mersenneforum.org Tea Party In Action
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-09-13, 12:33 #1 R.D. Silverman     Nov 2003 22·5·373 Posts Tea Party In Action Another example of Republitard hate-mongering hypocricy. They are all for "Right-to_life" if you are an unborn fetus. But if you are in a medical coma without insurance, you should be allowed to die.......... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_959354.html "The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage." These people have the gall to call themsellves Christian??????
 2011-09-13, 12:57 #2 mdettweiler A Sunny Moo     Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3×2,083 Posts If you had actually watched the debate, you would note that it was only a few scattered members of the crowd who cheered at that...none of the candidates seriously suggested that anyone be "left to die". Wolf Blitzer was the only one suggesting that. Essentially, the point Rep. Paul was trying to make was that the citizens, not the government, should be stepping in to fill the gap and provide critical care for the uninsured. The citizens end up being on the hook for the bill either way (it has to come back to them one way or another), but if you cut out the middleman you save a lot of \$ that's currently spent on maintaining government bureacracy rather than actually providing care. Whether or not you agree that that is a realistic or feasible position, the fact does remain that none of the mainstream candidates, nor the vast majority of those who identify themselves with the Tea Party, are proposing that anyone be "left to die". Also: not all who identify with the Tea Party, particularly the libertarian side of it, necessarily identify as Christian. The libertarian position sits somewhat at the crossroads of the conservative right and the liberal left, and attracts elements of both. I have observed that many who identify themselves as libertarian are actually quite decidedly non-Christian in their outlook; they reject the moral positions of the right, but also the big-government positions of the left, preferring more of a Darwin-style "survival of the fittest". Long story short, a few people cheering at Wolf Blitzer's "devil's advocate" comment just shows the calloused nature of those individuals, and is not any more an indicator of the general conservative position than, say, the eco-terrorists of the ELF are of the general liberal position.
2011-09-13, 13:13   #3
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Essentially, the point Rep. Paul was trying to make was that the citizens, not the government, should be stepping in to fill the gap and provide critical care for the uninsured. .

??? In the U.S. citizens are the government!

The keyword here is "should".

The problem with the Libertarian philosophy in general (and I agree with
many things they say) is that when citizens do NOT do what they "should"
there is no safety net.

The Constitution has a "general welfare" clause. Part of the "general
welfare" is not letting people die simply because they do not have the
means to care for themselves.

OTOH, I do agree that people who HAVE the means to pay for medical
insurance, but choose not to, should not be entitled to medical care at
government expense.

2011-09-13, 14:46   #4
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

140228 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman The problem with the Libertarian philosophy in general (and I agree with many things they say) is that when citizens do NOT do what they "should" there is no safety net.
IMO, Republicans try to argue that too many people fall into the "safety net" because the government makes it too easy for them to take responsibility for their actions. Where they are hypocritical is that they have put Wall Street in bed with Washington so that businesses are treated as if they are citizens with their own rights. In other words, large businesses no longer need to take responsibility either because they can also ask Washington for money.

As I understand it the Tea Party was originally about smaller (and less expensive) government, but the conservative Christians have been able to add their agenda to the platform. They can only blame themselves for allowing people like Sarah Palin to attach themselves to the movement.

2011-09-13, 14:56   #5
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

1D2416 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue IMO, Republicans try to argue that too many people fall into the "safety net" because the government makes it too easy for them to take responsibility for their actions. .
??? I think you mean "duck responsibility" rather than "take responsibility"

2011-09-13, 15:08   #6
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

2×3×13×79 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman ??? I think you mean "duck responsibility" rather than "take responsibility"
Oops. You are correct. That's what I get for having too many distractions.

Last fiddled with by rogue on 2011-09-13 at 15:08

2011-09-13, 15:09   #7
Zeta-Flux

May 2003

110000010112 Posts

Quote:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post Essentially, the point Rep. Paul was trying to make was that the citizens, not the government, should be stepping in to fill the gap and provide critical care for the uninsured.
??? In the U.S. citizens are the government!
Equivocation

2011-09-13, 18:07   #8
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux Equivocation
My thought exactly--since the US is a representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy, the government is not the people, though it is "by the people and for the people" (i.e., answerable to the people in theory). In the current climate of government, many aspects of the bureaucratic branch are not, in fact, answerable to the people at large; and as such they will often act in ways that do not benefit the people, such as pilfering away taxpayers' money for themselves and pet programs.

@RDS: Indeed, I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea that there should be no "safety net" whatsoever. However, I do believe that Rep. Paul's idea has some merits, in moderation if not in full; the idea that government will always provide care, at some level, if you don't provide it yourself has generated a sort of mentality by which people don't even try to provide for themselves, reasoning that the government will cover them anyway. The key is to strike a balance where we don't leave people totally out in the cold if they didn't plan ahead, but nonetheless leave a clear need for personal responsibility. Reforms aimed at decreasing the cost of medical care (the real cost, not cost after subsidies, since the people still end up paying the whole thing eventually) would help quite a bit with this: it's more reasonable to expect the uninsured to pay their own medical bills if the bills aren't so expensive that the average person can hardly afford them without insurance (which is somewhat the case now).

 2011-09-13, 18:50 #9 Christenson     Dec 2010 Monticello 5·359 Posts Truly, I see everyone having insurance for anything as poisoning any incentive for cost minimisation. Auto body repairs are an excellent example of that. Second, I certainly see that a major part of the increase in health costs recently hasn't been going to the doctors and nurses providing care, and I don't think it's going so much to the equipment providers, either. It's going to various forms of bureaucracy...the question is how to fight that part. How do you keep people paying for the small stuff, while providing for the disasters.
2011-09-13, 21:12   #10
Zeta-Flux

May 2003

7×13×17 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman Another example of Republitard hate-mongering hypocricy. They are all for "Right-to_life" if you are an unborn fetus. But if you are in a medical coma without insurance, you should be allowed to die.......... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_959354.html "The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage." These people have the gall to call themsellves Christian??????
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Car.../dp/0465008216

2011-09-13, 22:41   #11
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

11101001001002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler @RDS: Indeed, I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea that there should be no "safety net" whatsoever. However, I do believe that Rep. Paul's idea has some merits, in moderation if not in full; the idea that government will always provide care, at some level, if you don't provide it yourself has generated a sort of mentality by which people don't even try to provide for themselves, reasoning that the government will cover them anyway..
I agree that it creates that mentality in irresponsible people.

The safety net is for those who do not have the MEANS to pay for care.
For those who do have the means, you help them out, no questions asked,
and then present them with a bill, garnishingwages if needed.
If they have assets, you seize them. etc.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post davieddy PrimeNet 21 2011-04-02 12:33 davieddy Soap Box 4 2010-11-01 23:33 R.D. Silverman Soap Box 17 2009-05-03 13:01 ixfd64 PrimeNet 7 2007-08-15 21:03 nomadicus Lounge 14 2003-06-08 23:09

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:42.

Sat Jan 16 06:42:25 UTC 2021 up 44 days, 2:53, 0 users, load averages: 4.19, 4.51, 4.14