• 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

It's not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing.

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.

Making a government that handles your needs is not a good way to form a working economy. It's not a good way to form a responsible society.

Tell that to Norway.

But another reason you keep it just to protections of rights and liberties is because what you desire has no real way to be defined and any service, be it a cell phone, healthcare, or housing can become a need if people become dependent on it.

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.
 
Last edited:
Really? How so? go back and listen VERY carefully. au contraire.

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.
 
I would suspect the more liberal members here would say you are responsible by proxy and by law. You're tax money goes to support those who are less fortunate by fiat. You may not be PERSONALLY responsible for anyone but yourself by choice, but by proxy you do support all the welfare, all the entitlements all the bad ideas and policies and bad laws that this country has implemented since it began and will continue to do so until you either denounce and leave or die.


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. 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?

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.

DA and Paul knows that it's immoral to let someone die just because he can't afford the medical cares he needs. So they prevaricate with answer like "charity". But in practice, charity is not enough to pay for the more than 40millions currently without health insurance who might fall ill at anytime. And what is the reality of "charity care" in today's system? It's government aid: Charity care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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.
 
Last edited:
It's just a matter of which God you look at. Mine is much closer to the God of the OLD Testament, not the wussie one from the New Testament.

The OT is Hebrew scripture, stories past down through tribal oral tradition. The NT contains narratives about the life of Christ and his followers--very limited scope.

Vastly different cultures and historical context.

It's annoying when so-called "Christains" quote the Hebrew bible when it suits them, but completely ignore the archaic laws, historical context, and contradictions with the NT.



Some of us would have no problem with that. If you can't find a job that provides insurance at age 30, maybe you should just "go away".
Hitler has similar views... eugenics, get rid of the undesirables.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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. :2wave:


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.
 
.........................
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
People are just fed up with the nanny state.
 
Are they really? Tell ALL Americans that you want to do away with all the entitlements and see what kind of response you get.

Yes but he heard it from Rush Limbaugh and Fox so it must be true.
 
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.

.

Yes I laugh also. But I'm laughing at the blatant hypocrisy of those on the right. Proclaiming their love of "life" in the name of Jesus. And as soon as the child is born, the child is forgotten. Let them die, in the name of Jesus.

It's hilarious. Well, if you laugh at train wrecks.
 
You realize he isn't doing anything, yes? Oh right, he is against being entitled so he is doing harm. Sorry, forgot.

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."

-Jesus Christ

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

-Jesus Christ
 
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?

Tea Party/Libertarian types don't like to mention the fact that insurance companies don't offer comprehensive medical insurance that's anywhere close to being affordable for average working Americans.
 
This is a bogus topic. Ron Paul who I do not back never said let him die. this is just another attempt by radical Liberals to make it sound as if Tea Party members are as radical as the Liberals.

More BS from the left who cannot deal with the truth and the facts.

I am surprised any of them can stand after so much spin. It must be dizzying.
 
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

-Jesus Christ
 
This is a bogus topic. Ron Paul who I do not back never said let him die. this is just another attempt by radical Liberals to make it sound as if Tea Party members are as radical as the Liberals.

More BS from the left who cannot deal with the truth and the facts.

I am surprised any of them can stand after so much spin. It must be dizzying.

No, we shouldn't accuse Tea Party types of having a "radical" agenda. "Reactionary" would be a far more accurate description.
 
Back
Top Bottom