Pro-Obama ad blames Mitt Romney for woman's death

mcdonis wrote:
goman wrote:

So you are saying a company that helps out an employee find a new job or ease the burden of losing a job is the same ethically as one that does not?

Business relationships are what we all decide they are. They are not set in stone.

I am saying that its ok for someone to go out of their way to help others but if I then say you are bad if you dont then I am in affect saying I am entitled to such a thing. The reverse is also true as an employee when I get that better job I give notice and leave. Say I offer to stay longer and help train a replacment, thats my choice. If I choose not to and move on I am not evil. The opposite of that would be the employer saying to me, well you cant leave until you find us a suitable replacement and train them.

You are using words such as evil and good. Better, more precise terms, would be more or less ethical or more or less helpful.

Don't we all agree something that is more helpful is better than something that is less helpful?

My original point is most people are helpful if they know and like someone than if they come from someplace else, come in, and restructure for profit of the new owners.

From an ethical perspective, companies should practice the Wil Wheaton rule and not give longtime loyal employees a pat on the back and a boot up the crack. That being said, I learned a long time ago that you can't expect any company or even the government to take care of you. Companies have no legal expectation to take care of workers - only shareholders.

From what I've read, this woman died five years after the plant closed. That's a long time to get back on your feet and find another job with insurance. She also had her own insurance through her employer.

I truly get that the worker in the ad is still reeling from the loss of his wife and blaming Romney is more comforting than thinking the cancer was just missed until she got truly sick. But it's still a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking about whether or not she would still be alive if the guy hadn't been laid off.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...

And while we're on the whole "you killed my wife" kick, I'd love to see Romney's super-pac go find some innocent Pakistani man whose wife and 7 children were killed by a drone attack ordered directly by the president. It's not going to happen of course but it would make for a great counter-ad.

jdzappa wrote:

And while we're on the whole "you killed my wife" kick, I'd love to see Romney's super-pac go find some innocent Pakistani man whose wife and 7 children were killed by a drone attack ordered directly by the president. It's not going to happen of course but it would make for a great counter-ad.

Wouldn't that be the worst ad since Dukakis in the tank? The logic of it is that "I killed your wife because being a millionaire a hundred times over just wasn't enough for me--I needed to be a millionaire TWO times over!" is morally the same (or better!) than "I killed your wife because I was attacking [insert whatever label you feel is most appropriate]."

Romney compares his hunt for even more millions with the hunt for al-Qaeda? I think that would pretty much be the election right there.

CheezePavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

And while we're on the whole "you killed my wife" kick, I'd love to see Romney's super-pac go find some innocent Pakistani man whose wife and 7 children were killed by a drone attack ordered directly by the president. It's not going to happen of course but it would make for a great counter-ad.

Wouldn't that be the worst ad since Dukakis in the tank? The logic of it is that "I killed your wife because being a millionaire a hundred times over just wasn't enough for me--I needed to be a millionaire TWO times over!" is morally the same (or better!) than "I killed your wife because I was attacking [insert whatever label you feel is most appropriate]."

Romney compares his hunt for even more millions with the hunt for al-Qaeda? I think that would pretty much be the election right there.

Yeah, I'd have to say an ad like that would fizzle because followers of the party of 9/11 simply won't get worked up about Obama killing Muslims.

However, make the ad about Obama helping that same Pakistani man or apologizing for the death of his family and conservative media would talk about it for weeks.

Companies do have a legal expectation to take care of their workers and not just to shareholders (profit). There are safe work laws, there are maternity laws, there is Social Security which they pay half the benefit to the employee, etc.

goman wrote:

Companies do have a legal expectation to take care of their workers and not just to shareholders (profit). There are safe work laws, there are maternity laws, there is Social Security which they pay half the benefit to the employee, etc.

Yes, but are those in effect five years after the fact? At what point do their responsibilities end?

I seem to have taken that ad differently. Seems to me Romney is running on a platform many Republican governors, including mine own ran on in failing states. You need a businessman to get your country back in black.

There is no doubt that Romney made a lot of money made a great success of himself, a real riches to riches story.

If that is his platform, heart strings aside, don't you want to know the track record of companies he managed?

momgamer wrote:
goman wrote:

Companies do have a legal expectation to take care of their workers and not just to shareholders (profit). There are safe work laws, there are maternity laws, there is Social Security which they pay half the benefit to the employee, etc.

Yes, but are those in effect five years after the fact? At what point do their responsibilities end?

Of course not, but that was not my point. It is busting the myth that employers only responsibility is the bottom line.

What's the source that indicates she had insurance through her own employer? I couldn't find that mentioned in the 4 articles I found on the topic.

And was the guy's wife declined treatment? Because as hard as it may be to believe, even people with insurance die from cancer.

Regardless, this is a really pathetic and disgusting ad.

(Aside: I'm reminded of the flack Ron Paul caught when his uninsured former campaign manager died and people accused Ron Paul of letting him die. This ignores the fact that the guy got medical treatment, but sometimes doctors do all they can and people die anyway. Hospitals aren't black boxes where money goes in and miracles come out.)

Quintin_Stone wrote:

And was the guy's wife declined treatment? Because as hard as it may be to believe, even people with insurance die from cancer.

And people die from a lack of treatment because they don't have the full range of services available to insured people. I don't know how many deaths are caused by lack of insurance, but it does happen.

The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance — as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.

The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure.

“As health care for the insured gets better, the gap between the insured and uninsured widens,” Dr. Woolhandler said.

This is hilarious:

Romney aide says cancer-stricken woman in Democratic ad would have had health care in Mass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-aide-mass-plan-would-have-covered-woman/2012/08/08/e118ccfa-e197-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html

Lawyeron wrote:

This is hilarious:

Romney aide says cancer-stricken woman in Democratic ad would have had health care in Mass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-aide-mass-plan-would-have-covered-woman/2012/08/08/e118ccfa-e197-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html

Ann Coulter went ballistic over this on Sean Hannity's show. It was both pathetic and highly entertaining.

edit: Rush Limbaugh's response was good too. Never seen or heard the man so at a loss for words.

Lawyeron wrote:

This is hilarious:

Romney aide says cancer-stricken woman in Democratic ad would have had health care in Mass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-aide-mass-plan-would-have-covered-woman/2012/08/08/e118ccfa-e197-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html

Yeah, and that comment kicked off a veritable sh*tstorm among conservative commentators:

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Lawyeron wrote:

This is hilarious:

Romney aide says cancer-stricken woman in Democratic ad would have had health care in Mass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-aide-mass-plan-would-have-covered-woman/2012/08/08/e118ccfa-e197-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html

Ann Coulter went ballistic over this on Sean Hannity's show. It was both pathetic and highly entertaining.

edit: Rush Limbaugh's response was good too. Never seen or heard the man so at a loss for words.

I wish the republican party and people like Coulter would just say, "So what if she died? Even if the story is true we really don't give a crap." Because that's their health care policy. Their doctrine centers on the idea that individuals are responsible for funding there own healthcare, and if they can't manage to fund it, tough luck.

Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

And was the guy's wife declined treatment? Because as hard as it may be to believe, even people with insurance die from cancer.

And people die from a lack of treatment because they don't have the full range of services available to insured people. I don't know how many deaths are caused by lack of insurance, but it does happen.

The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance — as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.

The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure.

“As health care for the insured gets better, the gap between the insured and uninsured widens,” Dr. Woolhandler said.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But did it happen in this case?