• 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

RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then explain what the "risk" is when he said, "that's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks." What is the "risk" for someone in a coma who can't afford to be kept alive and doesn't have health insurance to cover the cost?
 
haymarket said:
"nanny state" - what is that?
Click to expand...
It's the latest rightwing buzz word, like "socialist", "kool-aid drinkers", "Liberal media", "activist judges", "political correctness"
 
nonpareil said:
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?
Click to expand...

Like the wingnuts that support him, Paul doesn't have a clue. They rant about "personal responsibility" to claim that people should pay for their own care, and then hyporcritically turn around and say that charities and neighbors will pay when someone can't afford care. The wingnuts' stupidity doesn't allow them to understand how they're contradicting themselves
 
This silly outrage of the Tea Party. I want to see a single staunch, dyed in the wool, card-carrying liberal propose a single program or solution that does not require the government. I'll bet not a single one will step up and do it. They'll change the subject.
 
sangha said:
Like the wingnuts that support him, Paul doesn't have a clue. They rant about "personal responsibility" to claim that people should pay for their own care, and then hyporcritically turn around and say that charities and neighbors will pay when someone can't afford care. The wingnuts' stupidity doesn't allow them to understand how they're contradicting themselves
Click to expand...
Charities are voluntary, govt mandates are not.
 
American said:
This silly outrage of the Tea Party. I want to see a single staunch, dyed in the wool, card-carrying liberal propose a single program or solution that does not require the government. I'll bet not a single one will step up and do it. They'll change the subject.
Click to expand...

Gee, a political group that constantly calls for political solutions!! Heavens to Betsy!!
 
American said:
Charities are voluntary, govt mandates are not.
Click to expand...

Charities are not "personal responsibility", which is what the wingnuts think is the way to handle health care

All you (and the other wingnuts like Ron Paul) have shown is that even you don't believe in your nonsense slogans
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Then explain what the "risk" is when he said, "that's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks." What is the "risk" for someone in a coma who can't afford to be kept alive and doesn't have health insurance to cover the cost?
Click to expand...

The same risks they face today. Massive debt, the need to depend on the charity of others, substandard care, etc.

The chance of full recovery after 4 months in a coma is very slim. As health care costs continue to increase (and they will with more and more government involvement) and the reality of opportunity costs, the government or insurers will be forced to base care on the chance of recovery. Some bureaurat that does not know the patient and has never set eyes on him will choose between whether this patient gets care or if it is given to someone with a better prognosis.

Besides all this, Blitzer's question was nothing but dishonest. The number of employed without insurance is pretty low. One can come up with unlikely scenarios all day that make any REALISTIC answer sound bad. We need to focus on reality and not some stupid questions designed to force the person into taking an unfavorable position.

The real problem are the spiraling costs which are due to government meddling in the market.
 
American said:
This silly outrage of the Tea Party. I want to see a single staunch, dyed in the wool, card-carrying liberal propose a single program or solution that does not require the government. I'll bet not a single one will step up and do it. They'll change the subject.
Click to expand...

Liberals support many issues that don't involve government. Gay marriage. The right to choose. etc

Often times the only reason government is involved is because of the religious right's lobbying.
 
sangha said:
Charities are not "personal responsibility", which is what the wingnuts think is the way to handle health care

All you (and the other wingnuts like Ron Paul) have shown is that even you don't believe in your nonsense slogans
Click to expand...

The first answer is personal responsibility. In fact, that is what ObamaCare is trying to promote through the use of government force. The fallback is the charity of others. Again, the left wants us all to be forced to be charitable. The only difference here is in the use of force. The left demands it and Ron Paul is opposed to it.
 
sangha said:
Like the wingnuts that support him, Paul doesn't have a clue. They rant about "personal responsibility" to claim that people should pay for their own care, and then hyporcritically turn around and say that charities and neighbors will pay when someone can't afford care. The wingnuts' stupidity doesn't allow them to understand how they're contradicting themselves
Click to expand...

I think you're being overly hard on Paul. He comes up with this bold ideas that sound good in the "broad strokes" form (e.g. decriminalizing recreational drugs to sap the black market drug economy) I absolutely support his stance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, with most of his domestic policy ideas, they tend to fall apart when you start to work out direct and indirect consequences. (e.g. Would you have to be 18 or 21 to purchase highly addictive opiates? And who would foot the bill for the increase work related accidents, and abandon children?)
 
RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not as clear as you're saying or as unclear as some are saying. He's trying to both say it is personal responsibility, but then suggests churches will pick it up, all with out asking churches I might point out.
 
American said:
Charities are voluntary, govt mandates are not.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why we need the government to enforce healthcare. The fate of a person's life shouldn't have to depend on a voluntary system where people die if the charity isn't there. People deserve better reliability that everything possible is being done to protect their lives other than hoping someone is feeling charitable.
 
Top Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

he did, I provided the link with him on the cnn politics program in the last page. (probably didn't see it). Sadly, he will get asked again and probably be skipped on something like the Federal Reserve which he is the chair of the subcommittee on monetary policy overseeing the fed.

nonpareil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't forcing someone to buy health insurance be unconstitutional? If I don't buy it, will the IRS go after me? Wouldn't this get the govt more into debt and hasten bankruptcy? Where will the money come from when we continuously spend like crazy and inflation? What if govt healthcare is unsustainable, quality of medical care lowers or possibly non-existent?

:3 Should we look into govt car insurance?

Top Cat said:
Excellent post. You nailed it.
Click to expand...

I think the main point between that exchange with Blitz and Paul would be our current system of health care costing so much and not having a free market health care system.

Paul: The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.
Click to expand...



Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which is exactly why we need the government to enforce healthcare. The fate of a person's life shouldn't have to depend on a voluntary system where people die if the charity isn't there. People deserve better reliability that everything possible is being done to protect their lives other than hoping someone is feeling charitable.
Click to expand...

Didn't he decide his fate when he decided not to buy insurance voluntarily?
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Oh? And what "government meddling" would that be?
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of them drive up costs. Some of them may be justified but many are only designed to benefit special interest groups. Coverage mandates, barriers to interstate trade in insurance, allowing the AMA to to artificially reduce the number of doctors, numerous laws that restrict who may perform what procedure designed to increase the demand for doctors in competition with nurses and other health care providers, Medicare, Medicaid, unequal tax treatment, problems in the tort system and in general driving a wedge between the consumer and the provider.
 
RStringfield said:
The first answer is personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point: The right has multiple slogans so they can discard some whenever they become inconvenient

That's how the right dishonestly wails about "personal responsibility" and then switches to "charity and neighbors" without noticing their hypocrisy
 
jasonxe said:
Didn't he decide his fate when he decided not to buy insurance voluntarily?
Click to expand...

No

Most people in that situation HAD insurance, but when they got sick the insurance corp cancelled their policy, or they lost their insurance when they lost their job due to being unable to work.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which is exactly why we need the government to enforce healthcare. The fate of a person's life shouldn't have to depend on a voluntary system where people die if the charity isn't there. People deserve better reliability that everything possible is being done to protect their lives other than hoping someone is feeling charitable.
Click to expand...

The government force hurts patients. It increases costs and attracts rent seeking.
 
sangha said:
Thanks for making my point: The right has multiple slogans so they can discard some whenever they become inconvenient
Click to expand...

What is your excuse for the left using this same hierarchy?

sangha said:
That's how the right dishonestly wails about "personal responsibility" and then switches to "charity and neighbors" without noticing their hypocrisy
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy is yours. The individual either takes care of his responsibility to cover his risk or he takes responsibility for convincing someone else to help. Your solution is just to try to force him into "responsible" behavior and failing that, force others to help. In your scheme there is no personal responsibility, charity or freedom. It is all just force. It does not work, never has and never will.
 
jasonxe said:
I think the main point between that exchange with Blitz and Paul would be our current system of health care costing so much and not having a free market health care system.
Click to expand...

The left wants to treat the symptom they created which is the real crisis, i.e., costs.
 
haymarket said:
Giants are tall. Dwarves are short.

So what?
Click to expand...

That's the issue. Force versus freedom. Are you at all familiar with libertarian thought? If not then why bother pretending that you have the capacity to discuss it? Force leads to an increase, not a decrease, in irresponsible behavior.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
This is an indication how radical and far right the Tea Party is.

Click to expand...


Listen to your video again. Exactly two men say, "yeah!" Two. Not a crowd. And there's no camera on the audience, so how do you know that those two men were "tea partiers"?

Answer: You don't. You're just seizing an opportunity to broadstroke a political group with which you disagree.
 
nota bene said:
Listen to your video again. Exactly two men say, "yeah!" Two. Not a crowd. And there's no camera on the audience, so how do you know that those two men were "tea partiers"?

Answer: You don't. You're just seizing an opportunity to broadstroke a political group with which you disagree.
Click to expand...

How many is the line for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom