounds pretty silly to non-USian folks to think that medical care is fundamentally different from these other social services. I have a crooked finger that I dislocated 15 years back when I was looking for work. I have worked in three jobs over the last 31 years (including the US military), for a total of 30 of those years. But I wasn’t medically covered for those few months I was looking for employment. That could have been my knee instead of my finger – or my neck, and I’d still be in debt for it if it had been.

    Sweden, the UK, Denmark – they pay less than we Yanks do, yet all of their citizens (and legal residents and visitors?) are covered for half the cost we in the US pay.

    I remember fifty years ago when conservatives were proud of our public parks, our schools, our libraries, our shiny new interstate highway system. They didn’t demand that we give more of our paycheck to rich people; they demanded that the liberals talk more about responsibility, about balancing the books and providing service to the community.

    While the hippies of the sixties mostly got jobs and started paying their bills, the folks who prided themselves on the hard facts have leapt into the rabbit hole.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  • kermit.

    d cwilson: But, being a slave to your employer for your health care is liberty as Jesus intended it. A single-payer system in which people would have more incentive to start their own businesses is job-killing socialism.

    Yes. Remember,

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    And paying twice as much as necessary for spotty health care is a free choice we demand to have!

  • robb

    sick people should just by the $499 ipad and look up their illness on the internet. then they can order some homeopathic remedies to cure themselves.

    see. i fixed our health care system.

  • scienceavenger

    Area Man said: You could probably improve things significantly by creating more competitive markets in health care

    All one need do to destroy the notion of applying market principles to medicine is to recall that one of the basic elements a market needs to function properly is informed consumers. Now look at the success of quackary (ie alternative medicine) in the medical market. Rows and rows of water (homeopathy) being sold as medicine.

    One could easily argue based on the evidence that in medicine (as in the arts and beer), market forces make things worse, not better.