Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Uninsured conservative blogger in hospital with liver failure. Liberal and conservative bloggers band together to raise money for his medical bills. Good job guys, now just 45 million more to go   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 441
    More: Hero, liver failure, medical bills, RedState, Blogging  
•       •       •

3709 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2013 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



441 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-02 01:13:10 PM  
mrshowrules:

I find it funny that Libertarians are content to have people pay taxes to kill people.


You've been talking to psuedo-Libertarians.  Real libertarians are opposed to forcing people to pay for wars they oppose.
 
2013-08-02 01:14:30 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Imagine if his health care were covered by a single-payer entity. He wouldn't have to beg like some homeless person.

That would be nice, right?


I do believe we're done here...

/glad the story has a happy ending
//but seriously, it's not socialism when I'M the one in need
 
2013-08-02 01:15:24 PM  

MSFT: js34603: MSFT: js34603:
Cool cool, you can toss the I disagree with him politically part in there. So now I just want you to say "This guy I disagree with politically said mean things on the Internet so I want him to die a terrible death, and I want to piss on his grave."

You trot this out in every thread. Is hyperbole on the Internet such a difficult concept for you?

Trot this out in every thread? Hard to believe since I'm not in every thread and the threads I'm in very seldom have anything to do with people dying.

Also, hyperbole is the calling card of a weak position. If you have an opinion state it, don't exaggerate it for effect. He had an opportunity to say "oh I'm just exaggerating I don't wish death on this person I disagree with", instead he did, oh what's it called, doubling down on the derp.

What's a difficult concept for me is the incredible cognitive dissonance of people who say "this guy said mean things about Roger Ebert on the Internet, so I hope he dies a horrible death and I want to piss on his grave"...on the Internet. That level of ridiculousness just kind of bugs me. I guess maybe I could attribute it to hyperbole and ignore it because we're on the same side (I have no farking idea who this blogger is, sounds like a jerk, and I doubt I agree with him politically either) like you seem to be doing, but instead I just want our angry friend there and the rest of the derpers in this thread to acknowledge the incredible stupidity of reacting to a blogger acting like a jerk by acting Ike jerks themselves.

I understand your position on the hypocritical aspect, but don't necessarily agree with you 100%. But for this and future Limbaugh threads you may want to just cut and paste a concise statement along the lines of "It seems hypocritical to damn a person for hateful speech by the use of hateful speech".


Would save me time and probably have the same exact effect, which is none. But hey maybe one person in a Limbaugh thread or some other hate thread will have a moment of clarity and realize the hypocrisy and stop doing that.

But probably not.
 
2013-08-02 01:16:05 PM  

tbeatty: That mentality is what highlights disparity and drives innovation as well as overall improvement. When everyone get's the same, no one knows if it's crappy or not and a stagnate crappy will become the standard. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to understand that single payer + finite budget = rationed care. If the system isn't based on risk/payout, it's not insurance and will not reflect an overall push for improvement. There's no incentive.


No, what tends to drive innovation and overall improvement, in medicine and most forms of research, is grants (mostly government funded) to universities.

Because, and I'm going to give you a big hint here: RESEARCH WILL NOT ATTRACT INVESTORS IN TODAY'S INSTANT-PROFIT-NOW MENTALITY. Because most of the interesting research will not be able to guarantee a return, or even guarantee it can be used for *anything* for *decades*. If we knew the outcome in advance, we wouldn't call it research, we'd call it engineering.(Not to belittle engineers: They are HIGHLY important, especially at translating research into real-world applications).
 
2013-08-02 01:16:10 PM  

knobmaker: mrshowrules:

I find it funny that Libertarians are content to have people pay taxes to kill people.


You've been talking to psuedo-Libertarians.  Real libertarians are opposed to forcing people to pay for wars they oppose.


I have yet to see two libertarians agree on anything, ever. Because of that, no one can really know what a REAL libertarian is.

Besides an anarchist with a trust fund.
 
2013-08-02 01:18:14 PM  

JAGChem82: You know, I've considered myself a liberal simply out of practical means, not because I'm some "bleeding-heart" or have a ton of empathy to give around.


One of the greatest political blunders of the last few decades is how the left has allowed the word liberal to take on so many bad connotations.  Somewhere along the way, a narrative was adopted that liberals listen to their hearts, while conservatives use their heads.  It's a patently ridiculous concept.

While it's true that policies that call for the survival of the fittest do appeal to the lizard brain in a lot of ways, thousands of years of history have shown that cooperation yields far better results for a society.   Pooling resources to take on large problems faced by a community is the very basis of civilization.  You don't have to empathize with the poor to realize that improving their situation is going to improve society as a whole.  Liberalism comes from both the heart and the brain.  Modern conservatism is pulled out of people's asses.
 
2013-08-02 01:19:42 PM  

MSFT: BarkingUnicorn:
Believe me, I will.  I prefer the delightful wonderment of not knowing, and the cynical comfort of knowing that I don't know.

I suppose I should  have prefaced my remarks with, "IMHO," but it seems obvious to me that everything about Mind is just someone's opinion.

Which is perfectly fine - but try not to confuse you not knowing things with other people's ability to discover, test and then know things. Just because you have opted out doesn't mean the rest of us have, nor does it invalidate the findings of science that are reproducible and testable.


Try not to let your elaborate self-delusions convince you that you "know" anything.  The greatest scientists eventually realize that they know nothing.  They relax into wonder and enlightenment.

"A specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less, until finally he knows everything about nothing."  Then he escapes the cycle of death and rebirth... and reproducible results. :-)
 
2013-08-02 01:23:42 PM  
There are people who die every day because they couldn't afford proper medical treatment. People like Caleb Howe have contributed to that state of affairs. I can think of quite a few people who are also in dire medical straits, with children, who didn't spend their time and effort attempting to harm society.

So f*ck him. He'll die soon.
 
2013-08-02 01:25:12 PM  

spongeboob: draypresct:
By the way my initial post was just pointing out the typical right wing pundit would be saying something like what I posted if it was a left wing blogger you know the whole "just asking questions"

I want single payer, but I also think we do need to make some choices about what we will pay for, do we really do heroic measures on someone who is in multilple system failure or do we maybe give one hundred other people keflex for a simple infection that might keep them from losing their toe or life.

You just hit a nerve.



I apologize for hitting a nerve. I reacted because I thought you actually were implying that people with liver failure must inherently have moral failings.

We used to try to take moral differences into account, such as the "prisoner v. child" situation you described in your other post, and we used to withhold care based on these differences. The link I used earlier describes the kidney dialysis "God panels" that used these to decide who lived and who died. You could argue that some sort of decision process was necessary back then, but I don't agree that moral factors should have come into the process. You really don't want to have to worry about whether the doctor will withhold care from you if you're immoral. There are many, many ethical and practical reasons this was and would be a bad idea. One strictly practical reason: taking moral considerations into account incentivises patients to conceal things that might make them look bad. You want a patient who comes in with hepatitis (for example) to provide their entire sexual history, even if it involves adultery.

The question "we have $X; do we use it for 1 very sick person or for preventative care for 100 people" is a very different question, and one I think we're in agreement about. I say use limited resources to provide the best overall benefit, such as vaccinations, free diabetes test strips (they're much cheapter than an ambulance ride), etc. Many in the medical care professions would rather use hospice care than try to extend their lives 2-3 months.
 
2013-08-02 01:26:45 PM  
I'm just waiting for Bill O'Riely and Rush Limbaugh to make pleas on their shows to help him   Nothing like multi-millionaires asking other people for money.  They will probably even use Caleb Howe's illness to show how compassionate conservatives are.

It will be so heartfelt listening to Limbaugh making request for people to help Caleb in the hopes of raising what he makes in 1 hour.
 
2013-08-02 01:27:47 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: MSFT: BarkingUnicorn:
Believe me, I will.  I prefer the delightful wonderment of not knowing, and the cynical comfort of knowing that I don't know.

I suppose I should  have prefaced my remarks with, "IMHO," but it seems obvious to me that everything about Mind is just someone's opinion.

Which is perfectly fine - but try not to confuse you not knowing things with other people's ability to discover, test and then know things. Just because you have opted out doesn't mean the rest of us have, nor does it invalidate the findings of science that are reproducible and testable.

Try not to let your elaborate self-delusions convince you that you "know" anything.  The greatest scientists eventually realize that they know nothing.  They relax into wonder and enlightenment.

"A specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less, until finally he knows everything about nothing."  Then he escapes the cycle of death and rebirth... and reproducible results. :-)


I hate to break this to you, but even Buddhists - and the Dalai Lama - believe in science.

But hey - you're obviously too enlightened to deal with the rest of us caught up in this cycle of samsara, so thanks for taking the time to drop some self-masturbatory meta unknowledge on us.
 
2013-08-02 01:28:05 PM  

MSFT: I understand your position on the hypocritical aspect, but don't necessarily agree with you 100%. But for this and future Limbaugh threads you may want to just cut and paste a concise statement along the lines of "It seems hypocritical to damn a person for hateful speech by the use of hateful speech".


I also like "One must be tolerant of the vociferously intolerant", but I usually save that one for racists.
 
2013-08-02 01:28:13 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Bloody William: I'm tired of trolling as a concept. I want honest, spirited debates, none of this weird psychological playground shiat.

If anyone in charge is reading, let me second this. If it's about finances I would gladly pay $10 a month for what BW just described.


Count me in - just because someone's mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention (or swat their behinds enough) when they were children and now they've grown into disfunctional adults with "issues" doesn't mean I want to read their troll posts.
 
2013-08-02 01:30:48 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Warlordtrooper: This is why liberals never win. We need to stop helping conservatives. This man deserves whatever disease he has.

I disagree. I don't know much about this man other than what's been posted in this thread. But I know I don't want to emulate his life or his lack of compassion. I'm better than that.


Fine.  Donate money to your local health clinic.  Talk to your teabagger neighbour about what's actually in Obamacare (talk slowly and use monosyllabic words), donate blood, register for your local bone marrow DNA matching service.  Do something good for someone who isn't a complete and total POS.  There's literally not one good reason to send money to this pusbag.  He brought his ailment on himself, he mercilessly taunted people who were in similar situations, he chose not to get insured, he's anti-Obamacare/pro-Obamascare, and conservative bloggers are already attacking the same people who are helping this sack o' crap.  Fark him.
 
2013-08-02 01:34:23 PM  

yeegrek: The Why Not Guy: Warlordtrooper: This is why liberals never win. We need to stop helping conservatives. This man deserves whatever disease he has.

I disagree. I don't know much about this man other than what's been posted in this thread. But I know I don't want to emulate his life or his lack of compassion. I'm better than that.

Fine.  Donate money to your local health clinic.  Talk to your teabagger neighbour about what's actually in Obamacare (talk slowly and use monosyllabic words), donate blood, register for your local bone marrow DNA matching service.  Do something good for someone who isn't a complete and total POS.  There's literally not one good reason to send money to this pusbag.  He brought his ailment on himself, he mercilessly taunted people who were in similar situations, he chose not to get insured, he's anti-Obamacare/pro-Obamascare, and conservative bloggers are already attacking the same people who are helping this sack o' crap.  Fark him.


I'm almost positive you don't have to worry about anyone in this thread sending him money.
 
2013-08-02 01:36:35 PM  
I remember when I found out about Andrew Breitbart's death.

On the side, I write comedy sketches in Philly and many of them have been political.  But I've never written about what I HATE about people I disagree with, only what is absurd about them.

After the sketch, "GOP Debate:  The Musical", I felt genuinely awful because I actually felt GOOD that Breitbart had died.  This was someone who didn't care about doing any good for anyone.  All he wanted was to hate and destroy.  And mostly, it seemed, because he hated his adoptive parents and wanted to get back at them for unknown reasons.

The reason I felt so awful is because I didn't want him to die.  I wanted him to learn.  I get that not everyone is going to come to think exactly the way I do.  As George W. Bush said "It would be easier if it were a dictatorship, but only if I was the dictator."

Even if this blogger doesn't learn from this experience, someone will.  I doubt it will be a groundswell of progressivism, but as long as SOMEone who generally disagrees with me and says "Maybe we really DO need to work together on this," that will be enough.

Eh, usually I try to be a lot funnier in these posts.  *shrug*
 
2013-08-02 01:37:26 PM  

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.



THIS.

If you are forced to contribute, it is theft, or at best, a tax.  Charity cannot be forced.  If it is, it is no longer charity.
 
2013-08-02 01:39:05 PM  

born_yesterday: MSFT: I understand your position on the hypocritical aspect, but don't necessarily agree with you 100%. But for this and future Limbaugh threads you may want to just cut and paste a concise statement along the lines of "It seems hypocritical to damn a person for hateful speech by the use of hateful speech".

I also like "One must be tolerant of the vociferously intolerant", but I usually save that one for racists.


There is arguably a difficult line to walk in the real world when it comes to tolerance and how we socialize others by condemning their behavior. I just don't expect the socialization aspect to be finely tuned and moderated on an anonymous internet message board, especially when comes to any public, highly-polarizing figure.
 
2013-08-02 01:41:58 PM  

born_yesterday: MSFT: I understand your position on the hypocritical aspect, but don't necessarily agree with you 100%. But for this and future Limbaugh threads you may want to just cut and paste a concise statement along the lines of "It seems hypocritical to damn a person for hateful speech by the use of hateful speech".

I also like "One must be tolerant of the vociferously intolerant", but I usually save that one for racists.


Think of tolerance as something that makes you feel better, rather than something that benefits the tolerated.  When facing the choice of being annoyed being amused, which will make you feel better?
 
2013-08-02 01:46:03 PM  

PanicMan: When I wasn't in the hospital trying to die I had a miserable existence. Most days I was just hoping I would piss or shiat. Sounds like a sim ...

Damn.  I can't think of anything worse than that.  Glad you made it.


As much as I think this guy is a total tool he does not deserve to have what is headed his way. To be perfectly honest I considered emptying the bank account on the best bottle of scotch I could buy and ending it all. Its a living hell and your family gets to watch helplessly as your heath goes down the toilet and the ammonia turns you into a farking moron. Everybody involved gets to turn into horrible people too. I remember the start of the 4th of July week thinking my odds were considerably better for getting a donor.
 
2013-08-02 01:46:35 PM  

yeegrek: There's literally not one good reason to send money to this pusbag.  He brought his ailment on himself, he mercilessly taunted people who were in similar situations, he chose not to get insured, he's anti-Obamacare/pro-Obamascare, and conservative bloggers are already attacking the same people who are helping this sack o' crap.  Fark him.


I understand what you're saying, and I'm not planning on sending money to his fund (mostly because I have none, but even if I did, you're right, there are other more deserving charities out there) I guess I'm reacting more to the "this man deserves whatever disease he has" part. Even if I can't - or won't - help this particular man, I don't see any reason to wish him ill or enjoy his suffering. It wasn't a good look for Caleb and it's not a good look for me, either.

I realize this can come off as holier than thou and truly, that's not how I mean it. If others want to indulge in shauden-whatever that word is, I can understand it even if I choose a different path.
 
2013-08-02 01:52:03 PM  

Cagey B: There are people who die every day because they couldn't afford proper medical treatment. People like Caleb Howe have contributed to that state of affairs. I can think of quite a few people who are also in dire medical straits, with children, who didn't spend their time and effort attempting to harm society

who are far more deserving of charitable giving.

FTFY

Completely agree, I only have so much money for charitable contributions, but faced with deciding to GIVE to help someone who may need immediate medical assistance, I am going to break it down like this:

1. Did the person suffer a medical emergency due in whole or part to their own choices or actions?; or: Are they suffering due to accident or facing an illness due to no fault of their own?

(Guy with liver problem brought on by excess consumption of alcohol, or the diabetic who weighs 450 lbs with a 6 pack a day sugary cola habit used to wash down cookies and cakes is FAR less compelling case for charity to me than:  Person gets hit by drunk driver or person who faces repeated hospitalization because of genetic or inherited disposition to some disease or illness.)

2.  Ability to pay (or have insurance.)

(Person who lost their job and their cobra benefits and is living hand and mouth while trying to get another job is in a much better position for consideration for my giving than person who has/had a high paying job and pissed/pisses much of it away routinely on jet-set type vacations, high dollar cars all the while either not either saving or securing a decent insurance policy.)

3.  Person's Contribution to Society

(The teacher or fireman or the woman who spends lots of time volunteering at her local Meals on Wheels is far more worthy of my charity than the local wannabe gang-banger or conservative blogger who spews so much hate in a public forum where he takes great joy in the suffering and death of those with whom he disagrees and is basically a "leach" and "drag" on society, and not just in an economic way.)


Sorry, while I understand and empathize the potential plight of his wife and young daughters, there's basically not a single thing in this story that I cannot point to and say: "You basically brought this upon your self and while what you constantly demanded of others, and whom you attacked, criticized and wished ill-will and death upon for failing to meet your standards, you were not willing or able to do for yourself."

Using my 3 step analysis above, there's simply no way in hell that I find this guy deserving of a single dime.  I guarantee you I can find dozens of completely innocent and deserving people in my own community who truly are deserving of charitable giving.   Let him reap what he has sown.
 
2013-08-02 01:57:07 PM  

IlGreven: Dr Dreidel: Let's say he's been without insurance for the last 3 years. His portion of an employer's plan premium would have been about $951/year, or $79.25/month. For 3 years or 36 months, he chose to spend $2,853 on everything but planning for this kind of contingency. $2800 wouldn't be near enough to cover this illness, sure, but the insurance he bought with it would have, even if you figure in a $10k deductible (his goal was $25k).

This is one argument I never like.  I mean, what if that $2,800 went to food, or house payments, or car payments, or car upkeep, or any of a bajillion needs that were more immediate at the time?  That's why it's a bad argument for a mandate, but a good one for universal healthcare: with UHC, he wouldn't have to choose between dying of liver failure and dying of starvation, or pneumonia because he didn't have anywhere but an alley to sleep.  But with a mandate, that forces him to be dying of starvation.

/I'd rather he not have to choose.


Oh, I'd rather he not have to choose as well. TFA implies this was a choice made not for economics, but for politics. If he was too strapped for cash to pony up $80/month, maybe he shoulda asked Mr Erickson for a raise, or gotten out of the oh-so-lucrative blogging game, or started moonlighting as a fry cook or putting the two daughters to work sweeping school floors or some shiat.

Does he have a refrigerator he can sell in the home he's mortgaged from the bank? Does he have an PS/XBox, a cable TV subscription, a cell phone, a car, kids he can't afford, or significant capital assets (like a laptop) he can sell?

// hell, maybe an enterprising conservative will pay him to blog about how Obamacare's Fartmerica is bankrupting our previous bodily fluids to cover the cost of his care
 
2013-08-02 02:01:26 PM  

The Why Not Guy: yeegrek: There's literally not one good reason to send money to this pusbag.  He brought his ailment on himself, he mercilessly taunted people who were in similar situations, he chose not to get insured, he's anti-Obamacare/pro-Obamascare, and conservative bloggers are already attacking the same people who are helping this sack o' crap.  Fark him.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not planning on sending money to his fund (mostly because I have none, but even if I did, you're right, there are other more deserving charities out there) I guess I'm reacting more to the "this man deserves whatever disease he has" part. Even if I can't - or won't - help this particular man, I don't see any reason to wish him ill or enjoy his suffering. It wasn't a good look for Caleb and it's not a good look for me, either.

I realize this can come off as holier than thou and truly, that's not how I mean it. If others want to indulge in shauden-whatever that word is, I can understand it even if I choose a different path.


Actually, this is why I have you favorited. Everyone has to walk their own path.
 
2013-08-02 02:01:59 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: In short, we don't know and we can't know.  So we spin whatever delusions make us feel better ("make sense," because "sense" enables the delusion of predictability, and the ego desperately desires to predict that it will continue to exist even it never did).


.....Makes sense.

I just think it's a bad thing to dismiss new discoveries out of hand because we don't fully understand it right now. Or, for that matter, jumping overboard on new discoveries because we don't fully understand it right now.
 
2013-08-02 02:04:07 PM  

Arsten: BarkingUnicorn: In short, we don't know and we can't know.  So we spin whatever delusions make us feel better ("make sense," because "sense" enables the delusion of predictability, and the ego desperately desires to predict that it will continue to exist even it never did).

.....Makes sense.

I just think it's a bad thing to dismiss new discoveries out of hand because we don't fully understand it right now. Or, for that matter, jumping overboard on new discoveries because we don't fully understand it right now.


I guarantee you his sentiments on the internet don't make their way in to the doctors office or the emergency room.
 
2013-08-02 02:12:28 PM  

Chummer45: pigeonstopper: I hope the more conservative people of the country will eventually realize that helping to pay or the healthcare of another person is the basis of socialized medicine.

If you donate money to an uninsured person, you are literally practicing the system you abhor.


Giving to charitable causes does kind of undermine the whole "government handouts create a society of makers and takers" mantra, doesn't it?  But then again t I forgot, rich people are way more reliable, high-minded, and compassionate than "the government."


You hear a lot about the millions rich people donate to "charity," but those charities usually turn out to be things like art museums, symphonies, and other things that benefit the rich socially. Can't remember the last time I heard some billionaire donating a few million to a food bank or job training.
 
2013-08-02 02:16:32 PM  
But that won't stop him and his circle jerk blog form bashing us mean ole' libtards I'm gonna guess as early as Monday. If positions were reversed he would have just them die so lets just not lose sight of who we are actually talking about here. A dirtbag right wing shill.
 
2013-08-02 02:18:01 PM  

ScaryBottles: But that won't stop him and his circle jerk blog form bashing us mean ole' libtards I'm gonna guess as early as Monday. If positions were reversed he would have just them die so lets just not lose sight of who we are actually talking about here. A dirtbag right wing shill.


He'll thank God for saving his life, then write an article bashing Obamacare as soshulisms.
 
2013-08-02 02:28:09 PM  
Kill him with kindness
 
2013-08-02 02:31:25 PM  

CorporatePerson: Kill him with kindness


You mean, like, with this kind of pillow? Just turn it over see it's the last thing he sees....

allysonsplace.com
 
2013-08-02 02:32:53 PM  

MSFT: Arsten: BarkingUnicorn: In short, we don't know and we can't know.  So we spin whatever delusions make us feel better ("make sense," because "sense" enables the delusion of predictability, and the ego desperately desires to predict that it will continue to exist even it never did).

.....Makes sense.

I just think it's a bad thing to dismiss new discoveries out of hand because we don't fully understand it right now. Or, for that matter, jumping overboard on new discoveries because we don't fully understand it right now.

I guarantee you his sentiments on the internet don't make their way in to the doctors office or the emergency room.


Oh, ffs!  Do you think I give a shiat whether medical treatment is based on knowledge or delusion, as long as it works?  I keep telling you, the only  reason anyone does anything is to FEEL BETTER!
 
2013-08-02 02:34:43 PM  

imontheinternet: He'll thank God for saving his life, then write an article bashing Obamacare as soshulisms.


You're probably right, especially given his already proven difficulty with logic or compassion. But maybe an onlooker will see this and say "wow, those Godless Libs did the Christian thing even though that Conservative was being a twat" and re-examine their own beliefs.
 
2013-08-02 02:35:06 PM  

Nytfall: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


THIS.

If you are forced to contribute, it is theft, or at best, a tax.  Charity cannot be forced.  If it is, it is no longer charity.


So the hospitals in the Libertarian world would not be forced to provide services to the uninsured or the ones who cannot pay cash or it would be considered theft or a tax?
 
2013-08-02 02:39:58 PM  

monoski: Nytfall: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


THIS.

If you are forced to contribute, it is theft, or at best, a tax.  Charity cannot be forced.  If it is, it is no longer charity.

So the hospitals in the Libertarian world would not be forced to provide services to the uninsured or the ones who cannot pay cash or it would be considered theft or a tax?


It is extortion.  NTTAWWT, but call it what it is.
 
2013-08-02 02:46:02 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: Mrbogey: It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

  Why don't you go read some of his tweets laughing at the dying Roger Ebert or being thankful for Murtha dying.  This guy's death should be celebrated, not mourned.


Which means that from here forward, with every breath he takes, he takes it with the certain knowledge, that the people he hates and despises, are demonstrably, better people than him.
/justice, of a sorts
 
2013-08-02 02:46:31 PM  
tbeatty:  Single payer isn't a panacea that makes care affordable.  It is a way, however, to eliminate the "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality that pervades capitalist society.  That mentality is what highlights disparity and drives innovation as well as overall improvement.

Hahahaha! Oh, you weren't serious about that, were you? You know what drives innovation - people having a basic level of education, health, a comfortable place to sleep and enough food so they don't have to worry about basic survival and can instead focus on their other talents and skills to be productive members of a society. You know what else drives innovation - funding for long term and important research that isn't just based on turning a profit each quarter or churning out more widgets that just get thrown in landfills every few months.
 
2013-08-02 02:46:59 PM  
Always do the right thing. This guy is a piece of shiat but if you treat him as he has treated others you're just contributing to the vicious cycle.

The Why Not Guy: imontheinternet: He'll thank God for saving his life, then write an article bashing Obamacare as soshulisms.

You're probably right, especially given his already proven difficulty with logic or compassion. But maybe an onlooker will see this and say "wow, those Godless Libs did the Christian thing even though that Conservative was being a twat" and re-examine their own beliefs.


It's nice to dream. Republicans don't learn from other people, only from their own experiences. It takes empathy to look at a situation someone is in and put yourself in their shoes.

Most Republicans will simply look at this guy and consider him a traitor for even accepting help from liberals, even if he didn't ask for it.
 
2013-08-02 02:50:42 PM  

sammyk: PanicMan: When I wasn't in the hospital trying to die I had a miserable existence. Most days I was just hoping I would piss or shiat. Sounds like a sim ...

Damn.  I can't think of anything worse than that.  Glad you made it.

As much as I think this guy is a total tool he does not deserve to have what is headed his way. To be perfectly honest I considered emptying the bank account on the best bottle of scotch I could buy and ending it all. Its a living hell and your family gets to watch helplessly as your heath goes down the toilet and the ammonia turns you into a farking moron. Everybody involved gets to turn into horrible people too. I remember the start of the 4th of July week thinking my odds were considerably better for getting a donor.


Your story scares the crap out of me. I'm glad you made it and I just wish we had a system where, when people are that ill or injured, their primary focus could be on getting well again...not having to worry about volumes of paperwork, jumping through hoops with their insurance provider, or begging for charity and setting up donation sites as they're prepping to go into surgery. How much longer are we going to be stupid about how we handle health care for the citizens of our country?
 
2013-08-02 02:51:02 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: monoski: Nytfall: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


THIS.

If you are forced to contribute, it is theft, or at best, a tax.  Charity cannot be forced.  If it is, it is no longer charity.

So the hospitals in the Libertarian world would not be forced to provide services to the uninsured or the ones who cannot pay cash or it would be considered theft or a tax?

It is extortion.  NTTAWWT, but call it what it is.



I think I'd rather pay for my neighbor's vaccinations, influenza treatment, and psychiatric medication. Even if we're ignoring ethical issues entirely, I think the benefits to me personally outweigh the risks. I would personally rather live in a society where these things are universally provided, paid for by everyone who can contribute.

Is your position on this that I should be able to pay for these things, but you'd rather not do so? Or that you'd like to be able to opt out of paying your share of these expenses?
 
2013-08-02 02:52:49 PM  
BarkingUnicorn:
Oh, ffs!  Do you think I give a shiat whether medical treatment is based on knowledge or delusion, as long as it works?  I keep telling you, the only  reason anyone does anything is to FEEL BETTER!

You might want to yell louder because you're still not making sense. And if you're going to spout sudo-Buddhist BS then you might want to learn the concept of equanimity, because son, you just don't got it.
 
2013-08-02 02:52:51 PM  

mpirooz: It's nice to dream. Republicans don't learn from other people, only from their own experiences. It takes empathy to look at a situation someone is in and put yourself in their shoes.


Alas, that's likely true, but if the onlooker isn't a Republican we might have a shot.

Most Republicans will simply look at this guy and consider him a traitor for even accepting help from liberals, even if he didn't ask for it.

See, I grew up having a brother so for me this is a giant WIN. I do the right thing AND piss him off at the same time? That's the best day ever.
 
2013-08-02 03:01:35 PM  

draypresct: BarkingUnicorn: monoski: Nytfall: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


THIS.

If you are forced to contribute, it is theft, or at best, a tax.  Charity cannot be forced.  If it is, it is no longer charity.

So the hospitals in the Libertarian world would not be forced to provide services to the uninsured or the ones who cannot pay cash or it would be considered theft or a tax?

It is extortion.  NTTAWWT, but call it what it is.


I think I'd rather pay for my neighbor's vaccinations, influenza treatment, and psychiatric medication. Even if we're ignoring ethical issues entirely, I think the benefits to me personally outweigh the risks. I would personally rather live in a society where these things are universally provided, paid for by everyone who can contribute.

Is your position on this that I should be able to pay for these things, but you'd rather not do so? Or that you'd like to be able to opt out of paying your share of these expenses?


The solution to mental illness is more guns silly.
 
2013-08-02 03:06:04 PM  

MSFT: Says the guy who threatens people on the internet.


You seem stuck on an analogy. You should feel bad. You should feel bad that you can't get over getting debunked on Fark.
 
2013-08-02 03:09:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: So not donating money to a know sociopath makes you a sociopath?


The issue wasn't over donating money. It's over people laughing at his suffering and being happy about it.
 
2013-08-02 03:09:24 PM  

draypresct: I would personally rather live in a society where these things are universally provided, paid for by everyone who can contribute.


I agree, and the fact that some of the people who benefit from these policies are assholes is irrelevant. I think "slippery slope" are two of the most overused words in our language but determining who "deserves" to be cared for and who doesn't is my idea of a slippery slope.
 
2013-08-02 03:09:31 PM  

Maud Dib: Felgraf: To people arguing with Aristocles-

Please be warned he has admitted to not arguing in good faith, and is an *admitted* troll.

See http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  .

. Named after a man who claimed to know nothing, he seems to think he's a lot more clever than he is.

I just figure it would be akin to arguing with.. man, whoever it was with the lists, after the person accidentally outed themselves
/Only this troll is far, faaarr less clever.

Question is, why hasn't an admitted troll been banhammered?It's in the goddamn FAQ.


Oh wait...never mind.


Calling out admitted trolls will get you banned. That's just how they roll.
 
2013-08-02 03:15:45 PM  

Mrbogey: MSFT: Says the guy who threatens people on the internet.

You seem stuck on an analogy. You should feel bad. You should feel bad that you can't get over getting debunked on Fark.


Ah, so you finally started fracking in your own back yard? Good for you!
So how does that well water taste these days? It must be really impressive these days when you light your farts.
 
2013-08-02 03:20:09 PM  

Mrbogey: Fart_Machine: So not donating money to a know sociopath makes you a sociopath?

The issue wasn't over donating money. It's over people laughing at his suffering and being happy about it.


I'm sure you were just as butthurt when this guy was publically celebrating the deaths of prominent liberals.
 
2013-08-02 03:23:00 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: Fart_Machine: So not donating money to a know sociopath makes you a sociopath?

The issue wasn't over donating money. It's over people laughing at his suffering and being happy about it.

I'm sure you were just as butthurt when this guy was publically celebrating the deaths of prominent liberals.


Like Chuck Norris, Bogey doesn't get upset... but his fists do:
images.sodahead.com
 
Displayed 50 of 441 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report