Posted on 09/13/2011 1:53:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Having said that, I think being able to pay for your own treatment, be it through insurance or some other way, is a civic duty. It's a part of being an adult and paying your own way through life. The modern idea that someone else will always pay is ruining medicine and all other aspects of our society, except for the growth of government, of course.
Sometimes I think that all the ills of our modern society come from the fact that people just don't grow up anymore.
The republicans are supposed to be the party of freedom Mr Perry. The young man is free to choose to spend his money on toys instead of health insurance. He is not free to rob his neighbor to pay for his medical problems after the fact.
Perry and MSNBC are agreement about the TeaParty folk, that’s all I needed to hear. See ya Ricky!
Government presumes to take the role of determining our charity, and that is immoral.
I DESPISE politicians who claim opposition to illegal immigration is based on racism. My wife is from the Philippines, and we adopted two kids from the Philippines. However, we did it LEGALLY - and spent years working the paperwork to do so.
My question for Perry - why are people with Mexican-sounding names better than people with Filipino-sounding names?
Why is a Mexican crossing the border illegally a good person, and a Filipino a bad person?
Does Perry hate Filipinos? Does he hate the Chinese? Or does he just not know what “illegal” means? What makes Mexican-illegal good, and Filipino-illegal bad?
Which version are you referring to? I like the version that says the doctor will pay for the patients care.
Patients have been refused care to some degree or another going back thousands of years. At no point has a patient ever had a blank check. There will always be a rationing mechanism because patients have unlimited needs but limited means. Self pay or charitable care is the best form of rationing. You can have medical care to the extent that you can pay for it or to the extent someone else will voluntarily pay for it.
If no one will care for you voluntarily then too bad.
The fundamental differences we are discussing are whether or not to force other people to pay for someone else’s care. If a doctor or hospital wants to pay and they can get enough voluntarily given funds to do so then your philosophy is fine.
There are Christian Libertarians and Atheistic Libertarians. I would guess this person you talked to is the latter.
Religion or the lack of religion has nothing to do with it. The person was either a complete jerk or trying in a foolish way to make a point -- in which case he was a complete jerk.
Kindness is not the sole province of the religious and cruelty is not limited to non-believers.
Which is quite well illustrated in the story of Davy Crockett when he was in the legislature."It's not YOUR money to give!"
The only thing stupid is that I never said Homeless.
If you saw a person lying on the street dressed in a suit with blood on his head would you walk on by or would you get HIM help?
I don’t support the dream act, because it does a lot more than I would do. But I’m talking about a state deciding what to do with their own citizen’s tax dollars and their own colleges and universities, not a federal amnesty program.
I believe there is a societal benefit to not having people die on the street, that MAY rise to the level of a legitimate government purpose. But it’s not something I’d fight for, more something I wouldn’t object to as part of a plan to repeal Obamacare.
On the other hand, if we get strict about it, there’s a lot of stuff that needs to be stopped that we’ll never get any congress to vote to stop.
We frequently have people at work come down with long term ilnesses and find out they elected not to pay for long term disability insurance. Their coworkers, family and the community keep these people afloat and help. People give, hold fundraisers, etc.
One thing that makes a huge difference is church membership. Churches are typically very happy to help, both organizationally and individual members.
There is a question of equal protection that goes beyond Texas, which is why this is being challenged in the courts. To grant illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates directly discriminates against non-resident U.S. citizens from surrounding states. That is a direct violation of the equal protection clause.
Here is the court case in Texas that challenges in-state tuition for illegal aliens: Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas v. State of Texas (University of Houston)
????????????????????????????
Jerks applauding when a question is posed about letting people die is stupid and counterproductive.
Ron Paul has some really dedicated maniacs backing him. But the did correct them.
Very possible. They used trolls in an attempt to discredit Tea Party people by making racist comments.
“You then make the same calculation that Hitler and Obama did when they reasoned that it’s not economical to keep really sick people alive.”
The Hitler trump card...spoken like a liberal.
I would not demand a credit check especially at a free clinic or charitable hospital. All I said was no one should be forced to pay for someone else’s care and you agree with that because to do so is slavery.
As I have said on this thread, people should be free to have all the care they wish to buy or that someone else will voluntarily pay for. I think you agree with that.
What did I say that you object to?
Conservatives value freedom more than life and freedom means keeping the fruits of your freely given labor. In in this economy we value that in dollars. If you force me to pay, via taxation, for the care you demand others be given then you have enslaved me. So freedom, which conservatives value more than life, means doing with your dollars as you see fit.
If you see fit to help others with your money then God bless you but if your are trying to do good by taxing others than curse you.
Sounds like you are an undecided moderate. Your post makes no sense. You wouldn’t fight to have the government keep people from dying in the streets. Yet you wouldn’t mind if when repealing Obama care there is a plan for government to keep people from dying in the streets? Explain that please.
Do you believe we live in a country that will not take care its sick unless compelled to do so via government force?
Why do so many people on this thread seem to think that unless we are forced to pay for the care of other people they will die in the streets?
It’s the libertarian amoral influence we see on display here. All that matters is money. The ministers of materialism.
The real issue is not taking care of Americans - it is the burden and unfairness of taking care of invaders. We can take care of Americans. We can’t afford economically nor socially to accododate of every man, woman and child who walks across the border and squats on our doorsteps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.