• 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

Without the government imposition of force costs will decline or, at the very least, stop increasing so rapidly.

The other benefit of a voluntary system is that charities have to prove that their programs are effective and efficient to attract donors. The state does not. You don't like the way they are spending your money, tough! You can pay your taxes or go to jail (which further increases costs by increasing the costs of collections). If you try to change things through the political process then they will yell and holler that you don't really care about helping anyone but yourself. Further, once a program is initiated a special interest is created that is financed by the rent seekers and provided with foot soldiers from the freeloaders, so political change is almost impossible. But, it seems the people are getting fed up with the failed policies that only create more problems.
 
haymarket said:
How many is the line for you?
Click to expand...

Nice diversionary try. Won't work.

How about sticking to my point? Thread's subject line says that a tea party crowd shouted "Let him die!" How many is a crowd to you?
 
nota bene said:
Nice diversionary try. Won't work.

How about sticking to my point? Thread's subject line says that a tea party crowd shouted "Let him die!" How many is a crowd to you?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. What I do know is that I heard people expressing that sentiment in that crowd which was advertised as a tea party debate.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Im talking about the hypothetical though. He has a good job and making a good living but decided he didn't want insurance.
 
jasonxe said:
Wouldn't forcing someone to buy health insurance be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

That's for the supreme court to decide. They decided it's okay to force me to buy car insurance. And boy am I happy they forced others to buy it too. My car got hit through no fault of mine and the insurance paid for everything.

If I don't buy it, will the IRS go after me?
Click to expand...

Why don't you spend sometimes googling the law if you really want to know?

Wouldn't this get the govt more into debt and hasten bankruptcy?
Click to expand...

No.


Where will the money come from when we continuously spend like crazy and inflation?
Click to expand...

Red herring. It has nothing to do with insurance mandate.

What if govt healthcare is unsustainable, quality of medical care lowers or possibly non-existent?
Click to expand...

Speculation on your part. Other countries have sustained "government healthcare" with wider coverage, on less money per capital, and rank higher than the US.


:3 Should we look into govt car insurance?
Click to expand...

I have. My car insurance was state-owned.
 
nota bene said:
Nice diversionary try. Won't work.

How about sticking to my point? Thread's subject line says that a tea party crowd shouted "Let him die!" How many is a crowd to you?
Click to expand...

No one ever shouted "let him die." What scumbags some in here are...

But then again, what do you expect from the left?
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Without the government imposition of force costs will decline or, at the very least, stop increasing so rapidly.

The other benefit of a voluntary system is that charities have to prove that their programs are effective and efficient to attract donors. The state does not. You don't like the way they are spending your money, tough! You can pay your taxes or go to jail (which further increases costs by increasing the costs of collections). If you try to change things through the political process then they will yell and holler that you don't really care about helping anyone but yourself. Further, once a program is initiated a special interest is created that is financed by the rent seekers and provided with foot soldiers from the freeloaders, so political change is almost impossible. But, it seems the people are getting fed up with the failed policies that only create more problems.
Click to expand...


The other benefit is that more people who can't afford healthcare won't get it, which will mean the hospital have no need to spread the loss from these people onto other people and raising the costs for everyone. Either way you slice it, it involves rationing, it's either rationing of "quality" (if you see less say in the number of tests and treatments you can have as and when you want as less quality) across a wider base - like the Europeans, or it's rationing of amount of people with access to it and concentrating the highest quality in the top income group - like countries like India, Thailand and others, where Americans might enjoy good "healthcare tourism" and the poor can practice their freedom by selling their organ in the black market.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059801617 said:
No one ever shouted "let him die." What scumbags some in here are...

But then again, what do you expect from the left?
Click to expand...

Lefties are scumbags, Zing!

No one shouted "let him die!", but a bunch of people shouted "yeah!" when the question was asked. What's the difference?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059801617 said:
No one ever shouted "let him die." What scumbags some in here are...

But then again, what do you expect from the left?
Click to expand...

Are you trying badly to parse words here or simply being intellectually dishonest. Here is the video

Tea Party Fanatics Cheer 'Let Him Die' - YouTube

At the 50- second mark, Blitzer pointedly asks "if the society should just let him die" ..... there are shouts of approval for that course of action. To pretend otherwise and hide behind the fact that Blitzer said let him die and the tea party audience agreed with him is less than honest. I did not hear any tea party audience member shout all LET HIM DIE. I clearly heard some agree enthusiastically with Blitzer when he asked if the man should die.

You are quibbling about a distinction without a difference.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Are you trying badly to parse words here or simply being intellectually dishonest. Here is the video

Tea Party Fanatics Cheer 'Let Him Die' - YouTube

At the 50- second mark, Blitzer pointedly asks "if the society should just let him die" ..... there are shouts of approval for that course of action. To pretend otherwise and hide behind the fact that Blitzer said let him die and the tea party audience agreed with him is less than honest. I did not hear any tea party audience member shout all LET HIM DIE. I clearly heard some agree enthusiastically with Blitzer when he asked if the man should die.

You are quibbling about a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

The lie is:
Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die
Click to expand...

That didn't happen; make up your reality as usual.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059801654 said:
The lie is:

That didn't happen; make up your reality as usual.
Click to expand...

Blizter: Should society let him die?
Crowd: Yeah!!

Close enough.
 
:laughat:

Bardo said:
Lefties are scumbags, Zing!

No one shouted "let him die!", but a bunch of people shouted "yeah!" when the question was asked. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

So one or two is a bunch to you, or maybe a crowd like the OP states?
 
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...

Bwahahahahaha...they have to be liberal plants of course!!!!!
 
nonpareil said:
That's for the supreme court to decide. They decided it's okay to force me to buy car insurance. And boy am I happy they forced others to buy it too. My car got hit through no fault of mine and the insurance paid for everything.
Click to expand...

In what case did the USC rule on state mandated auto insurance?

Speculation on your part. Other countries have sustained "government healthcare" with wider coverage, on less money per capital, and rank higher than the US.
Click to expand...

Which is nothing but speculation on your part. We have many different laws effecting health care that those nations do not. For instance, our tort system is unlike any other nations and the left (kowtowing to the ABA) has blocked nearly all reforms. Also, our higher per capita income increases the demand for medical care.
 
nonpareil said:
The other benefit is that more people who can't afford healthcare won't get it, which will mean the hospital have no need to spread the loss from these people onto other people and raising the costs for everyone.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense whatsoever. Supposedly, the mandate is all about collecting for the uncompensated care that hospitals give freely to people. Outside of an er visits, hospitals are not required to care for anyone that can't show an ability to pay. They do it because the world is not filled with heartless bastards that need an institution that has spent trillions on killing innocent people (the US government) to tell them how to be moral.

nonpareil said:
Either way you slice it, it involves rationing, it's either rationing of "quality" (if you see less say in the number of tests and treatments you can have as and when you want as less quality) across a wider base - like the Europeans, or it's rationing of amount of people with access to it and concentrating the highest quality in the top income group - like countries like India, Thailand and others, where Americans might enjoy good "healthcare tourism" and the poor can practice their freedom by selling their organ in the black market.
Click to expand...

Unless, we address the problem of costs, "rationing" will be more common.
 
haymarket said:
Are you trying badly to parse words here or simply being intellectually dishonest. Here is the video

Tea Party Fanatics Cheer 'Let Him Die' - YouTube

At the 50- second mark, Blitzer pointedly asks "if the society should just let him die" ..... there are shouts of approval for that course of action. To pretend otherwise and hide behind the fact that Blitzer said let him die and the tea party audience agreed with him is less than honest. I did not hear any tea party audience member shout all LET HIM DIE. I clearly heard some agree enthusiastically with Blitzer when he asked if the man should die.

You are quibbling about a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

The quote was botched and is misleading. There was no chant of anything and certainly not what was quoted.
 
RStringfield said:
The quote was botched and is misleading. There was no chant of anything and certainly not what was quoted.
Click to expand...

How does a person in a coma accept responsibility for themselves?
 
DashingAmerican said:
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?
Click to expand...

So he doesn't die. Did you miss that part.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059801661 said:
:laughat:



So one or two is a bunch to you, or maybe a crowd like the OP states?
Click to expand...

It was more than one or two. I'm not going to argue the semantics of the word "bunch".
 
Bardo said:
Lefties are scumbags, Zing!

No one shouted "let him die!", but a bunch of people shouted "yeah!" when the question was asked. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

No. Not a bunch of people. Two people. Two clods. Only two.
 
Henrin said:
Like I have a responsibility for anyone other then me and my family? Oh right, to liberals I do. I don't, sorry.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. You are part of an interdependent network of people, wether you like it or not. The view you espouse here leads to nothing but divisive tribalism and the hatred of the "other." Your position is not a philosophical one, but rather just indicative of a stunted moral development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom