• 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

Last edited:
Catawba said:
And if he is poor, low income, or even middle income, and cannot afford to pay the bill himself?
Click to expand...

Libertarian ideas work so well for people who can afford it.
 
Catawba said:
And if he is poor, low income, or even middle income, and cannot afford to pay the bill himself?
Click to expand...

Charity. People are charitable when they are not forced to be that way.
 
Last edited:
Bardo said:
I don't know, why not ask Ron Paul's uninsured 2008 campaign manager? I know why, because he's dead.
Click to expand...

Don't see the connection. He raised the money and he still died. It just shows that medical care is not perfect and people still die even when they can afford the care.
 
Bardo said:
I don't know, why not ask Ron Paul's uninsured 2008 campaign manager? I know why, because he's dead.
Click to expand...

The guy could afford health insurance with the money he was getting being campaign manager. He made a choice to not insure himself and paid for it. Its called life, I know, how rude for me to point out.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Charity. People are charitable when they are not forced to do be that way.
Click to expand...

You keep using the word "force". It's not a matter of forcing you to pay for someone's health care, it's a matter of deciding where to spend the tax money that you're already paying. Besides, you're already paying for expensive health care programs like medicare anyway.

It's a strange argument. "Socialism won't work because people naturally don't want to share. Charity will work because people will naturally share"
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
Don't see the connection. He raised the money and he still died. It just shows that medical care is not perfect and people still die even when they can afford the care.
Click to expand...

He didn't raise the money.

His family was left with a $350,000 bill because he was uninsured. On the subject of force, why should his family be forced to pick up the bill because he wasn't insured himself?
 
DashingAmerican said:
Charity. People are charitable when they are not forced to be that way.
Click to expand...
What a load of manure.
As if charitable donations could even begin to fill the gaps in this nation's horrendous health care system. Hilarious.
 
Bardo said:
You keep using the word "force". It's not a matter of forcing you to pay for someone's health care, it's a matter of deciding where to spend the tax money that you're already paying. Besides, you're already paying for expensive health care programs like medicare anyway.
Click to expand...

It has to do with wanting tax dollars going to you, not for services for other people. Its about using tax dollars to promote the protection of rights and liberties, not general services.

It's a strange argument. "Socialism won't work because people naturally don't want to share. Charity will work because will naturally share"
Click to expand...

Its not really. The one is related to people you know or care for on issues that you actually want to do something about, the other is talking about people you don't care much for on issues that you couldn't care less about. See?
 
Last edited:
Rough Rider said:
What a load of manure.
As if charitable donations could even begin to fill the gaps in this nation's horrendous health care system. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

As if it's the entire solution.
 
Bardo said:
You keep using the word "force". It's not a matter of forcing you to pay for someone's health care, it's a matter of deciding where to spend the tax money that you're already paying. Besides, you're already paying for expensive health care programs like medicare anyway.

It's a strange argument. "Socialism won't work because people naturally don't want to share. Charity will work because people will naturally share"
Click to expand...

Well, then let's specify that unselfish, good people will share while selfish, bad people won't. Fortunately, there are more good and generous people in the world than there are bad ones.
 
Income is kind of irrelevant. You can earn $500k a year and have $499.9k in total expenses. Where could you possibly get a good insurance plan for $100 a year? It has to do with how much disposable income you have.
 
Henrin said:
It has to do with wanting tax dollars going to you, not for services for other people. Its about using tax dollars to promote the protection of rights and liberties, not general services.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? I want universal healthcare for everyone because I secretly want free health care for myself? I am insured and I'm currently pumping money into the pockets of the private insurance companies that I'm dependent on. I pay taxes, and I want my tax dollars going to public health care. I haven't used my insurance in years, but I pay taxes every year.
 
Henrin said:
As if it's the entire solution.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that's the entire solution for Libertarians(and other GOP refugees).
Thats because Libertarian ideas spring primarily from the "I've got mine, so everyone else can just go **** themselves." school of philosophy.
 
Bardo said:
You keep using the word "force". It's not a matter of forcing you to pay for someone's health care, it's a matter of deciding where to spend the tax money that you're already paying. Besides, you're already paying for expensive health care programs like medicare anyway.

It's a strange argument. "Socialism won't work because people naturally don't want to share. Charity will work because people will naturally share"
Click to expand...

Never used that argument. IMO socialism won't work because people don't like being forced to do things. Charity does work because people are naturally charitable people.
 
Snevert said:
Income is kind of irrelevant. You can earn $500k a year and have $499.9k in total expenses. Where could you possibly get a good insurance plan for $100 a year? It has to do with how much disposable income you have.
Click to expand...

The average person making $500k/year probably has more disposable income (on average) than the average person making 20k/yr. I haven't ran the numbers, that'd just be my guess, though.
 
Bardo said:
Are you kidding? I want universal healthcare for everyone because I secretly want free health care for myself? I am insured and I'm currently pumping money into the pockets of the private insurance companies that I'm dependent on. I pay taxes, and I want my tax dollars going to public health care. I haven't used my insurance in years, but I pay taxes every year.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about the general idea. Its not about protection of rights and liberties, its about services for people that they couldn't otherwise afford. Its a system designed for the few while forcing everyone else to be part in either the form of tax money they see no return on(medicare) or forcing them on a system with tax payer money they don't need(UHC)
 
David D. said:
The average person making $500k/year probably has a more disposable income than the average person making 20k/yr. I haven't ran the numbers, that'd just be my guess, though.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true. The keyword here is probably. What I'm getting at is if Bob makes $500k and has $499.9k in expenses, and his neighbor Ted makes $100k but only has $50k in expenses, Ted has more disposable income percentage-wise (and in this case, literally). Income doesn't really matter, what does matter is the amount of expenses you have relative to your income. Ted here could afford an awesome health insurance plan compared to Bob who earns 5 times more money than he does.
 
Snevert said:
Yes, very true. The keyword here is probably. What I'm getting at is if Bob makes $500k and has $499.9k in expenses, and his neighbor Ted makes $100k but only has $50k in expenses, Ted has more disposable income percentage-wise (and in this case, literally). Income doesn't really matter, what does matter is the amount of expenses you have relative to your income. Ted here could afford an awesome health insurance plan compared to Bob who earns 5 times more money than he does.
Click to expand...

Its sounds like you support a system not designed to be one sized fits all. I like!
 
Bardo said:
I don't know, why not ask Ron Paul's uninsured 2008 campaign manager? I know why, because he's dead.
Click to expand...

Facing a life-threatening condition without the money to pay for the treatment or paid membership to a club that shares the cost means you may die. You may die anyway. It is no surprise or shock. Humans have a 100% death rate.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about the general idea. Its not about protection of rights and liberties, its about services for people that they couldn't otherwise afford. Its a system designed for the few while forcing everyone else to be part in either the form of tax money they see no return on(medicare) or forcing them on a system with tax payer money they don't need(UHC)
Click to expand...

It's available to everyone, not just those who (currently) need it. The very notion that someone deserves better (non-cosmetic) medical treatment than someone else because they have more money is absurd. We're not talking about clothing or consumer products, we're talking about health service. How is it more rational to say that everyone needs an education, so we'll provide public schools, but health care is a commodity that should be determined by how much one is willing to pay for service?
 
roughdraft274 said:
That was hardly some standing ovation. It was two or three people. Extrapolating that to the entire group is wrong.
Click to expand...

And I'm not sure how we know it was the Tea Party who was yelling? And I love how personal choice is now considered sentencing people to death... I happen to agree with Paul. You make your way or you don't - it's your choice. Just like legalizing drugs - you choose to shoot heroine because it's legal, it's now society's responsibility to save your life because you chose badly? Screw that.

With personal choice comes personal responsibility.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Facing a life-threatening condition without the money to pay for the treatment or paid membership to a club that shares the cost means you may die. You may die anyway. It is no surprise or shock. Humans have a 100% death rate.
Click to expand...

The difference being the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt left behind because he got sick. In an emergency room everyone will get treatment, the problem is the cost of the treatment. Even if you break $400,000 into monthly payments of $1,000 it would take 400 months (33 years) to pay it off.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Charity. People are charitable when they are not forced to be that way.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the thousand points of light that will magically take over so you don't have to bear any responsibility to your fellow citizens? If that were happening, health care cost would not be the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country.

And even more importantly, as The Institute of Medicine estimates: "18,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to the effects of lack of health insurance coverage."
Physical Health Care Systems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom