• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

Feel free to shoot me a PM, since that's totally off-topic for the thread

Maybe start a thread in an appropriate forum? I'm also somewhat interested...
 
They didn't really chant let him die, did they. Nice try though. Secondly, they guy should've had health insurance. Why should we have to pay for his lack of responsibility?

Maybe because he is about to die... Is that a good reason to help him? Death? Is that not a good enough reason? Whatever happened to helping your fellow man?
 
And they call the left immoral.
 
This is just ANOTHER arrow that points to the Tea Party as being a group of nut jobs that are disconnected from reality.
 
Maybe because he is about to die... Is that a good reason to help him? Death? Is that not a good enough reason? Whatever happened to helping your fellow man?

I'm all for helping a struggling person, but being forced to do something is not charity. Whatever happened to being responsible for yourself...oh ya, the 60's happened, nevermind.
 
More than likely in such a scenario one or more of the following would occur:

1. Someone in your family would be granted power of attorney and would either make your insurance payments themselves, or pay them out of your estate.

2. If your employer offers long term disability insurance, your health insurance premiums would be paid out of it.

3. In the event that your insurance was dropped due to your losing your employment, or non-payment, the hospital would apply for temporary Medicaid coverage for you so that the hospital continues to get paid for your care. Assuming you did not have a large amount of assets, you would get temporary Medicaid coverage since you would have no income, and your care would paid for that way.

4. If you had a lot of assets, the hospital would petition whoever was given power of attorney over your estate to pay for your care out of those assets.

Many people who need long term expensive care, especially cancer patients, end up on temporary Medicaid coverage because they lose their insurance due to the inability to work while sick. God knows what our cancer death rate would be in America if we did not have Medicaid. A lot of people believe they would never end up on Medicaid, but if you get a type of cancer with a poor prognosis before you reach Medicare eligibility age, more than likely unless you are independently wealthy, you will end up on Medicaid.

good point.

and an excellent illustration of why the "free market" is inadequate in addressing essential services with inelastic demand. these services were enacted in the first place because the free market did not provide a solution for the poor and elderly who were dying in their homes without professional medical treatment.
 
I'm all for helping a struggling person, but being forced to do something is not charity. Whatever happened to being responsible for yourself...oh ya, the 60's happened, nevermind.

If you don't want to provide medical service to everyone who seeks it you shouldn't become a doctor. If health care were a public service, you wouldn't be forced to do anything, you would just be expected to do your job.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Do doctors still have to swear to the Hippocratic Oath? Ron Paul should know better.
 
If you don't want to provide medical service to everyone who seeks it you shouldn't become a doctor. If health care were a public service, you wouldn't be forced to do anything, you would just be expected to do your job.



Do doctors still have to swear to the Hippocratic Oath? Ron Paul should know better.

As I've said, people aren't expected to just die. They're just expected to pay for services provided...atrocious, I know.
 
I was shocked to hear the cheer(s). It doesn't matter if the whole audience cheered or if it was just one person, that was atrocious to hear. Are some people in the tea party really that psychotic? I know there are crazies in every party, but come on. Even though this hypothetical person wouldn't really be left to die, seeing people cheering for the death is absurd. But then again, I don't expect compassion or logic from the tea party.
 
I have yet to hear anything from a Tea Partier that contradicts my conclusion that the main requirement for being a Tea Partier is simply to be a selfish prick. All of their policies are selfish. All of their rhetoric is selfish. These people want everything to be about them. I have no respect for people with the social graces of a five year old.
You made serious accusations. Don't you feel any responsibility to back them up with evidence?
 
This is an indication how radical and far right the Tea Party is.


Interesting you would chose a clip that cuts Paul off just as he's explaining. I'll bet he shames you, doesn't he? I'll bet his next words make you a lying hack, right?
 
Interesting you would chose a clip that cuts Paul off just as he's explaining. I'll bet he shames you, doesn't he? I'll bet his next words make you a lying hack, right?
I'll bet you don't know who or what this thread is all about.
 
You made serious accusations. Don't you feel any responsibility to back them up with evidence?

Its a valid and logical opinion. Its not the WHOLE truth. But I do find a lot of the attitude of tea party members disconected, childish and self serving.
 
Democrats have committed murder. Do you really think that this was worse than murder?

What in the hell are you talking about? Are posting in the wrong thread? Your comment is 100% irrelevant to this discussion.
 
I was shocked to hear the cheer(s). It doesn't matter if the whole audience cheered or if it was just one person, that was atrocious to hear. Are some people in the tea party really that psychotic? I know there are crazies in every party, but come on. Even though this hypothetical person wouldn't really be left to die, seeing people cheering for the death is absurd. But then again, I don't expect compassion or logic from the tea party.

Walk around for just a tiny bit and you will hear regular people say all sorts of shameful things because of political or economic views. It doesn't matter what their ideology is.
 
I'm NOT a Christian. I grew up Christian, and even back then had little respect for the New Testament God. Yahweh was always a much more meaningful and sensible diety than the New Testament God. I am now Spiritual, not Religious, so trying to explain how I see "God" would take a bit of time and totally derail the thread. If you're that interested, PM me and we can talk about it.

The God of the old testament is illogical as a deity worthy of worship. His actions and the teachings that are attributed to him are often immoral. The New Testament tries to marry Judaism with Platonism (which is a big old bag of crazy on its own) and so we get this figure of God as divine.
 
Walk around for just a tiny bit and you will hear regular people say all sorts of shameful things because of political or economic views. It doesn't matter what their ideology is.

Very, sadly true. I've been dismayed at some of the rhetoric/comments coming from those sharing my beliefs. People are people and no ideology can immunize them from making reprehensible comments.
 
Its a valid and logical opinion. Its not the WHOLE truth. But I do find a lot of the attitude of tea party members disconected, childish and self serving.
Accusations aren't supposed to be opinions.
 
What in the hell are you talking about? Are posting in the wrong thread? Your comment is 100% irrelevant to this discussion.
This thread is about judging 80 million people based on the actions of 2-3 people, but you already knew that.
 
As I've said, people aren't expected to just die. They're just expected to pay for services provided...atrocious, I know.

The services would be paid for under a public system too.

Besides, the gist of Paul's answer was "yes".
 
This thread is about judging 80 million people based on the actions of 2-3 people, but you already knew that.

Then why is it when a few union people do something dumb, it gets turned into "everybody who's not anti-union?"
 
The services would be paid for under a public system too.

Besides, the gist of Paul's answer was "yes".

The money would be stolen out of American taxpayer pockets under a public system, **** that ****.
 
Back
Top Bottom