• 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

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

Well... uhh.... it isn't.
 
SheWolf said:
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
Click to expand...

He did not. He said, "our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it." Intervening is not the opposite of freedom. Force is the opposite of freedom. Intervening with force to make others pay for the irresponsible behavior another is what he opposes.
 
RStringfield said:
That's untrue.
Click to expand...

Oh puuuuuuuuuuuuuhlease. It most certainly was. The equivocation was clear. He simply couldn't bring himself to denounce the idea. Alas, that's a tacit approval. Of course his sheeple will certainly rush in to defend that.

I ask a simple question. where and when did he say "No" directly to the question?
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
Oh puuuuuuuuuuuuuhlease. It most certainly was.
Click to expand...

I know, it most certainly is untrue. :)

Top Cat said:
The equivocation was clear. He simply couldn't bring himself to denounce the idea. Alas, that's a tacit approval. Of course his sheeple will certainly rush in to defend that.

I ask a simple question. where and when did he say "No" directly to the question?
Click to expand...

???

Right after it was asked.
 
Top Cat said:
I ask a simple question. where and when did he say "No" directly to the question?
Click to expand...

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No.
Click to expand...
-------------------------------
 
jasonxe said:
-------------------------------
Click to expand...

Paul "No I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid"

There was no pause or qualification. The two are NOT the same.
 
Top Cat said:
Paul "No I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid"

There was no pause or qualification. The two are NOT the same.
Click to expand...

Not according to the transcript. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/12/se.06.html

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
Click to expand...

I recheck, he did pause.

He also directly answer "No" on cnn politics program @ 6:35 which reaffirms top to clarify for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7iGAXJTDiw&feature=player_embedded#!
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
Paul "No I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid"

There was no pause or qualification. The two are NOT the same.
Click to expand...

What? Wolf asked the question and Paul said. No. Then there WAS a pause due to the crowd noise. Then Paul went on to explain how it was done back before Medicaid.

Here is a clip that contains the full context and answer.

Ron Paul Asked If Society Should Let Uninsured Die - YouTube

You guys are LYING.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Its funny to hear all the evolution based folks cling to a religous argument. Wouldnt man as a species benefit more by letting all the crippled and dependen pets just die and stop polluting the gene pool already?
Click to expand...

Careful. You're setting yourself up with a comment like this.

Id be willing to bet that most of the people citing this religous argument in their defense of government health care are part of that dependent class and dont contribute to PAYING for those services. Whether they be college students still existing on someone elses dime or people existing on the dole. Not all mind you...but most.
Click to expand...

Liberals are more likely to consist of the best educated and the worst educated segments of society, and of that there is a pretty strong relation to income. Those that are in the middle tend to be more conservative.
 
RStringfield said:
You are a liar. He clearly answered, "no."
Click to expand...
At that point, he does say, "no," but he answered the question more than once. His first response to the hypothetical of a person in a coma without health insurance was:

"What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for it?"

Which most certainly infers that society is not responsible for such an individual and that death could be a consequence for making the choice of not carrying health insurance. He then reiterated that sentiment when he said:

"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks."

At that point, after twice inferring that death could be the risk by not maintaining sufficient coverage, Blitzer asks him directly to confirm if he's saying society should just let him die.

The very first word out of Paul's mouth is "no," however, as he continues, he conveys his own personal experience where churches helped people like that out and how the medical facility he was employed at "never turned anybody away." Now aside from him talking about a very different time 50 years ago when healthcare costs were nothing like they are today, hospitals still provide emergency care services for indigent people at the expense of the tax payer and churches still take collections for their needy. But not everybody belongs to a church. Not everybody can be cured by emergency care. So what, we let everybody who is not the beneficiery of such charity die?

:ranton:

What I take from that exchange between Blitzer and Paul is Paul feels personal responsibility trumps society's responsibility and if someone makes a choice which turns out to be a mistake, so be it, that individual will have to suffer the consequences, even if those consequences include death. But that death is an unlikely fate due to the charity of others, such as charity from a doctor or a medical facility or a church, etc...

I don't think someone's fate of escaping death due to poor choices (or even worse, because they're too poor to make the right choices) should be left to the chance that someone may feel charitable enough to step in and save that person's life. Life or death situations should not be left up to the chance that hopefully, someone is feeling charitable enough at that moment to help out. When it comes to life or death medical needs, I feel there needs to be a balance between indiviual responsibility with a compassionate society's responsibilty to look out for the general welfare of the nation's people. When it comes to healthcare, by far, most civilized societies feel that way since most offer some form of national healthcare for their citizens.

:rantoff:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
At that point, he does say, "no," but he answered the question more than once.
Click to expand...

He did not.

His first response to the hypothetical of a person in a coma without health insurance was:
Click to expand...

That's a different question.

"What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for it?"

Which most certainly infers that society is not responsible for such an individual and that death could be a consequence for making the choice of not carrying health insurance. He then reiterated that sentiment when he said:
Click to expand...

It does not infer anything of the kind. It infers that he should do whatever he wants to do, i.e., seek care or not.

Society is certainly not responsible.

"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks."

At that point, after twice inferring that death could be the risk by not maintaining sufficient coverage,
Click to expand...


Again, he did not infer anything of the kind. You are reading into it.

Not having health insurance is not a fatal disease.

Blitzer asks him directly to confirm if he's saying society should just let him die. The very first word out of Paul's mouth is "no," however,
Click to expand...

However, my arse. HE CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY ANSWERED NO.

as he continues, he conveys his own personal experience where churches helped people like that out and how the medical facility he was employed at "never turned anybody away." Now aside from him talking about a very different time 50 years ago when healthcare costs were nothing like they are today, hospitals still provide emergency care services for indigent people at the expense of the tax payer and churches still take collections for their needy. But not everybody belongs to a church. Not everybody can be cured by emergency care. So what, we let everybody who is not the beneficiery of such charity die?
Click to expand...

Health care costs were nothing like today because the government had yet to screw up our health care system.

He said they never turned anyone away. He did not say they never turned any members of the church away.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
"What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for it?"

Which most certainly infers that society is not responsible for such an individual and that death could be a consequence for making the choice of not carrying health insurance. He then reiterated that sentiment when he said:

"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks."

At that point, after twice inferring that death could be the risk by not maintaining sufficient coverage, Blitzer asks him directly to confirm if he's saying society should just let him die.
Click to expand...

You use the word "infer" quite a bit in this post. Though you do not seem to understand it's meaning I would think it is still the correct word. It is the subject of the sentences where you are making your mistake.

dictionary said:
in-fer: verb, to guess; speculate; surmise.
Click to expand...
Paul is inferring nothing (nor is he implying, but that is a different matter), instead YOU are.

An explicit statement about whether Paul thinks we should let people die can be found in this direct quote in answer to the question:

"No."
 
Last edited:
Question (just moving this issue along).

So the guy who has a "good job, makes a good living" is taken care of for 6 months, presumably by tax payer dollars. Why would he or anybody else need private health insurance now? The govt is going to be there if something bad happens to me so why should I pay for insurance?

What if the guy who has a "good job, makes a good living" still decides that he doesn't needs insurance because of this.
 
Last edited:
So the guy who has a "good job, makes a good living" is taken care of for 6 months, presumably by tax payer dollars. Why would he or anybody else need private health insurance now?
Click to expand...

He/they wouldn't.

However, as wait times tend to be a little longer in a public system, private treatment/insurance could be an option wealthy patients who want private care.
 
jasonxe said:
Question (just moving this issue along).

So the guy who has a "good job, makes a good living" is taken care of for 6 months, presumably by tax payer dollars. Why would he or anybody else need private health insurance now? The govt is going to be there if something bad happens to me so why should I pay for insurance?

What if the guy who has a "good job, makes a good living" still decides that he doesn't needs insurance because of this.
Click to expand...

That's why there should be a health insurance mandate which is what Blitzer was getting at. If you and Paul don't want to let the man die, the hospital must get money for the care in some way. Currently it gets it from the tax-payers and raising the cost of healthcare (going after the family for the bill didn't seem to be the case in Paul's campaign manager's case). If the man was forced to buy health insurance from the start, the question would be null since he has insurance.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
He did not. He said, "our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it." Intervening is not the opposite of freedom. Force is the opposite of freedom. Intervening with force to make others pay for the irresponsible behavior another is what he opposes.
Click to expand...

The neighbors, friends and family of Paul's ex-campaign manager still own the hospital for the care he received before he died. Or the fact that many people have to declare bankruptcies due to medical bills, which leaves the hospitals holding the cans. Does Paul have an answer for that? Is that how personal responsibility works in Paul's views?
 
Ockham said:
And coherent statements completely lost from you.
Click to expand...

you could attempt to craft one or two and then we could see if your claim has any validity to it.
 
haymarket said:
"nanny state" - what is that?
Click to expand...

It's a condescending way to describe a government that is perceived to hold the hand, guide, direct, and take care of all (or maybe a majority?) of it's citizens.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
At that point, he does say, "no," but he answered the question more than once. His first response to the hypothetical of a person in a coma without health insurance was:

"What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for it?"

Which most certainly infers that society is not responsible for such an individual and that death could be a consequence for making the choice of not carrying health insurance. He then reiterated that sentiment when he said:

"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks."

At that point, after twice inferring that death could be the risk by not maintaining sufficient coverage, Blitzer asks him directly to confirm if he's saying society should just let him die.

The very first word out of Paul's mouth is "no," however, as he continues, he conveys his own personal experience where churches helped people like that out and how the medical facility he was employed at "never turned anybody away." Now aside from him talking about a very different time 50 years ago when healthcare costs were nothing like they are today, hospitals still provide emergency care services for indigent people at the expense of the tax payer and churches still take collections for their needy. But not everybody belongs to a church. Not everybody can be cured by emergency care. So what, we let everybody who is not the beneficiery of such charity die?

:ranton:

What I take from that exchange between Blitzer and Paul is Paul feels personal responsibility trumps society's responsibility and if someone makes a choice which turns out to be a mistake, so be it, that individual will have to suffer the consequences, even if those consequences include death. But that death is an unlikely fate due to the charity of others, such as charity from a doctor or a medical facility or a church, etc...

I don't think someone's fate of escaping death due to poor choices (or even worse, because they're too poor to make the right choices) should be left to the chance that someone may feel charitable enough to step in and save that person's life. Life or death situations should not be left up to the chance that hopefully, someone is feeling charitable enough at that moment to help out. When it comes to life or death medical needs, I feel there needs to be a balance between indiviual responsibility with a compassionate society's responsibilty to look out for the general welfare of the nation's people. When it comes to healthcare, by far, most civilized societies feel that way since most offer some form of national healthcare for their citizens.

:rantoff:
Click to expand...

Excellent post. You nailed it.
 
RStringfield said:
However, my arse. HE CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY ANSWERED NO.
Click to expand...

You can stomp your feet, gnash your teeth and throw stuff at the computer all you want. It won't change what he did or didn't say. And clearly he was equivocating. And especially since he hasn't come out and clarified. Not to worry, he'll get asked again.
 
David D. said:
It's a condescending way to describe a government that is perceived to hold the hand, guide, direct, and take care of all (or maybe a majority?) of it's citizens.
Click to expand...

thank you - would it be too much to hope for if I asked for actual real life everyday examples of this nanny state - why it is bad - who it harms - and its negative effect upon our society and nation? Or would that take it far beyond the hollow bumper sticker and lapel pin cliche that it is intended to be in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom