Yeah... vote for Ron Paul. He's SOOO great. And he's a doctor. Here's the type of doctors I don't trust: The ones who say "fuck you and die" if you don't have insurance.

You don't even see Paul get to answer the question.

As for our hypothetical sick man, a "caring" society that hangs the millstone around Taxpayer's neck for everything else--including Juan Illegal's sex-change op--won't let it happen.

So, why do you Americans lefties STAY here? There are whole socialist progressive countries out there with "free" everything for their citizens, why struggle here in America? You're free to leave or stay; were I you I'd take the path of least resistance and move to Norway.

The question was unanswered. I guess even here we only post 1/2 truths and sound bites to make our opposition look bad.

What Ron Paul did say made sense. I only wished the poster of this vid was open minded enough to post the whole question.

These debates are tough for Ron Paul because he can't just hide behind his popular foreign policy positions the whole time.

Isn't this post about the fact that the AUDIENCE is cheering for death?
Who said anything about Ron Paul? He even begins to say "No,[...]"

the question in the title isn't posed until 1:02. the audience response to "Are you saying society should just let him die?" was two loud 'YEAH's', a couple claps and a sort of uncomfortable laugh from the rest of the audience. there is no 'GOP base cheers for death'. what a load of shit video.

I wish it were possible to sentence them to live as poor people in the world they want to create. They have no empathy at all.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You don't even see Paul get to answer the question.
As for our hypothetical sick man, a "caring" society that hangs the millstone around Taxpayer's neck for everything else--including Juan Illegal's sex-change op--won't let it happen.
So, why do you Americans lefties STAY here? There are whole socialist progressive countries out there with "free" everything for their citizens, why struggle here in America? You're free to leave or stay; were I you I'd take the path of least resistance and move to Norway.


We stay because we have a say in what our government does. If you DONT want to have any say in what your government does, that might be a good time to throw out a "Why don't you move to ________?"

Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging

To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

damn, I didn't mean to upvote this... I agree that it seems cut off before we see his answer fleshed out

*reclaim vote?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.


Government is the executive of a society.

At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?

@ponceleon, what about everything before?

To @GeeSussFreeK, @ponceleon the point wasn't Ron Paul's answer, it was the audience cheering at the idea of letting someone die.

Here's the exchange with Paul's full answer:



He later reiterates his answer on Twitter:

The individual, private charity, families, and faith based orgs should take care of people, not the government.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You don't even see Paul get to answer the question.
As for our hypothetical sick man, a "caring" society that hangs the millstone around Taxpayer's neck for everything else--including Juan Illegal's sex-change op--won't let it happen.
So, why do you Americans lefties STAY here? There are whole socialist progressive countries out there with "free" everything for their citizens, why struggle here in America? You're free to leave or stay; were I you I'd take the path of least resistance and move to Norway.


Why do you?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You don't even see Paul get to answer the question.
As for our hypothetical sick man, a "caring" society that hangs the millstone around Taxpayer's neck for everything else--including Juan Illegal's sex-change op--won't let it happen.
So, why do you Americans lefties STAY here? There are whole socialist progressive countries out there with "free" everything for their citizens, why struggle here in America? You're free to leave or stay; were I you I'd take the path of least resistance and move to Norway.


It's obviously one of the freest countries on earth, we know it's a great country. It has a free Democracy that has been hard fought and won, a lot of that fighting btw was done by lefties. The democracy though is broken and we're trying to fix it, we're not happy with it everyone believes that the people in power only work for themselves and the rich. That's why people don't vote or like congress.

Also it's not a "Millstone" you dramatic ponce...it's a bill spread out over millions, it isn't like we're saying millions should DIE so that one man can live. We're saying everyone should put money into the pot so the society can be healthier, and more people agree with that than you would like to admit.

Unless it's sarcasm, the headline for this video is idiotic.

Ah, I see: Intentionally fatuous. Terrific non-argument.

Just to be clear: I was calling you an idiot. So I don't know who you're agreeing with.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^budzos:
Unless it's sarcasm, the headline for this video is idiotic.

I absolutely agree--they are idiotic.

>> ^budzos:

Ah, I see: Intentionally fatuous. Terrific non-argument.
Just to be clear: I was calling you an idiot. So I don't know who you're agreeing with.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^budzos:
Unless it's sarcasm, the headline for this video is idiotic.

I absolutely agree--they are idiotic.



I still agree.

Did the audience at the GOP Debate cheer at letting a sick man die?

>> ^budzos:

Ah, I see: Intentionally fatuous. Terrific non-argument.
Just to be clear: I was calling you an idiot. So I don't know who you're agreeing with.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^budzos:
Unless it's sarcasm, the headline for this video is idiotic.

I absolutely agree--they are idiotic.



For your edification from the FAQ:

35) Comments
What can't I say in a comment?

We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults.

Suck my fucking balls.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^budzos:
Ah, I see: Intentionally fatuous. Terrific non-argument.
Just to be clear: I was calling you an idiot. So I don't know who you're agreeing with.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^budzos:
Unless it's sarcasm, the headline for this video is idiotic.

I absolutely agree--they are idiotic.


For your edification from the FAQ:

35) Comments
What can't I say in a comment?
We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults.

>> ^budzos:

Suck my fucking balls.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^budzos:
Ah, I see: Intentionally fatuous. Terrific non-argument.
Just to be clear: I was calling you an idiot. So I don't know who you're agreeing with.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^budzos:
Unless it's sarcasm, the headline for this video is idiotic.

I absolutely agree--they are idiotic.


For your edification from the FAQ:

35) Comments
What can't I say in a comment?
We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?


Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!

Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )

And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.

Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.

My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

Yeah, the audience was pretty horrendous with their reactions. You just don't cheer the death of anyone even if hypothetical, and we should consider it our duty as humans to do whatever we can individually to help those less fortunate or those in need. But it should be voluntary. No service, even healthcare, should be compulsory because then in order to fund it it would have to be offered at the barrel of a gun - meaning the money must be forcibly extracted from the citizens to pay for it which is immoral.

You don't steal from Peter to pay Paul.

We're still here because we like it here and see what this country could be. Besides, we don't want to leave it in the hands of people like you. We're here to push back when idiocy and ignorance tries to wrest control... struggling through we may be to do that with the widespread ignorance in this country from the conservatives, religious and the gullible.

Sounds like you'd prefer somewhere where everyone believes the same thing (or else). I invite you to leave and go to North Korea where they embrace (read: have no choice but to) dictatorship and limited to almost non-existent civil rights.

Oh, and may some illness which your medical coverage doesn't cover be visited upon you. Sure, not the most mature thing to end with, but I think I would be entertained by seeing how long it took before you b*tched and moaned about your insurance company doing nothing.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You don't even see Paul get to answer the question.
As for our hypothetical sick man, a "caring" society that hangs the millstone around Taxpayer's neck for everything else--including Juan Illegal's sex-change op--won't let it happen.
So, why do you Americans lefties STAY here? There are whole socialist progressive countries out there with "free" everything for their citizens, why struggle here in America? You're free to leave or stay; were I you I'd take the path of least resistance and move to Norway.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead",

Me either, which is why that sentence actually reads "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead by those organizations".

By "left for dead" I meant denied necessary treatment because they're unable to pay, just like in the hypothetical question Wolf Blitzer is asking Ron Paul in that clip.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die.

Wait, so you're suggesting that we shouldn't try to handle moral questions with categorical imperatives, but instead should weigh the pro's and cons of a policy to determine whether it's beneficial on the whole?

Have you finally had a utilitarian conversion?



This hypothetical about the dying man who can't pay for life saving treatment is a pivotal question in deciding what the right rules should be with regards to health care. If you want to insist that healthcare be "free market", then you have to play by the rules of the market. If you don't have the money to pay for a blu-ray of Glee, then you don't get a blu-ray of Glee. If you don't have the money to pay for heart surgery, then you don't get heart surgery. It's that simple. Anything else is "socialism".

You can try to handwave that concern about dying people away by saying "surely someone will just donate the money or a doctor will volunteer to do it for free", but I think most people aren't naive enough to think that's going to even put a dent in the kind of body count that sort of system would rack up over time.

So what's the reason why we should even want some absolutist free market in health care? Because it's cheaper? Because it satisfies some ideological fetish? Because some perverse moral philosophy claims it's just?

How many people's lives are those things worth?

The fact that this debate has reached this point shows how badly off the US is. How hard is it to understand that a society's well-being is a function of the well-being of each of its members? As @HugeJerk rightly suggests, if you want an example of small government, look at Somalia (and much of central Africa). Talk about a land of the free, everyone fending for themselves, no intrusive regulations, and only money talks, yay! Meanwhile, people in Northern Europe are happy, healthy and well-educated... but they pay high taxes,the horror!!

Badly organised government and social services are not justification enough for little to no government and social services.

>> ^blankfist:

Yeah, the audience was pretty horrendous with their reactions. You just don't cheer the death of anyone even if hypothetical, and we should consider it our duty as humans to do whatever we can individually to help those less fortunate or those in need. But it should be voluntary. No service, even healthcare, should be compulsory because then in order to fund it it would have to be offered at the barrel of a gun - meaning the money must be forcibly extracted from the citizens to pay for it which is immoral.
You don't steal from Peter to pay Paul.


Thank You, blankfist.

I don't agree with you about how the system should work, but at least you can articulate your arguments.

I'm sorry about the book-line, I cut it immediately after posting. But I meant Executive as in Judicative + Legislative + Executive, only one level above.

Society agrees on your aforementioned constitution by a legislative process and creates the Executive organ of government to put the constitution into action. By doing so, the executive organ of government is THEN ideally split into this government's Judicative + Legislative + Executive.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?

Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!
Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )
And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.
Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.
My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

In a purely libertarian society, the man would either die or be helped by charity.

Hell, there might even spring up a company that specializes in "last minute saves" at high high prices.

It all depends on what kind of society it is otherwise - prosperity and all that.

>> ^gwiz665:

In a purely libertarian society, the man would either die or be helped by charity.
Hell, there might even spring up a company that specializes in "last minute saves" at high high prices.
It all depends on what kind of society it is otherwise - prosperity and all that.


"Last minute saves at high high prices" are already available, and they're your only option if you get seriously ill without health insurance. It also won't help much if you were too poor to pay the insurance premium, much less some huge out-of-pocket medical bill.

And no matter how prosperous the society is, in a libertarian society it will always be possible for people to wind up in the situation where they need more in medical treatments to stay alive than they could afford.

Indeed. It woud lead to a further split between the "rich enough and over" and the "too poor to live".
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
In a purely libertarian society, the man would either die or be helped by charity.
Hell, there might even spring up a company that specializes in "last minute saves" at high high prices.
It all depends on what kind of society it is otherwise - prosperity and all that.

"Last minute saves at high high prices" are already available, and they're your only option if you get seriously ill without health insurance. It also won't help much if you were too poor to pay the insurance premium, much less some huge out-of-pocket medical bill.
And no matter how prosperous the society is, in a libertarian society it will always be possible for people to wind up in the situation where they need more in medical treatments to stay alive than they could afford.

I see a lot of self-righteous posturing over this trivial snippet of video. When the debate for raising taxes and increasing government's scope is about lifting up the fringes of society, those in favor of raising taxes like to thump their chests with indignation and take the grossly sanctimonious position their somehow kinder, morally superior and more generous.

But this is misdirection and a deceptive argument they play. Because they rarely point out that the majority of your taxes are already spent on things you dislike like militarism, hegemony and building the US empire. Yet they speak barely at all in objection to that.

>> ^blankfist:

I see a lot of self-righteous posturing over this trivial snippet of video.

Really? People literally cheering the idea of letting someone die seems trivial to you?

How about answering the question yourself? Should it be legal to refuse life-saving treatment to people who can't pay for it?

Or can you only respond to this criticism by attacking the character of the people who raised it?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
I see a lot of self-righteous posturing over this trivial snippet of video.
Really? People literally cheering the idea of letting someone die seems trivial to you?
How about answering the question yourself? Should it be legal to refuse life-saving treatment to people who can't pay for it?
Or can you only respond to this criticism by attacking the character of the people who raised it?


Cheering for not having to pay for a hypothetical person who made a bad hypothetical decision is trivial. Yes. It shows a disgusting side of human behavior, but trivial nonetheless. But you guys are waving the flag of injustice as if the opinions of the handful of dickheads in this auditorium are somehow significant. They're not.

And I will answer the question. As I have above. People shouldn't be forced to pay for services at the barrel of a gun, including the wars your party endorses. I don't want to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or the other one hundred and some countries the United States is currently in. But I scarcely hear you or supporters of your party speak against the wars, nation-building and occupations when your "leader" is in office. So maybe you should crawl out of your ivory tower and dress yourself and your emperor because you have no clothes, sir.

>> ^blankfist:

And I will answer the question. As I have above. People shouldn't be forced to pay for services at the barrel of a gun

So that's a "yes", to let him die?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And I will answer the question. As I have above. People shouldn't be forced to pay for services at the barrel of a gun
So that's a "yes", to let him die?


So what are you saying? It's either have money extorted to socialize medical treatments for everyone or some hypothetical person dies? No, I don't live in such a binary world. There are nuances.

If someone doesn't take personal responsibility they may die. That goes for all of us. Life is a risk. And your life isn't anyone else's responsibility but your own. Though those who love you would certainly give everything to save you. And that's how it should be.

I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that than the wars and nation-building your party and the other one has gotten us into. But don't pretend the government spends our money smartly and in our best interest or try to guilt us into believing it can. The guy who beats his wife will never change.

>> ^blankfist:

I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that

We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.

It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.


How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?


Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.

Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?

I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.

Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?

PS: How do you like them apples cherries!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.
Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?
I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.
Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?
PS: How do you like them apples cherries!


I don't think we should have compulsory healthcare. I think in a post-industrialized free nation we should have something better. But that would require the government getting out of healthcare altogether and letting the free market care for people. I understand that scares most of you.

But he's right that churches and hospitals used to care for people. Then sometime in the '60s (pardon me for being too tired right now to research it and find links) government got involved and it all went to shit. They got involved and started telling people how healthcare should be run. How doctors and physicians could care for people. And who could and couldn't give treatment. Also it's government's fault we tend to get health insurance through our work, which drives up costs. Again, I apologize for not getting you links, but maybe some other time. Tired and it's dinner time.

Now we have big corporate health insurance companies that are more of the problem. They get away with murder. Pun intended. I'd like to see the entire thing reformed, but not your one-size-fits-all-steal-peoples-money-to-fund-it way.

@blankfist I'm pretty confident that by this point I could recite your position on health care and government in my sleep.

That's why I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. "Free market" rules work like this:

Person A has X dollars, and wants cherries. The market price of cherries is Y dollars. If X < Y, then Person A can't have cherries, no matter how badly he might want them.
Should those rules ever be different if we're talking about life-saving medical procedures?

Since this keeps being answered with cries of "Charity!" I guess I need to point out that charity doesn't change that fundamental picture, nor does it eliminate the possibility of that ever happening to anyone.

So we're back to the same question, with just one more caveat. What should be done with people who can't pay, and didn't get helped by charity? Leave them to die?

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist I'm pretty confident that by this point I could recite your position on health care and government in my sleep.
That's why I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. "Free market" rules work like this:
Person A has X dollars, and wants cherries. The market price of cherries is Y dollars. If X < Y, then Person A can't have cherries, no matter how badly he might want them.
Should those rules ever be different if we're talking about life-saving medical procedures?
Since this keeps being answered with cries of "Charity!" I guess I need to point out that charity doesn't change that fundamental picture, nor does it eliminate the possibility of that ever happening to anyone.
So we're back to the same question, with just one more caveat. What should be done with people who can't pay, and didn't get helped by charity? Leave them to die?


And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

What you've created is a very specific scenario that appeals to our fears as mortal beings. And using it to promote a political agenda is just as disgusting as those who used 9/11 to justify taking away our liberties and rights.

What's worse, you think you've discovered some big gotcha question to rule them all. You didn't. It appeals to the basest of emotions instead of reason. And it shows the narrow-mindedness of your movement. We let people die all the time. It's almost an accepted part of our lives. You thump your chest over saving lives with universal healthcare, yet say nothing about military aggressions that lead to large scale life loss. At least dying in a hospice gives you some dignity and comfort unlike dying in a wartorn street from phosphorus burns.

>> ^NetRunner:

"Free market" rules work like this


And that's where people like you fail. You don't understand the free market because the free market is just you and me, and you can't predict the actions of the people. We are the market. Not the corporations or the government.

Let me tweak your equation. Person A has X dollars and wants cherries. And the market price for cherries is Y dollars. If X < Y, then Person A can't afford cherries, but if he wanted the badly enough there are ways he could save for them, prepare for them in case he ever needed them, if it was important enough he could ask for help buying them, etc. etc. etc. There could be any number of services and charities that would help.

But we don't have a free market, we have a crony capitalist market where corporations reign supreme. And it's a flimsy talking point to attack a free market for the ills of corporations and government collusion, then in another conversation claim that since we've never had a free market it wouldn't work. But what's staggering about your ideology is that on one hand you believe in the democratic voice of the people in politics but on the other hand you don't trust them to run their own lives and want to silence their voice in economic matters. It's crazy to me.

>> ^blankfist:

And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

But you can't. You're constantly misapprehending and misrepresenting my position on things, and you don't listen when I try to correct you on what I think.

>> ^blankfist:
If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

So it's okay for a doctor to choose to let the guy die if he wants to? Morally and legally, that's his right?

Keep in mind that at the same time, you're saying it's totally off-limits for there to be any kind of compulsory solution. No law saying that patients in life-threatening situations need to be treated regardless of their ability to pay. No taxes collected to compensate doctors for the services they render to people who are unable to pay. No collective bargaining to keep prices on drugs and treatments low. No national health insurance program, or even health insurance regulation, and definitely no subsidization of anything.

Maybe doctors are supermen who have an infinite wellspring of compassion, but they still live in a market-dominated world. They're going to need money to pay off their college debt. They're going to need a place to live, food to eat, etc. The hospital is going to demand some level of compensation for the use of rooms, equipment, and medical supplies. Once all the donations and his own savings are exhausted, even the most noble doctor is going to eventually have to say no to somebody, whether he wants to or not.

So, you're saying the patient who's dying must not be given guarantees of any kind, while the doctor must as a matter of moral imperative, be guaranteed the right to refuse to treat people, even if that's a death sentence for their potential patient.

That is sensational, controversial, and in my opinion, morally reprehensible.

I'm not asking you this as some sort of "gotcha" question. I'm mostly using the question to try to get you to think about this conflict between mainline libertarian ideology, and what you know is right in your heart.

There's gotta be a better way. I'm not married to any one way to solve the issue, but I definitely reject the way you and Paul are insisting is the only way society can handle these kinds of situations.