Page 29 of 64 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 640

Thread: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

  1. #281
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by Bardo View Post
    It is a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. You believe the government should just function as a military with property rights and fundamental laws. I disagree. The government should also be a public arena that provides basic services that don't belong in the private sector.
    Which of course is a moving target and has no foundation other than simply need. The market itself is about need, about want, its the job of the market to handle this. You are turning the market into a fun little game for the side. Not exactly something worth my time dealing with.


    Tell that to Norway.
    Would you call Norway responsible, growing, and a place with a bright future? I don't see it. I see a country with huge amounts of debt, no growth and a currency that is losing almost 3% of value with low exports but a high amount of resources and with the more and more of it publicly owned. A country filled with information tracking and enormous amount of social programs its not a exactly a marker for self responsibility or even freedom itself. Not exactly my idea of great.

    Did you really just compare health care to owning a cell phone? Having a tumor removed is not a consumer item or cosmetic service. It's not a matter of "desiring" to have the tumor removed, I can have it removed or I can die a slow and painful death. What other product can this be said about? I can find food anywhere if I look hard enough, water too. I can't plant a health service tree or convert seawater into treatment. You're so worried about being dependent on a government product, but have no problem being dependent on a private product.
    I don't know if you are stuck out in the country without any way to contact anyone you are dead. If you trying to find a job in todays world without a cell phone you can't get a job. Seems pretty comparable if you don't try to purposely separate things.

  2. #282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    No, DA can choose to think in a selfish way (I don't have any responsibilty to my fellow citizens, just myself), America is a free country after all, but someone with what I view as a better moral standard would feel a responsibility to the society he lives in.
    Feeling a responsibility and actually having it are not nearly the same thing. You can have all the moral connections you want to whatever you want but that doesn't mean they actually exist.

    Responsibility to society means trying to make that society better for the people in it (which includes himself) and for the future. What I see as a better society is one that doesn't let people die due to lack of medical cares when the society can afford to provide that care. A better society is one that would provide basic human necessities (like food, water, and temporary shelter) to the needy if that society could provide it. That is why in my view, the US is a better society than Somalia and many other developing countries. You can argue that US society could not afford to provide these necessities to the needy - but why it is that it can afford the billions for war?
    The funny thing is we can't afford either. That doesn't stop people from demanding one or other though. That is also not the point of anyone in here.

    Maybe he feels that a better society is where everyone is free to do whatever they want with limited (limited to what?) or no government interference. And that standing by while people may be hurt or die from the consequences of a stupid decision is what makes a better society. To that I and many Americans would disagree. Somalia is free from many government regulations you and I currently have to deal with in a developed western country, but I'm glad of those regulations because they make the country much easier for me and others to live in, because while they restrict they also protect us.
    In any area you look for regulations, there are regulations that are there to protect and others that are there for control. In no way does any of that mean people should agree with every regulation meant for protection as you might conclude.

    DA and Henrin and Paul wants to talk about a Utopia where people either take responsibility for their actions or face the consequences and it has no repercussion on everyone else - but that ignores moral responsibilities and the connectedness of society. When someone choose to abuse drugs, it doesn't just affect him. Some drugs make the users more aggressive - that affects other people than the user. Drunk drivers are more likely to get into accidents - that affects other people than the drinker. Drug abusers are more likely to steal - that affects other people than the abuser. We can either try prevention, or we can let the people who got hurt deal with the consequences and say "It's not me, so I should be free to do what I want". When someone chooses to not buy health insurance or save enough for it when they can - it doesn't just affect them. It affects their family who will be left with the bill if they die from it. If they survive the impact on their wealth will still affect their spouse and children. We as a society can isolate ourselves from it (I don't have any responsibilty to my fellow citizens, just myself) by letting him die if he can't pay the bills upfront- but we still bear the immorality of letting someone die when it could be avoided.
    If you kill someone you are punished for the act. No one is saying your actions can't affect others, that is in fact a topic for another day. What we are saying is no one should have to do something just so someone can have what others have. That is their job to handle. In this case here what we need to do is put the market back in place to enable prices people can afford. Right now almost no one can afford any of it.

    I always faced the morality argument. It's completely baseless.
    Last edited by Henrin; 09-15-11 at 03:08 AM.

  3. #283
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I don't really see anyone ever draw a line in the sand. I hear many people say its there, but damn if I ever see anyone draw it. If you won't draw it, it doesn't exist.
    Maybe the line is not straight and you're too closed minded to see it.

    Economists understand the damage that all of those programs do to the economy. Unemployment for example they all agree kills interest to get in the market. If they support them is largely depend on the damage it has caused and the need for those programs to continue because of it.
    Which economist understand this? Do you actually understand what you are trying to say? If so, please provide the specific harm and what has to be continued as a result of this harm (what is the rationale to keep doing something that hurts you)?


    This is largely my point. Tell me, what has happened to the economies of the world? Where is the work ethic today? Where has it gone since all of this started? Down. Add to that, that most of these programs lower the value of money and it just turns to serve itself.
    Since all what started? America still has one of best value-added economy in the world, it's GDP per capital is in the top 10. And it has the highest labour productivity in in 2007 .

    What "lower the value of money"? If you want to talk economics, please provide us with economic evidence.


    The thing about utopias is they promote a perfect world order. Libertarians do not promote a perfect world order. The term doesn't fly.
    Utopian is an idealised world, even if it's never realised (and it could never be realised anyway). Pauls think in Utopian terms because he thinks that the Market can answer all resources retribution problems when people who study these issues - economists - agree that it can't, the Market is not perfect or completely efficient; and he ignores the reality that people make stupid choices and those choices affect other people not immediately related to them, and that regulating some of those behaviour sometimes produces better result for everyone overall than if we left them to their devices. The discussion should be if, when, and how certain behaviour should be regulated, not whether we should or should not have government interference as Paul would have it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  4. #284
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Feeling a responsibility and actually having it are not nearly the same thing. You can have all the moral connections you want to whatever you want but that doesn't mean they actually exist.



    The funny thing is we can't afford either. That doesn't stop people from demanding one or other though. That is also not the point of anyone in here.



    In any area you look for regulations, there are regulations that are there to protect and others that are there for control. In no way does any of that mean people should agree with every regulation meant for protection as you might conclude.
    You seem to have a liking for strawman. No where did I say that "people should agree with every regulation". All three sentences above in no way refute my arguments, if they even have a relation to it. I made clear that those are my views. If you disagree, instead of repeating what I wrote - that it's my view, as if that is any arguement against it, why don't you come up with rationale arguements against it?


    If you kill someone you are punished for the act.
    The point is that if you kill someone, someone died. The issue is not the consequences for the perpetrator but the victim. In healthcare, by not buying health insurance the victim and the perpetrator are the same, but in many cases they are not.

    No one is saying your actions can't affect others, that is in fact a topic for another day.
    Given the fact you either could not grasp the point that it's about the victims, or chose to ignore it, it seems like avoidance to me.

    What we are saying is no one should have to do something just so someone can have what others have. That is their job to handle. In this case here what we need to do is put the market back in place to enable prices people can afford. Right now almost no one can afford any of it.
    What you are saying is that you want to pay as little taxes as possible, so screw everyone else as long as the government provides what you want it to provide for you.


    I always faced the morality argument. It's completely baseless.
    Of course it is to you: the gist of your thinking is that it's okay to let people die if they can't pay for the healthcare.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  5. #285
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    You seem to have a liking for strawman. No where did I say that "people should agree with every regulation". All three sentences above in no way refute my arguments, if they even have a relation to it. I made clear that those are my views. If you disagree, instead of repeating what I wrote - that it's my view, as if that is any arguement against it, why don't you come up with rationale arguements against it?
    Rational against what? Which part are you talking about? Seems to be plenty of topics you touched that I could address? Which one do you desire I deal with?

    And I'm well aware its your view. I'm a bit lost on why that matters.


    The point is that if you kill someone, someone died. The issue is not the consequences for the perpetrator but the victim. In healthcare, by not buying health insurance the victim and the perpetrator are the same, but in many cases they are not.
    Then the problem is the person didn't buy healthcare yes? That doesn't make it my problem.

    Given the fact you either could not grasp the point that it's about the victims, or chose to ignore it, it seems like avoidance to me.
    The old prevention campaign to protect the world from possibilities. Never did make any sense.

    What you are saying is that you want to pay as little taxes as possible, so screw everyone else as long as the government provides what you want it to provide for you.
    What I'm saying is what I said. Your morality says that I have to pay for others and therefore you force everyone to take part in your morality instead of facing yourself as it is your morality.

    As for what I want. I want all kind of things, geez, seems like a great thing to revolve government around. But paying for others needs is good enough for now. You know, other than what I said taxes are for.


    Of course it is to you: the gist of your thinking is that it's okay to let people die if they can't pay for the healthcare.
    Morality which is your entire argument is a ridiculous concept that more times than not has no bearing on reality. Yours for example are completely baseless nonsense. As for the gist of my comments it clearly makes you sick and that is fine. Rational thinking usually does that to the dreamy.
    Last edited by Henrin; 09-15-11 at 04:07 AM.

  6. #286
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Rational against what? Which part are you talking about? Seems to be plenty of topics you touched that I could address? Which one do you desire I deal with?
    My post is there, if you choose to reply to it, that's your choice. All I'm saying is that the reply should at least be rational arguements instead of repeating what I already said as if that's an arguement against what I said. If you don't wish to make a rational arguement, that's up to you too.

    And I'm well aware its your view. I'm a bit lost on why that matters.
    So why do you keep repeating it?


    Then the problem is the person didn't buy healthcare yes? That doesn't make it my problem.
    Yes, you have repeated that sentiment many times. It seems to me you believe they should die if they can't pay. So my original post was not addressed to you, you were the one who chose to reply to that portion. I don't see why you feel the need to reply to a post not addressed to you just to repeat yourself again and again.


    The old prevention campaign to protect the world from possibilities. Never did make any sense.
    So you are against prevention? Unlike you, most people can see that possibilities can be negative or positive, smart people try to prevent negative possibilities if they can. When my friend's drunk, I prevent the possibilities of them dying or injuring others by not drinking and driving them home. If that doesn't make sense to you, well I think you are not very smart.


    What I'm saying is what I said.
    And that's the limit of your logic?

    Your morality says that I have to pay for others and therefore you force everyone to take part in your morality instead of facing yourself as it is your morality.
    I try to make my government reflects my beliefs - guess what? That's what democracies are about.


    As for what I want. I want all kind of things, geez, seems like a great thing to revolve government around. But paying for others needs is good enough for now. You know, other than what I said taxes are for.

    You are now saying you want the government to provide all kind of goods and services for you? It seems to go against the principle you profess to follow but whatever. Why don't you list the things you want the governments to provide for you?



    Morality which is your entire argument is a ridiculous concept that more times than not has no bearing on reality. Yours for example are completely baseless nonsense. As for the gist of my comments it clearly makes you sick and that is fine. Rational thinking usually does that to the dreamy.
    Emotional appeal and ad hominem are not rational arguements. Using adjectives like "ridiculous" "completely baseless nonsense" doesn't make it true, you have to actually explain why they are "ridiculous" or "completely baseless nonsense" in a logical way. And whether I'm "dreamy" or "sick" has nothing to do with the arguement at hands, resorting to personal attacks just say you have no logical arguements to make or that you are too lazy to make one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  7. #287
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    .........................
    Last edited by nonpareil; 09-15-11 at 07:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  8. #288
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonxe View Post
    So you want the reporter to go back and ask if he donated personally? I would find it to be in bad taste asking such a question about someone whom he cared for a lot. He is a close friend, worked with him over 12 years and started a donation to help pay for his medical bills. It would be odd if he didn't help him in any way privately or donated to his own donation. I'm sure there would be a record of it if investigated but I rather not look like a ass afterward. Nor do i need to know how much gave privately since it's none of my business.
    Normally I would agree. But he proclaims as a political leader that "friends and charities" would help. So the question is fair. Did he help? And all I heard was in essence he lent his name to an online effort.

    I'm not suggesting this is something other than helpful per se, but it certainly isn't the same as donating.

  9. #289
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Its always a laugh riot seeing people that spend so much of their time expressing open contempt for religious folks cite religion in their arguments. Its so congruent.

    The question was posed about a healthy working person that chose not to get insurance. We have many people in this country that will pay for their cigarettes, alcohol, internet, cell phone, video games, etc but society must take care of the poor creatures because they cant afford an insurance premium. Oh...and lets not forget the gasket people here pop when it is suhhested that since those people make such piss-poor decisions with the assistance they get from state welfare system that they maybe need help on how to spend that assistance.

    You breed incompetence. You then feed the incompetence. And you are outraged when people that have to pay for your incompetence are tired of it? Tough. Get a life, get a JOB, and then start paying from your own pocket for all these programs you profess to support.

  10. #290
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

    Quote Originally Posted by DashingAmerican View Post
    What a ridiculous statement.
    I can provide for anyone I want to.

    Seriously, you make me laugh.
    So, you agree with providing for others? Doesn't this make your statement earlier moot?

    When we vote in leaders to act for us, that is us personally deciding, as a collective, to tackle a problem. But, none of this changes the fact that we all have to be willing to let people die.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 29 of 64 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •