Solution For Health Care Problem: Let the Sick Die!!!

[Lord MJ]

Health care is not a right. If people would realize that we could have a logical debate about Health Care.

"people that look and see people dying because they have medical needs that are not being satisfied because either they can not afford coverage, have lost coverage due to either losing their job or the insurance... Read More company finding someway to cut them off."

So let those people pay into a program to fund healthcare for those that cannot afford it. but don't force charity on others. I think that by providing health care we are fighting nature and allowing diseases and other health problems easy access to future generations....

Natural selection could fix this mess over several generations if people with health problems didn't have children. Self sacrifice for future generations.

[Drooling Iguana]

Am I correct in assuming that this eugenics advocate has compared Obama to a Nazi at least once?

[Lord MJ]

Am I correct in assuming that this eugenics advocate has compared Obama to a Nazi at least once?

You would definitely be correct about that.

[Zixinus]

So let those people pay into a program to fund healthcare for those that cannot afford it.

If they could pay such a program then wouldn't they be able to afford health-care in the first place?

but don't force charity on others.

It's not charity if people paid for it.

I think that by providing health care we are fighting nature and allowing diseases and other health problems easy access to future generations....

So, by introducing social healthcare (as opposed to just providing healthcare in general terms, which might mean offering to certain people) we will allow plagues to spread, the development severe physical and mental conditions, forcing people to use unstandardised and unliable medical alternatives (from homoeopathy to just doctors with a revoked license) precisely by giving access to a standardised, regulated, tax-funded medical system?

Natural selection could fix this mess over several generations if people with health problems didn't have children. Self sacrifice for future generations.

So, if someone who suffers from a crippling injury (war-wound, working accident, freak deformity) or birth defect (because their parents smoked/involountarily consumed toxins/ etc) will be left to die, there will be no more unhealthy people?

Yep, this guy is an eugenics advocate or at least a social darwinist that ironically appears to not understand how evolution actually works.

[Junghalli]

The man openly advocates allowing sick people to die so that evolution can work its magic.

Really, at this point in the eyes of anyone sane you should have won. This man's beliefs are evil. Anybody with a sane ethical system can see that. I mean, really at this point you barely need to bother debating, just quote his own words with the horrible parts bolded and say something like "what you advocate is so evil it doesn't need rebuttal in the mind of any sane non-evil person, I'll just let it speak for itself."

You may want to throw in a few words about how by his logic we should give up things like central heating, agriculture, or the very concept of medicine. Because they all keep people alive where nature would kill them. The entire concept of medicine is a giant middle finger in the face of natural selection; aside from painkillers pretty much all medicine exists to keep people alive where they would die without human technological intervention. Man said fuck you to this guy's philosophy when we invented tools, fire, and agriculture.

You may also want to ask him whether or not he thinks lifesaving medical treatment should be banned if you can afford it, as by his logic that's keeping defective people alive too. If he says no point out that it's allowing the genetically weak to breed where they might otherwise die and ask him why this is OK for rich people but not for poor ones. If I've got his type pegged right (Social Darwinist Economic Libertarian) he'll probably say that it's OK because we have no right to interfere with what they do but we also have no right to force people to give money to other people even if it'll save lives and what he's really doing is using the monstrous eugenics argument to try to make that attitude sound like something other than the utter sociopathy it is, both to other people and in his own mind (never mind his eugenic philosophy is evil in itself).

You may also point out that for most of human history his eugenic philosophy was actually something close to universally practiced simply because there was very little effective medicine to speak of, and yet somehow people kept getting diseases even after thousands or millions of years of natural selection for immunity and physiological hardyhood. Suggesting that his understanding of how evolution works is probably full of shit.

[Darth Wong]

This guy is such an incredibly obvious douchebag that he must either be satirizing conservatives or he's from the South.

[Setzer]

This of course assumes all diseases are genetic in origin. It also assumes that accumulating wealth is a sign of genetic superiority. Going by that logic, some of the most inbred royalty in history represented the genetic future of humanity.

[Patrick Degan]

I think that by providing health care we are fighting nature and allowing diseases and other health problems easy access to future generations....

Natural selection could fix this mess over several generations if people with health problems didn't have children. Self sacrifice for future generations.

So hit the little fuck with this quote and ask him if he agrees with it:

Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

—and when he says "yes", congratulate him for endorsing Hitler. And if he tries invoking Godwin's Law, tell him that his words on letting the sick and weak die to save future generations is exactly the same thing as what Der Fuhrer said and that he can take Godwin and shove him up his ass. And if he tries saying that "OBAMA IZ TEH NAZI", just bundle his words and the Hitler quote together and toss them right back in his face, and then tell him that he can take an iron swastika and shove that up his ass.

[Spoonist]

It is ironic that, just like Patrick Degan points out, killing of fthe weak and sick was a nazi policy. It is just as stupid as neo-nazis in one sentence adminiring the final solution and then in the next denying it ever happened.

Some info regarding the situation of handicaped in Nazi germany (and elsewhere):
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/hndcp.htm

[The Grim Squeaker]

This of course assumes all diseases are genetic in origin. It also assumes that accumulating wealth is a sign of genetic superiority. Going by that logic, some of the most inbred royalty in history represented the genetic future of humanity.

Would you rather be an inbred Hapsburg or a dirt poor peasant? . One group was so genetically successful that it lasted for quite a while, even culturally

[Broomstick]

Ask the idiot if he himself goes to the doctor when ill or injured - unless he answers "no" he's a damn hypocrite on top of everything else.

[Simon_Jester]

—and when he says "yes", congratulate him for endorsing Hitler. And if he tries invoking Godwin's Law, tell him that his words on letting the sick and weak die to save future generations is exactly the same thing as what Der Fuhrer said and that he can take Godwin and shove him up his ass. And if he tries saying that "OBAMA IZ TEH NAZI", just bundle his words and the Hitler quote together and toss them right back in his face, and then tell him that he can take an iron swastika and shove that up his ass.

My only objection is a minor one: that Mr. Godwin, specifically, deserves better than to be shoved up the ass of an idiot.

Godwin's Law, of course, is another matter entirely.

[Lord MJ]

He "clarified" his position somewhat. Basically it's more of that he's not advocating that eugenics. But he's saying that if someone gets sick and is able to afford health care, fine, that's their choice. But if someone gets sick and can't afford health care, then maybe if they die and they don't pass on their defects by propogating that might not be such a bad thing. It's certainly better alternative than forcing charity to pay the care of people that can't afford it themselves.

Not that this position is much better than the original one...

[General Zod]

He "clarified" his position somewhat. Basically it's more of that he's not advocating that eugenics. But he's saying that if someone gets sick and is able to afford health care, fine, that's their choice. But if someone gets sick and can't afford health care, then maybe if they die and they don't pass on their defects by propogating that might not be such a bad thing. It's certainly better alternative than forcing charity to pay the care of people that can't afford it themselves.

Not that this position is much better than the original one...

Ask him if he's okay with paying Medicare taxes, then demand that he explain why it's different than UHC.

[Duckie]

His new position is actually a worse position than before. It's a hypocritical statement of "I support eugenics and allowing all sick persons, except for the rich who should be well treated no matter what their health", instead of "I support eugenics and allowing all sick persons to die". He's combined Prosperity Gospel and Social Darwinism into some uniquely American monstrous doctrine that I literally cannot think of a more immoral creed to adopt short of ridiculous examples like 'rape all babies'.

If it's moral to let a poor man die so his genetic defects won't pass on, why in the world should a rich man get different treatment, if it's a matter of genetics? He's flailing about trying to find a logical moral philosophy in which he can justify letting the poor die on the streets due to some inherent failing of theirs and the rich prosper, but he doesn't have the decency to at least admit it's just a nazified equivalent to prosperity gospel.

[Lord MJ]

Ask him if he's okay with paying Medicare taxes, then demand that he explain why it's different than UHC.

He'll probably say that he isn't okay with paying Medicare taxes and if it was up to him there would be no Medicare.

[General Zod]

Here's another approach. Ask him if it's okay for the city to use tax money to pay for police services. If you're strong and have a well defended home then you should never get broken into and never need to call the cops, so why pay for a service that people wouldn't need if only they had better security or were better capable of handling things themselves. His whole argument basically boils down to "Well, it doesn't benefit ME, so screw everyone else."

[Patrick Degan]

He "clarified" his position somewhat. Basically it's more of that he's not advocating that eugenics. But he's saying that if someone gets sick and is able to afford health care, fine, that's their choice. But if someone gets sick and can't afford health care, then maybe if they die and they don't pass on their defects by propogating that might not be such a bad thing. It's certainly better alternative than forcing charity to pay the care of people that can't afford it themselves.

Not that this position is much better than the original one...

He's a lying sack of shit who IS advocating eugenics, only he's also layered on a class-based determiner for deciding which of the sick and weak are fit for death. If I were you, that's the line of attack I'd keep pounding him with.

[Surlethe]

Oh, come on, people. Clearly, anyone who is unable to pay for his medical bills is simply not valuable enough to society to keep alive - if he were, society would pay him (in the form of wages, etc.) enough to stay alive. If someone isn't valuable enough to other people to pay the cost of staying alive, too bad for him.

[Drooling Iguana]

Well, if he's valuable to other people with as little money as himself it's not going to do him much good. It's only the people who can make themselves valuable to the rich that deserve to live.

[charlemagne]

So, this guy actually thinks that each and every sickness afflicts only people with certain "defects"? Catching the flu means your bad genes let the virus in? Breaking your back in an accident means your bones aren't strong enough?

It's clear that this guy is an idiot and an evil asshole, but his line of thought is still quite bizarre.

[Lord MJ]

This is the same guy that had skin cancer and had to file bankruptcy as a result, and he' still fiercely opposed to any kind of Universal Healthcare.

In fact he views the fact that he filed bankruptcy rather than asking the government for a handout as a sign of his moral superiority and integrity.

[Darth Wong]

This is the same guy that had skin cancer and had to file bankruptcy as a result, and he' still fiercely opposed to any kind of Universal Healthcare.

In fact he views the fact that he filed bankruptcy rather than asking the government for a handout as a sign of his moral superiority and integrity.

Does he honestly not realize that bankruptcy is actually a form of bailout? The government steps in between you and your creditors and protects you from them.

Maybe he would prefer living in Dickensian times, when someone like him would have probably died in debtor's prison.

[PeZook]

This is the same guy that had skin cancer and had to file bankruptcy as a result, and he' still fiercely opposed to any kind of Universal Healthcare.

In fact he views the fact that he filed bankruptcy rather than asking the government for a handout as a sign of his moral superiority and integrity.

So he used a government service in order to save his immoral, unaffluent skin from debtors RIGHTEOUSLY PURSUING the collection of their debts, and he dares claim himself a proponent of freedom and personal responsibility?

That's disgusting. What's next, calling the police when someone vandalizes your car, instead of pumping them full of lead like a good American patriot? Believing the government when they say muslims blew up the World Trade Center? This man is repulsive and a sign of everything that's wrong with America.

Goddamned commie.

[Patrick Degan]

So, in addition to being a Nazi sympathiser, he's also a hypocrite and a sponger off the court system. This idiot just makes it too easy. Forget "debating" him, M.J., he's target practise. You should treat him accordingly.