Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[Deleted472477User]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

 

Put aside for the moment that Huffpost is Liberal. Do Tea Party people really feel this way? Or was it a few bad apples so to speak?

 

I know that Ron Paul couldn't come out and just agree, or, maybe he really doesn't feel the same as those few in the audience.

 

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

EDIT: For the purposes of the question, let's assume the poor either cannot afford insurance (or have to choose between it and having a place to live, food etc.) because employers don't provide it. Not everyone is lucky enough to have an awesome job or even a decent one that offers benefits.

Edited September 13, 2011 by nyxalinth

[BlackBaron2]

Honestly, no. Having once lived in a country where people who couldn't afford treatment did die, I just cannot and will not support a system that lets such things happen. It's completely unthinkable to me and as long as things like that happen, my conscience doesn't rest easy.

[stars2heaven]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

 

Put aside for the moment that Huffpost is Liberal. Do Tea Party people really feel this way? Or was it a few bad apples so to speak?

 

I know that Ron Paul couldn't come out and just agree, or, maybe he really doesn't feel the same as those few in the audience.

 

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

this post was not an accurate representation of what was said. The question had nothing to do with a person who didn't have health insurance because he couldn't afford it, but someone who chose not to have it. So in the context of what was said I agree completely with Ron Paul, in a free society such as ours we should accept the consequences of our actions.

 

Now, to directly address the question you posed, no, we should not just let people die. People who choose to be in the positions that they are in when there are alternatives should face the consequences of their actions. However, if a person is faced with consequences that are the result of something beyond their control then they should not have to bear that burden alone. Unfortunately, we can't always tell the difference between the two. That leads me to say that we should treat everyone and treat them equally. So in the end I disagree with the audience, though I still agree at-least in principle.

Edited September 13, 2011 by stars2heaven

[marharth]

Don't want to get too involved, but I voted for four. Edited September 14, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

http://www.huffingto...e_n_959354.html

 

Put aside for the moment that Huffpost is Liberal. Do Tea Party people really feel this way? Or was it a few bad apples so to speak?

 

I know that Ron Paul couldn't come out and just agree, or, maybe he really doesn't feel the same as those few in the audience.

 

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

this post was not an accurate representation of what was said. The question had nothing to do with a person who didn't have health insurance because he couldn't afford it, but someone who chose not to have it. So in the context of what was said I agree completely with Ron Paul, in a free society such as ours we should accept the consequences of our actions.

 

Now, to directly address the question you posed, no, we should not just let people die. People who choose to be in the positions that they are in when there are alternatives should face the consequences of their actions. However, if a person is faced with consequences that are the result of something beyond their control then they should not have to bear that burden alone. Unfortunately, we can't always tell the difference between the two. That leads me to say that we should treat everyone and treat them equally. So in the end I disagree with the audience, though I still agree at-least in principle.

 

Yeah, but, what were his reasons for that choice? Did they go into that? Is this some guy making 200 grand a year, that chose not to purchase insurance? Or, is this some guy barely scraping by, that had the choice of a warm place to sleep at night, or having health insurance?

[stars2heaven]

http://www.huffingto...e_n_959354.html

 

Put aside for the moment that Huffpost is Liberal. Do Tea Party people really feel this way? Or was it a few bad apples so to speak?

 

I know that Ron Paul couldn't come out and just agree, or, maybe he really doesn't feel the same as those few in the audience.

 

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

this post was not an accurate representation of what was said. The question had nothing to do with a person who didn't have health insurance because he couldn't afford it, but someone who chose not to have it. So in the context of what was said I agree completely with Ron Paul, in a free society such as ours we should accept the consequences of our actions.

 

Now, to directly address the question you posed, no, we should not just let people die. People who choose to be in the positions that they are in when there are alternatives should face the consequences of their actions. However, if a person is faced with consequences that are the result of something beyond their control then they should not have to bear that burden alone. Unfortunately, we can't always tell the difference between the two. That leads me to say that we should treat everyone and treat them equally. So in the end I disagree with the audience, though I still agree at-least in principle.

 

Yeah, but, what were his reasons for that choice? Did they go into that? Is this some guy making 200 grand a year, that chose not to purchase insurance? Or, is this some guy barely scraping by, that had the choice of a warm place to sleep at night, or having health insurance?

 

The hypothetical was phrased in such a way as to seem it was a person who was more than capable of acquiring health insurance. That is beside the point though. The premise which was being discussed in the video had nothing to do with people without insurance who were in no position to afford it, but people who could easily afford it but opt not to acquire it.

[Anatidaephobia]

:pinch:

 

Living in Germany, I'm well aware the political systems in Europe (especially in Germany) and the US and political point of views differ materially.

 

 

But leaving all politics aside and just looking on the ethic and human side of this I'm feeling very uncomfortable that there are people who really cheering about letting a HUMAN BEING die - theorethetically -!!!

 

Sorry, but I can't get the point of this argument... if you think this through, a life / human being will become nothing more than a statistic, a number which will be measured against all kinds of other statistics.

 

Just to remember:

This is not a financal balance sheet in a yearly report of a big company where you set expenditures off against income.

 

We're talking about real lifes!!!!

 

So what would be the next step??? Humiliate all disabled people because they are burden the health system without paying anything into it???

 

No way, that I can tolerate or accept this!!!!! :down:

Beside this I guess it would be against international laws like the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights [A/RES/217, UN-Doc. 217/A-(III)] (look right here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) which was also signed by the USA December 12th, 1948!

 

But what fears me most is the fact that the Tea Party obviously has many supporters which gives me a feeling of unease for the upcomming pesidential elections..... :wacko:

[stars2heaven]

:pinch:

 

 

I think there is another ethical issue worth thinking about here. Using your example of disabled peoples: some are likely in the conditions they are in through no fault of their own. They are the victims of nature, or bad luck, or something else. But others may be at fault. I think we have a moral obligation to aid members of our society who need help because they were unable to help themselves, but what right does any individual have to demand that sort of treatment from society when they chose to engage in behavior which they should have known better than to be a part of? I think that there is no ethical obligation to provide support for such people. In fact, I think it is unethical for such people to place that burden on society.

 

An easy example of what Im talking about if the above is unclear would be someone who chooses to do drugs, smoke, or drink heavily even though there is plenty of evidence to show the consequences of engaging in that sort of stuff, and even though there are plenty of organizations which help people to stay or get away from those sorts of things, they demand that society shoulder the burden of treating their ailments.

 

There are other examples, but this one is an easy and obvious one.

Edited September 13, 2011 by stars2heaven

[marharth]

:pinch:

 

Living in Germany, I'm well aware the political systems in Europe (especially in Germany) and the US and political point of views differ materially.

 

 

But leaving all politics aside and just looking on the ethic and human side of this I'm feeling very uncomfortable that there are people who really cheering about letting a HUMAN BEING die - theorethetically -!!!

 

Sorry, but I can't get the point of this argument... if you think this through, a life / human being will become nothing more than a statistic, a number which will be measured against all kinds of other statistics.

 

Just to remember:

This is not a financal balance sheet in a yearly report of a big company where you set expenditures off against income.

 

We're talking about real lifes!!!!

 

So what would be the next step??? Humiliate all disabled people because they are burden the health system without paying anything into it???

 

No way, that I can tolerate or accept this!!!!! :down:

Beside this I guess it would be against international laws like the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights [A/RES/217, UN-Doc. 217/A-(III)] (look right here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) which was also signed by the USA December 12th, 1948!

 

But what fears me most is the fact that the Tea Party obviously has many supporters which gives me a feeling of unease for the upcomming pesidential elections..... :wacko:

A lot of people in the USA prefer economics and money over life and health. For the better or the worse, it is true.

 

The argument people make is that by giving people healthcare, they are no longer free due to not taking responsibility for their actions. This of course is a incorrect statement, since sometimes it is not their actions that cause problems.

 

The economic side makes more sense. Healthcare costs a lot and some people don't want to "burden" the government with the costs. They will say over time it will be better off to not give healthcare since the economy will be better.

 

Just explaining the arguments here, I don't agree with them.

[HeyYou]

http://www.huffingto...e_n_959354.html

 

Put aside for the moment that Huffpost is Liberal. Do Tea Party people really feel this way? Or was it a few bad apples so to speak?

 

I know that Ron Paul couldn't come out and just agree, or, maybe he really doesn't feel the same as those few in the audience.

 

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

this post was not an accurate representation of what was said. The question had nothing to do with a person who didn't have health insurance because he couldn't afford it, but someone who chose not to have it. So in the context of what was said I agree completely with Ron Paul, in a free society such as ours we should accept the consequences of our actions.

 

Now, to directly address the question you posed, no, we should not just let people die. People who choose to be in the positions that they are in when there are alternatives should face the consequences of their actions. However, if a person is faced with consequences that are the result of something beyond their control then they should not have to bear that burden alone. Unfortunately, we can't always tell the difference between the two. That leads me to say that we should treat everyone and treat them equally. So in the end I disagree with the audience, though I still agree at-least in principle.

 

Yeah, but, what were his reasons for that choice? Did they go into that? Is this some guy making 200 grand a year, that chose not to purchase insurance? Or, is this some guy barely scraping by, that had the choice of a warm place to sleep at night, or having health insurance?

 

The hypothetical was phrased in such a way as to seem it was a person who was more than capable of acquiring health insurance. That is beside the point though. The premise which was being discussed in the video had nothing to do with people without insurance who were in no position to afford it, but people who could easily afford it but opt not to acquire it.

 

Ok, so, if the person was well off enough, why shut them off for not having insurance? (the person in a coma example.) If he has the money, he can pay for it.