• 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

nijato said:
Sounds a lot like **** 'em watch 'em die to me. Maybe our disagreement is not one of fundamental principle, however. Would you agree, even if his neighbors shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, they do in fact have a moral responsibility to do so of their own volition?
Click to expand...

You did not ask me, but....

Personally, I don't pretend to be able to tell others what their morality should be. One has to figure that out on their own. I am not going to preach to them or try to force them. I may try to reason with them, but mostly I can only hope to lead by example.

But, let's say we get rid of 50% of all government welfare and warfare programs and tell people if they think more needs to be done then they need to get busy doing it. Do you think people will be more inclined to donate to buying bombs for the military or to helping those in need? Or maybe they will send donations to Bank of America?
 
RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

The mandate is about making people save for their own care before they fall ill - that's what insurance are for.

If they pay for people who won't save for their own healthcare expenses, then they are encouraging irresponsible behaviour instead of letting these people face the consequences of their poor decisions, i.e. the risk they took by not buying health insurance.

It's the libertarian position that makes no sense in reality.


Unless, we address the problem of costs, "rationing" will be more common.
Click to expand...

Making people save for their healthcare instead of paying the bills for them through "charity care" is addressing the problem of costs.
 
Antiderivative said:
I don't blame her. I wouldn't buy health care either, especially based on the price which government loves to jack up via regulations. Your anecdote is an unfortunate one, but I don't think I will slip and fall and break my spine either. It is an improbable situation which is likely to never happen.

Again, Ron Paul is right. There is something fundamentally wrong when people purchase health care insurance for everyday accidents rather than to insure against catastrophes. The market system is not working and I "wonder why".
Click to expand...


Well your wrong...these accidents happen everyday to more than one person in the country and it costs us all a FORTUNE....you cant just pooh pooh away facts.....and ron paul is dead wrong...everyone needs health care against accidents and accidents can very well be catastrophic....accidents arent planned and pre determined thats why they are called accidents.....
 
lpast said:
Well your wrong...these accidents happen everyday to more than one person in the country and it costs us all a FORTUNE....you cant just pooh pooh away facts.....and ron paul is dead wrong...everyone needs health care against accidents and accidents can very well be catastrophic....accidents arent planned and pre determined thats why they are called accidents.....
Click to expand...

I believe it was said earlier in the thread that Paul said "we need a system where patients pay cash for basic services and carry insurance only for serious illnesses and accidents.".
 
Neomalthusian said:
Fifty-eight pages in and we're still going on with this sort of nonsense?

Krhazy, I could drop my insurance right now and take my chances. Save the cash, apply it toward whatever I want. Can you stop me? Should you be able to stop me from dropping my insurance?

No, you cannot stop me and you should not be able to stop me. Nor should the federal government. I should be able to take this risk if I want to. I can take all sorts of OTHER risks in my life that might lead to my death. I can take this one too. There is no reason I should not be able to. If I ended up dying, no one would have therefore administered a death penalty upon me. I am not being penalized by dying. I am simply facing a consequence of my own decision making. I took a chance and did not get the outcome I wanted.

The major problems inherent to our health care system are that we excuse people from all the natural potential consequences of this risk, and that we don't ration enough.

It is simply un****ingbelievable how much liberals are twisting this issue into a melodramatic appeal to pity over and over and over again. Grow up, people. Jesus H. Christ.
Click to expand...

Why am I reminded by this post of the para-suicide female teen "drama queen" who screams "It is MY life I can take it if I want to!!" Then downs a bottle of whatever and rings the bloody Ambulance to take her into hospital!

The problem actually is NOT those who die - it is those who get sick and DON'T die. The ones who end up ill for months lose their jobs and finally become just another burden on the tax payer.

Most countries with socialised medicine "get" this. Healthy population = productive population
 
nonpareil said:
Do you read for comprehension at all? Let me repeat myself again: reply to whatever you want, preferably with rational arguements, but not even that if you want. It's your choice what you do.
Click to expand...

Oh so basically it wasn't worth saying. Good.




Strawman again. No one said you wish death on anyone. Or maybe you just don't read for comprehension like I said.
Click to expand...

You did more or less.




Do you understand that in your first sentence you equate both "Prevention in your life" and "prevention in the government" to "not at all reliable". Let me ask the silly question: if they are both "not at all reliable", why wouldn't I treat them the same?
Click to expand...

Why would you?

I can sort of understand if you gloss over my posts and don't comprehend what I write, but do you also gloss over your own posts too?
Click to expand...

You equated prevention in your life to prevention in the government. I understood it perfectly. Calling me stupid is not helpful to you.

So you are claiming the US does not have democracy?
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming anything. I'm telling you it is not.




So back to square one. After contradicting what everyone can see was your thinking so far (you want the government to provide only what you think ought to be provided by the government and begrudge the taxes you think are paid for what others want) you now go back and confirm it. Don't you get tired of contradicting and repeating yourself?
Click to expand...


I made it perfectly clear what needs to be provided for everyone and what I want is not the same thing.



You are just filled with fallacies. Let's examine your strawman - what if I go to the opposite extreme of "forcing people to do what I wish" - i.e. absolute freedom? Is it moral that we force people to have a driver license before they can drive? Is it moral that we punish people who want to shout fire in a public confined space? Is it moral that we put criminals in jail and curtail their freedom as a result?
Click to expand...

Protecting of rights and liberties generally comes with punishing of violations. It has nothing to do with what I want and everything to do with logic.

The other two are you just projecting on me.


Yes, I do as my post made clear. And you are just repeating it without any counter arguement whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Explain your logic if you don't mind then. Where does this responsibility naturally come from? If you haven't noticed it doesn't exist outside of man made creation.

As I have said, and I'll repeat again: That is because you think that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for the healthcare. And you don't seem to comprehend that you are as subjective as I am, whereas I'm very attuned to that fact and made clear from the beginning that it's my views, subjective to me. You keep repeating that it's my view, but you don't seem to understand what that means.
Click to expand...

Mine are based on how the word actually works on how people actually think. Yours are based on how the world should work, on how people should work. Aka baseless bull**** as I said.

My morality is base on my reality and value as yours are. I think the problem with your position is both to do with reality and values - as I've said in my original post. You believe that it's not your problem when someone fails to buy insurance, it's their problem. That ignores the reality of how the system currently works.
Click to expand...
My argument doesn't ignore how it is current but simply says that the system needs to change to end that connection.

The fact that it affects you the tax payer and potential healthcare user in many ways: when they seek charity care, that is paid with tax money. If they don't seek charity care, and own the bill to the hospital, as Ron Paul campaign manager did (his family still have not paid the bill) the hospital covers that loss by charging more for the services. We know what your values are regarding society. What my value are regarding society I've stated in my original post. So you are immoral to me, and I think to DA and Paul too who could not bring themselves to say that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for their healthcare. My reality is not baseless, they are backed up with factual examples and solid reasonings which you have not been able to refute in anyway.
Click to expand...

Until you can show me where these morals come from and not just ramble on about nothing related I will continue to say they are baseless.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Oh so basically it wasn't worth saying. Good.
Click to expand...

So why do you keep replying to me if you believe that?

You did more or less.
Click to expand...

You are now plainly lying.

Why would you?
Click to expand...

If two things are the same, it's logically consistent to treat them the same.


You equated prevention in your life to prevention in the government. I understood it perfectly. Calling me stupid is not helpful to you.
Click to expand...

It is when it's true.


I'm not claiming anything. I'm telling you it is not.
Click to expand...

You are not in touch with reality.


I made it perfectly clear what needs to be provided for everyone and what I want is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Until you contradicted yourself by saying that there are "all kinds of things" you want the government to provide for you. In any case, I've already said that you want the government to provide only what you want it to (i.e. you think it ought to) provide for you. You don't want healthcare provided by the government - so "what needs" to be provided for everyone is not healthcare. You contradicted that and now you confirm it again.

Protecting of rights and liberties generally comes with punishing of violations. It has nothing to do with what I want and everything to do with logic.

The other two are you just projecting on me.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you what you want, I asked if those laws were "moral".

The problem with you is that what's "logical" is tied to what you "want" or what you think it ought to be. You can't see it, but your answers confirm that every time.

Explain your logic if you don't mind then. Where does this responsibility naturally come from? If you haven't noticed it doesn't exist outside of man made creation.
Click to expand...


Wrong. It exists in other social animals too. Dolphins have been known to protect the members of their pods, even killing sharks to revenge their members. Elephants have been known to conduct funerals for their dead members. Birds share the burden of flying in front when migrating. Penguins huddle together to shield each other from the wind and cold and share their heat. Even lions hunt in pack and share their kills.


Mine are based on how the word actually works on how people actually think. Yours are based on how the world should work, on how people should work. Aka baseless bull**** as I said.
Click to expand...

Contradicted by the following:

My argument doesn't ignore how it is current but simply says that the system needs to change to end that connection.
Click to expand...

My arguements are base on the problems currently experienced in the system and the remedies used in other countries - mandate makes people buy insurance - that's proven in Switzerland. None of your arguements so far are supported by actual facts on the ground.


Until you can show me where these morals come from and not just ramble on about nothing related I will continue to say they are baseless.
Click to expand...

Say whatever you want, it doesn't make anything you say true. Try to understand what "subjectivity" means, and you might understand my arguements.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
I am an audio engineer for a living. There is nothing wrong with the sound in the clip that would stop one from honestly evaluating what is there.

There is one "Yeah", one "Yes", and one sort of "Wheep"(?). Only. These 2 (or three) affirmative sounds are underpinned by nervous laughter on the part of the rest of the crowd.

You are just as wrong to pin that on the whole tea party movement as a conservative would be to broadbrush liberal environmentalists because of the actions of certain violent protesters or pot smoking tree sitters.

But I am beginning to think expecting you to understand reasonable logic is a fools errand unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Its like with every other argument. One seeks to emphasize what one wants to believe.
As for Paul, he's the real anti Obama, and that alone makes him scary, and for Cons, he's the anti establishment politician.
Expect nothing else from hereon out but misinformation and half truths.
This thread isn't about letting this hypothetical patient die, its about being too complacent and hung up in the status quo to change politics as usual.
 
nonpareil said:
The mandate is about making people save for their own care before they fall ill - that's what insurance are for.

If they pay for people who won't save for their own healthcare expenses, then they are encouraging irresponsible behaviour instead of letting these people face the consequences of their poor decisions, i.e. the risk they took by not buying health insurance.

It's the libertarian position that makes no sense in reality.
Click to expand...

That is a nice diversion, but you fail. What you said and what I was responding to was.

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...

Again, the mandate is supposed to reduce the amount of uncompensated care. Not having a mandate will not reduce the amount of uncompensated care and if hospitals continue offering it then they will have to spread that across paying patients.

Making people save for their healthcare instead of paying the bills for them through "charity care" is addressing the problem of costs.
Click to expand...

Nope. It does not address costs at all, just who pays.
 
RStringfield said:
That is a nice diversion, but you fail. What you said and what I was responding to was.
Click to expand...

Correcting you on what I believe mandates are for is not a "diversion". It's very much a part of this thread.

Again, the mandate is supposed to reduce the amount of uncompensated care. Not having a mandate will not reduce the amount of uncompensated care and if hospitals continue offering it then they will have to spread that across paying patients.
Click to expand...

So you repeated what I said before. Are you saying you agree with me?


Nope. It does not address costs at all, just who pays.
Click to expand...

Let's see: more people are paying for their bills, so the hospital don't have to charge higher for their services to make up for those who can't pay, how is that not addressing costs again?
 
Caine said:
And if you dont pay your taxes see what happens when you refuse to leave the home the government is taking from you in order to recoup the costs of those taxes.
Click to expand...

Of course, because your representative particpated and represented you. You can't murder someone either, as your representative agree that should be against the law. It is not robbery when you follow the legal agreed upon method to decide these things.

I take it you've conceded the earlier point and that is why you're switching topics? :coffeepap
 
jasonxe said:
I believe it was said earlier in the thread that Paul said "we need a system where patients pay cash for basic services and carry insurance only for serious illnesses and accidents.".
Click to expand...
That system would work if there were clinics were people could recieve the most basic of services for a reasonable fee. The problem with having such clinics is that there is a potential for a lawsuit EVERY time a doctor sees a patient. Engage legal reform and you would see a LOT of the costs go down. As it is, we see a patient in the ER and regardless of their insurance status, we run bloodwork, scans, you name it. You HAVE to. Miss something and you get sued.
 
nonpareil said:
Correcting you on what I believe mandates are for is not a "diversion". It's very much a part of this thread.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You argued that a benefit of Paul's approach (that is, you think Paul's supporters see this as a benefit not that you see it as one) would be to reduce the amount of uncompensated care implying that those people would be left to die. But, without a mandate people will still get care as they do now without a mandate because the doctors and hospitals are too kind to turn these people away. They are not the inhuman monsters that you wish to make them out to be. They want to help other people. Yes, they have their own needs and want to get paid, but they are not heartless.

So you repeated what I said before. Are you saying you agree with me?
Click to expand...

That is not what you said before. You claimed that no mandate would reduce the uncompensated care because those with out insurance would be left to die.

Let's see: more people are paying for their bills, so the hospital don't have to charge higher for their services to make up for those who can't pay, how is that not addressing costs again?
Click to expand...

It does not address costs at all. It addresses who bears the cost, i.e., who pays. It does not reduce the cost. It just shifts the burden and once we can no longer afford it there will be rationing.
 
VanceMack said:
That system would work if there were clinics were people could recieve the most basic of services for a reasonable fee. The problem with having such clinics is that there is a potential for a lawsuit EVERY time a doctor sees a patient. Engage legal reform and you would see a LOT of the costs go down. As it is, we see a patient in the ER and regardless of their insurance status, we run bloodwork, scans, you name it. You HAVE to. Miss something and you get sued.
Click to expand...

Yes, the tort system is part of the problem. And it is not really the the payouts on the lawsuits as much it is the incentives it creates. A doctor is encouraged to cover his own ass and make sure that he does not miss anything no matter how unlikely, since neither he nor his patient has to pay the cost of unneeded procedures.

The left wants us all to pretend that resources are no object. They are and always will be because of opportunity costs. Spend millions to make sure NOTHING is missed in medical care and that is less for education, infrastructure, environmental concerns, defense or police protection.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
I am an audio engineer for a living. There is nothing wrong with the sound in the clip that would stop one from honestly evaluating what is there.

There is one "Yeah", one "Yes", and one sort of "Wheep"(?). Only. These 2 (or three) affirmative sounds are underpinned by nervous laughter on the part of the rest of the crowd.

You are just as wrong to pin that on the whole tea party movement as a conservative would be to broadbrush liberal environmentalists because of the actions of certain violent protesters or pot smoking tree sitters.

But I am beginning to think expecting you to understand reasonable logic is a fools errand unfortunately.
Click to expand...

The claim that it's just one or two teabaggers who believe the uninsured sick should be left to die is absurd. It's not as if this were the only time they have expressed this opinion

Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim - YouTube
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, we all need to rely on the knidness of strangers. That is largely the most effective way to handle a problem. Very pragmatic. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

And it's hypocritical for the "personal responsibility" wingnuts to base their arguments on the claim that someone else will pay

But no one expects the hypocrits to be consistent when applying their principles since they have none
 
sephiroth2009 said:
Where the hell were these so called "defenders of the Constitution" when Bush signed the Patriot Act into law?

To be honest, I think this Tea Party is just going to be used to demonize the true patriots who question the Government and wants to see real change. Which isn't going to come from some politician in a cheesy suit.
Click to expand...

They are hypocrits. They chant their slogans about "personal responsibility" and "small govt" when convenient and toss them aside to get what they really want
 
VanceMack said:
That system would work if there were clinics were people could recieve the most basic of services for a reasonable fee. The problem with having such clinics is that there is a potential for a lawsuit EVERY time a doctor sees a patient. Engage legal reform and you would see a LOT of the costs go down. As it is, we see a patient in the ER and regardless of their insurance status, we run bloodwork, scans, you name it. You HAVE to. Miss something and you get sued.
Click to expand...

I remember him answering this problem in a debate....lemme find it.

GOP Debate Excerpts -- Paul, Santorum, Pawlenty On Health Care - YouTube @ 3:05

I'm pretty sure he wrote a lengthy article going into more detail about it somewhere (usually does about everything).
 
VanceMack said:
That system would work if there were clinics were people could recieve the most basic of services for a reasonable fee. The problem with having such clinics is that there is a potential for a lawsuit EVERY time a doctor sees a patient. Engage legal reform and you would see a LOT of the costs go down. As it is, we see a patient in the ER and regardless of their insurance status, we run bloodwork, scans, you name it. You HAVE to. Miss something and you get sued.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to legal reform, but it is overstated by many conservatives. One, the effect on price isn't that high. And places like Texas where such reform has happened, the results have not been stellar. So, we should not see this as a panacea, or even a major piece to the puzzle, but just a single minor piece.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Fifty-eight pages in and we're still going on with this sort of nonsense?

Krhazy, I could drop my insurance right now and take my chances. Save the cash, apply it toward whatever I want. Can you stop me? Should you be able to stop me from dropping my insurance?

No, you cannot stop me and you should not be able to stop me. Nor should the federal government. I should be able to take this risk if I want to. I can take all sorts of OTHER risks in my life that might lead to my death. I can take this one too. There is no reason I should not be able to. If I ended up dying, no one would have therefore administered a death penalty upon me. I am not being penalized by dying. I am simply facing a consequence of my own decision making. I took a chance and did not get the outcome I wanted.

The major problems inherent to our health care system are that we excuse people from all the natural potential consequences of this risk, and that we don't ration enough.

It is simply un****ingbelievable how much liberals are twisting this issue into a melodramatic appeal to pity over and over and over again. Grow up, people. Jesus H. Christ.
Click to expand...
You don't have the right to take a risk if I have the pay the bill for it. If I don't have to pay for it, that must mean that you don't get the services or you are sent into crushing debt. Either consequence to me is far more ridiculous and draconian a position than favoring a relatively small monetary penalty. It's not overdramatic at all. In the real world, the choice to not have health insurance has serious effects on society, not just the individual.

The problem with some conservatives is they refuse to admit that their autonomy affects other people. All the while touting personal responsibility...
 
Last edited:
nonpareil said:
So why do you keep replying to me if you believe that?
Click to expand...

What?

You are now plainly lying.
Click to expand...
If you say you didn't say numerous times now that what that it appears I'm for them dieing go right ahead.


If two things are the same, it's logically consistent to treat them the same.
Click to expand...

How is government being the only legal arbor of force equal to everything else? How is the idea prevention in government usually calls for restricting rights and liberties equal to protections in your life that just call on your action on your own free will? Its not.


It is when it's true.
Click to expand...

Which it never is.



You are not in touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Look up the term and get back to me. I will admit its closer than it ever was intended to be, but its still falls short.


Until you contradicted yourself by saying that there are "all kinds of things" you want the government to provide for you. In any case, I've already said that you want the government to provide only what you want it to (i.e. you think it ought to) provide for you. You don't want healthcare provided by the government - so "what needs" to be provided for everyone is not healthcare. You contradicted that and now you confirm it again.
Click to expand...

General protection, IE police and military are related to the reason government even exists. Without them there would be no purpose to government. Like I said plenty of times this has nothing to do with what I want.

I didn't ask you what you want, I asked if those laws were "moral".
Click to expand...

If they are moral or not is not the point. They are based on logic.
The problem with you is that what's "logical" is tied to what you "want" or what you think it ought to be. You can't see it, but your answers confirm that every time.
Click to expand...

If you say so.




Wrong. It exists in other social animals too. Dolphins have been known to protect the members of their pods, even killing sharks to revenge their members. Elephants have been known to conduct funerals for their dead members. Birds share the burden of flying in front when migrating. Penguins huddle together to shield each other from the wind and cold and share their heat. Even lions hunt in pack and share their kills.
Click to expand...

They are all connected on personal level where they personally know and are dependent on the others for survival. We are not. Comparing animals to human generally fails and comparing them on how they protect each other is just another example.

Contradicted by the following:



My arguements are base on the problems currently experienced in the system and the remedies used in other countries - mandate makes people buy insurance - that's proven in Switzerland. None of your arguements so far are supported by actual facts on the ground.
Click to expand...

The problems in this country exist because of government intervention and the third party system. In other systems they worry about price while giving up care. The mandate doesn't do much of anything other than spread cost to cover up bad policy.


Say whatever you want, it doesn't make anything you say true. Try to understand what "subjectivity" means, and you might understand my arguements.
Click to expand...

Morals as you understand them never has made any sense. Its the kind of nonsense some hard line conservatives use on gay marriage. It not about logic and all about the feelings of the person that have them.
 
sephiroth2009 said:
I hear that Paul doesn't care about the minorities.
Click to expand...

I find people that say someone doesn't care about the poor or minorities are only talking about their own policies and the lack of support that person has for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom