• 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

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

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

No, the gist of Paul's answer was to take care of yourself because people like him and me are tired of taking care of unresponsible imbeciles.
 
Then why is it when a few union people do something dumb, it gets turned into "everybody who's not anti-union?"
People try to smear their opponents.
 
This is an indication how radical and far right the Tea Party is.



I think Dr. Paul is an intelligent person.

But when you take some of his ideas to their logical conclusion, the answer flies in the face of who we care as a nation.

America is compassionate and we do not believe the least of us should suffer--children, the elderly, the disabled--all reasonable people would agree that those safety nets are necessary and vital to our National Character.

So, how do you solve the problem of the healthy 30-year old. Simple. Mandate. If he doesn't get his own health insurance, he pays a reasonable fee at tax time.

It's really very simple folks. It's call PULLING YOUR OWN WEIGHT. I thought these Conservatives believed in that. I bet the far-right types go crazy if they get hit by someone without auto insurance... Oh the hypocrisy. It's not about "freedom", they just don't like Obama.
 
I think Dr. Paul is an intelligent person.

But when you take some of his ideas to their logical conclusion, the answer flies in the face of who we care as a nation.

America is compassionate and we do not believe the least of us should suffer--children, the elderly, the disabled--all reasonable people would agree that those safety nets are necessary and vital to our National Character.

So, how do you solve the problem of the healthy 30-year old. Simple. Mandate. If he doesn't get his own health insurance, he pays a reasonable fee at tax time.

It's really very simple folks. It's call PULLING YOUR OWN WEIGHT. I thought these Conservatives believed in that. I bet the far-right types go crazy if they get hit by someone without auto insurance... Oh the hypocrisy. It's not about "freedom", they just don't like Obama.

Nope, I don't go crazy. I take them to court and make them set up payments to pay me the money owed, or depending on my insurance, my insurance company takes them to court and they force him to pay them the money he owes them.
 
Paul couldnt even answer that question...he knows the answer....Society WILL PAY...this isnt medival america....

We all knew what Paul was really saying, the TP said it directly for him.... Paul just said it nicer and indirectly, and his statement did get a huge applause. He said the guy took his risk, that's what freedom is, and intervening to save him would be the opposite of freedom
 
The money would be stolen out of American taxpayer pockets under a public system, **** that ****.

Every American would also have access to the public system. Unless you believe in 0% tax of any kind, and that there should be no public service or government whatsoever, no US military, no public police force, no public fire protection, no public roads, ect you don't really believe tax money is being "stolen". You're just using it as a hyperbolic talking point. I could say that my tax dollars are already being stolen to fight expensive wars that I don't want to be spending tax money on. I would much rather spend it on infrastructure, health care and education. Your chances of being killed by an untreated tooth infection are much higher than your chances of being killed by a terrorist.
 
No, the gist of Paul's answer was to take care of yourself because people like him and me are tired of taking care of unresponsible imbeciles.

Which means "yes" he should be left to die because it isn't society's responsibility to take care of him.
 
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.

I would disagree. The Old Testament diety is one to be feared and respected. The New Testament diety is one to be laughed at.
 
America is compassionate and we do not believe the least of us should suffer--children, the elderly, the disabled--all reasonable people would agree that those safety nets are necessary and vital to our National Character.

If america was compassionate they would rethink 3/4 of their policies. If America was compassionate they wouldn't have ****ed up the insurance industry. If America was compassionate they wouldn't tax from me to pay for safety nets so people can avoid the results of actions. If America was compassionate when a man fell in the street everyone wouldn't just pass without helping. America isn't compassionate. .

So, how do you solve the problem of the healthy 30-year old. Simple. Mandate. If he doesn't get his own health insurance, he pays a reasonable fee at tax time.

When you decide to not get insurance you are making a choice. Making people pay for their choices is how you form a responsible society

It's really very simple folks. It's call PULLING YOUR OWN WEIGHT. I thought these Conservatives believed in that. I bet the far-right types go crazy if they get hit by someone without auto insurance... Oh the hypocrisy. It's not about "freedom", they just don't like Obama.

Pulling what? I would hope you would of realized before you posted the pulling the weight you are talking about is caused by policy. It not something worth supporting an action on to counter the results of bad policy.
 
Every American would also have access to the public system. Unless you believe in 0% tax of any kind, and that there should be no public service or government whatsoever, no US military, no public police force, no public fire protection, no public roads, ect you don't really believe tax money is being "stolen". You're just using it as a hyperbolic talking point. I could say that my tax dollars are already being stolen to fight expensive wars that I don't want to be spending tax money on. I would much rather spend it on infrastructure, health care and education. Your chances of being killed by an untreated tooth infection are much higher than your chances of being killed by a terrorist.

The majority of Americans have access to the system today. Forcing me into a system so the people that can't get in the system today can have access while I get worse care is not a solution.
 
No, the gist of Paul's answer was to take care of yourself because people like him and me are tired of taking care of unresponsible imbeciles.

The salient point is that many sane people have made the difficult choice of not having health insurance. And then what?
 
*sigh* and the one guy who called all Republicans sons of bitches that need to be taken out is completely innocent. Hypocrisy is silly, just like overblowing things and trying to apply something to everyone within a group. It's sticking to the true spirit of discrimination :mrgreen:
 
Which means "yes" he should be left to die because it isn't society's responsibility to take care of him.

Which of course is the right wing way. We care deeply about your life until you're born.
 
The salient point is that many sane people have made the difficult choice of not having health insurance. And then what?

I make $24,000/yr. If I can afford it, virtually anyone can.
 
Which of course is the right wing way. We care deeply about your life until you're born.

Having the chance to make bad choices is a important.
Having a free ride out of those bad choices is wrong.

Wow, hard concept.
 
The majority of Americans have access to the system today. Forcing me into a system so the people that can't get in the system today can have access while I get worse care is not a solution.

Of course it's a solution. Every country on Earth has already come to this conclusion, and they're enjoying a superior system. They're paying much less for a more effective health service.
 
What a lot of people don't understand is I don't think Paul was trying to imply that we shouldn't treat the guy, he's a doctor!

I think what he was getting at is that the man should be treated and then afterwards, he, and he alone should be billed for his medical expenses.

"But that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars how could you think its fair to stick him with that bill?!?"- Because he made the choice to not buy health insurance. That choice, as do all of our choices in life, have consequences. Obviously your bill would be split up into smaller, probably monthly payments, much like your car or house loan. How is it fair to everyone else to have to provide this guy with free treatment just because he made the personal choice to not buy healthcare?
 
*sigh* and the one guy who called all Republicans sons of bitches that need to be taken out is completely innocent. Hypocrisy is silly, just like overblowing things and trying to apply something to everyone within a group. It's sticking to the true spirit of discrimination :mrgreen:

Did you not watch the entire clip? I don't care about Hoffa, but the right is in an uproar over him telling a crowd to vote out the republicans.
 
I would disagree. The Old Testament diety is one to be feared and respected. The New Testament diety is one to be laughed at.
I would disagree. Revelation Jesus is just as brutal as Yahwew. Casting sinners into the lake of fire, destorying armies that oppose him. I've always said that the concept of God is nothing more than "might makes right."
 
Of course it's a solution. Every country on Earth has already come to this conclusion, and they're enjoying a superior system. They're paying much less for a more effective health service.

Their care is inferior and their waiting on average is longer. As for cost, I wouldn't be so quick to say it's a considerable advantage to our own.

As for everyone coming to that conclusion, its obvious when you put the government in power over a system they will enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Their care is inferior and their waiting on average is longer. As for cost, I wouldn't be so quick to say it's a considerable advantage to our own.

As for everyone coming to that conclusion, its obvious when you put the government in power over a system they will enjoy it.

Everyone is coming to that conclusion. Are you outside your mind? The obvious answer is yes, because, get this, even some Europeans don't like their health care system. I just blew your mind. I know.
 
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?

Because you're pro life...
 
Their care is inferior

According to who? ( ;) )

According to the WHO 36 countries out perform the US.

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the UAE and Dominica all out perform the US according to the report.

and their waiting on average is longer.

Fair enough, but outcomes don't necessarily favor the US. According to this report, systematic analysis of health care outcomes between the US and Canada tend to favor the Canadian system.

We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

It seems like a fair trade off. Also, there are many cases of unnecessary or erroneous surgeries in the US, which may lend an example of how longer wait times can actually benefit a patient. But that's neither here nor there.

As for everyone coming to that conclusion, its obvious when you put the government in power over a system they will enjoy it.

Exactly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom