• 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

Like I have a responsibility for anyone other then me and my family? Oh right, to liberals I do. I don't, sorry.

And btw, nice show of compassiate behavior you got there. Death is better than being poor. Surely..

I suggest that you can't let someone die and others suggest "it's not their problem", and you accuse me of not showing compassion?

Black is white, up is down, in is out.

How ironic that so many on the right cling to their Christianity when convenient.

What would Christ do?
 
Not warped at all...you stated the guy should have had health insurance why should we have to pay for him....well then you have to be for an insurance mandate that FORCES everyone to buy insurance...how else can you make guys like him buy insurance if he doesnt want too...and cost you money....make sense now ?

Not at all. I'm not for any kind of mandate. Just when the unexpected happens, he shouldn't expect people to take care of him when he doesn't take care of himself.
 
My problem with libertarianism, and also why I believe is the reason why no industrialized nation on earth has adopted the ideology, is that ultimately its a utopian belief system that makes a lot of sense in some areas but is completely impractical in others. Take health care for example. You stated that you life on a very modest salary but you can still afford insurance. You also pointed out that you made payments to pay unpaid medical bills after a 4 day hospital stay. That is good and shows some personal responsibility on your part.

However, say God forbid you were diagnosed with something like stage 4 cancer. You have a poor prognosis because of recurrence rates for your type of cancer, but your oncologyst believes that your cancer is treatable in the short term. Basically, the cancer will most likely kill you, but it could take a few years to do so. So you go in for surgery to remove any operable tumors, and then you start chemo. Your insured so 80% of these costs are covered right now. The problem is that you get so sick in the short term that you either lose your job and thus your insurance associated with it, or you are not able to work enough to pay your insurance premiums. So you lose your insurance. At this point, the hospital you are getting treatment from will most likely refer you to a University Hospital. Thats not really a problem in and of itself, because if you have cancer you should have been going to one in the first place because university hospitals almost always have the best cancer centers. That university hospital would then come to you about signing you up for temporary medicaid, you would sign those forms they bring you for it because they want to be paid to treat you, and thats the only way you can possibly pay for that treatment (hundreds of thousands of dollars). So in that situation you would indeed be in "DESPERATE need of your government".

Now you are probably thinking - "wait a second, I could go to a charity hospital for treatment". Maybe so, but most likely that hospital would be hundreds of miles away or even farther and thus it would not be a viable option for you. The reason being is that you still have to live until you die. Thats the problem with dying, many times it doesn't happen very fast. So in the mean time you still have to work when you can to meet your needs of food, water, and shelter. If you are too sick to work at all, then you will be in desperate need of government again when you sign up for disability.

The tea partiers and some libertarians have some nice ideas about how the world would work without those social safety nets, but as you Yogi Berra said "in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. "

The charity would work. Is it impractical? Yes. Impossible? No.

I do agree with you on the observation of libertarianism, but it is what closely resembles my political beliefs, which is why my lean is libertarian-right.
 
I suggest that you can't let someone die and others suggest "it's not their problem", and you accuse me of not showing compassion?

Black is white, up is down, in is out.

How ironic that so many on the right cling to their Christianity when convenient.

What would Christ do?

What of us who aren't Christians and could care less what Christ would do?
 
What of us who aren't Christians and could care less what Christ would do?

The problem is you're a righty. and many of your ilk have sold their souls to the religious right and all their hypocrisy. You can't separate yourself from the influence and the relationship. Good luck trying.
 
The problem is you're a righty. and many of your ilk have sold their souls to the religious right and all their hypocrisy. You can't separate yourself from the influence and the relationship. Good luck trying.

Especially in the state of Alabama.
 
The problem is you're a righty. and many of your ilk have sold their souls to the religious right and all their hypocrisy. You can't separate yourself from the influence and the relationship. Good luck trying.

Already have.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
 
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.

Stickin with the actual question posed...who is more selfish...those that believe the individual in question should live with the consequences of their choices or the 30 year old with a good job that chooses not to get insurance?

This pretty clearly illustrates the folly of insisting insurance companies cover people regardless of preexisting conditions. Its no different than choosing to not carry car insurance, wrapping your car around a tree, and then expecting an insurance company to grant you a full coverage policy and pay for your own stupidity
 
Last edited:
We are simply NOT a society which will stand idly by and watch a person die due to lack of medical attention, food or manty other things. When somebody voices the opinion - as this person did at the debate on Monday - that we should do it - it is like nails on the chalkboard.
 
We are simply NOT a society which will stand idly by and watch a person die due to lack of medical attention, food or manty other things. When somebody voices the opinion - as this person did at the debate on Monday - that we should do it - it is like nails on the chalkboard.


Thats what makes Ron Pauls impractical and undoable in todays socieity...Ill say this again Ron Paul thinking is in the past 40 yrs ago
 
We are simply NOT a society which will stand idly by and watch a person die due to lack of medical attention...

Then hooray!!! We already have UHC.

When somebody voices the opinion - as this person did at the debate on Monday - that we should do it - it is like nails on the chalkboard.

As logic often does to emotional types.

When a person opts not to be insured, he should not be insured (SCREEEEEEEECH!). People should be free to decide they don't want medical care, or to only purchase what medical care they personally want to pay for (SCREEEEEEEECH!). A major part of the cost problem is a profound lack of cost containment incentives (SCREEEEEEEECH!).
 
Not sure how you get that...some warped logic you have there.

Let's see.............

Secondly, they guy should've had health insurance. Why should we have to pay for his lack of responsibility?

Oh yeah.............that is where I got that.

BTW, you are aware that the insurance mandate was a Republican plan as an alternative to UHC that the rest of the industrialize world has, right?
 
Would people choose to pay for the army, police force or firefighters if it weren't mandated?

Why do people argue that those can be mandated (without any choices to the quality you get ect), and say that in no way should healthcare be mandated (even though you'd have some choices here)?

Aren't these both protection mechanisms for both the individual and society as a whole (police & healthcare)?

There you go again, being all logical! ;)
 
Let's see.............



Oh yeah.............that is where I got that.

BTW, you are aware that the insurance mandate was a Republican plan as an alternative to UHC that the rest of the industrialize world has, right?

You say that like I care. Last time I checked, my lean was Libertarian.
And no, people should not be forced to have health insurance. They should just be responsible enough to have it on their own accord or accept the consequences.
 
I suggest that you can't let someone die and others suggest "it's not their problem", and you accuse me of not showing compassion?

Black is white, up is down, in is out.

Its not my problem if they get care. Deal with that fact! What you suggest is a program that I pay for their care and the government gets to control the care. What I suggest is a system where you pay for your care in a competitive market where you can actually shop for the lowest cost for you care. Where the care is first hand between you and the doctor and where care isn't a one sized fits all shoe where it assumes everyone can afford a Ferrari.

How ironic that so many on the right cling to their Christianity when convenient.

What would Christ do?

What would Christ do? I don't really care what Christ would do, I'm not religious, but if I had to guess I would say he would support private charity and condemn forced charity, he would support responsibility and condemn dependency. But hey, if you actually think Jesus supported government and force be my guest.
 
Last edited:
Its not my problem if they get care. Deal with that fact! What you suggest is a program that I pay for their care and the government gets to control the care. What I suggest is a system where you pay for your care in a competitive market where you can actually shop for the lowest cost for you care. Where the care is first hand between you and the doctor and where care isn't a one sized fits all shoe where it assumes everyone can afford a Ferrari.



What would Christ do? I don't really care what Christ would do, I'm not religious, but if I had to guess I would say he would support private charity and condemn forced charity, he would support responsibility and condemn dependency. But hey, if you actually think Jesus supported government and force be my guest.

It doesn't matter that you're not religious, because he says you're still religious anyway.
 
Thats what makes Ron Pauls impractical and undoable in todays socieity...Ill say this again Ron Paul thinking is in the past 40 yrs ago

You have no idea what Ron Paul said, do you?
 
You say that like I care. Last time I checked, my lean was Libertarian.
And no, people should not be forced to have health insurance. They should just be responsible enough to have it on their own accord or accept the consequences.

By dying? That is your solution to the health care crisis?
 
By dying? That is your solution to the health care crisis?

No, by paying the bill himself.

Damn, how many times do I have to say that to get it through peoples thick skulls?
 
No, by paying the bill himself.

Damn, how many times do I have to say that to get it through peoples thick skulls?

I don't know, why not ask Ron Paul's uninsured 2008 campaign manager? I know why, because he's dead.

Paul's 2008 campaign manager, Kent Snyder, went through a strikingly similar experience to Blitzer's hypothetical one, dying of complications from viral pneumonia just two weeks after Paul ended his presidential bid. Snyder was uninsured, so family and friends were forced to raise funds to cover his $400,000 in medical bills. Their efforts included setting up a website soliciting contributions from Paul supporters
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom