lol @ libertarianism

Andres · 07-07-2008, 07:45 AM

look i know it's mean to mock the dead, but

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-ka..._b_111079.html
fuckin hell

Bown · 07-07-2008, 07:48 AM

Jesus that's pretty ironic

HMC · 07-07-2008, 01:48 PM

Hahahah

Rabid Dinosaur · 07-07-2008, 03:01 PM

Oh my god, this is amazing.

Compcat · 07-07-2008, 04:14 PM

You guys are assholes.

Raz · 07-07-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Compcat

You guys are assholes.

I hope this is a joke and not some kneejerk reaction.

Andres · 04:44 PM

This is the market, mate. If you ever needed an example, here it is. Free to choose. Death.

Cubert · 07-07-2008, 04:23 PM

Aaaaahahaha this great.

Compcat · 07-07-2008, 04:44 PM

I'm pretty sure I'd think the same thing if this about Hilary's manager, somebody dies and their family is left hugely in debt and you cheer, thats horrible.

Dick Harris · 07-07-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Compcat

I'm pretty sure I'd think the same thing if this about Hilary's manager, somebody dies and their family is left hugely in debt and you cheer, thats horrible.

I'm pretty sure your political views are those of a neandearthal.

Aaron Haynes · 07-07-2008, 04:58 PM

No one's cheering. They're using a genuine example of libertarian philosophy towards health care being a disaster for someone -- someone who crafted "government should not do anything, ever" policies for the most recent well-known libertarian candidate.

It's not very sensitive, but the irony is downright incredible. Since when can people not use real-world examples to prove or disprove political theories?

Lord Trasher · 07-07-2008, 05:10 PM

cue bowman in 5, 4...

Raz · 07-07-2008, 05:10 PM

Clearly this is a man that deserves my sympathy because he was too busy championing idiotic views instead of looking after his own wellbeing. I mean don't you find it scary that there are people trying to get these people into the White House? People who can't even LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES? I love when ideals are crushed by reality.

I suppose you're against people reading the Darwin Awards too?

Jesterfoot · 07-07-2008, 05:31 PM

Sucks that he died, but wow, this is awesome. I can't even conceptualize a more ironic situation.

Cubert · 07-07-2008, 06:26 PM

The ironing is delicious

Dick Harris · 07-07-2008, 08:21 PM

I could use some iron ore.

Tuna Hematoma · 07-07-2008, 08:26 PM

irony is so ironic

Jesterfoot · 07-07-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Harris

I'm pretty sure your political views are those of a neandearthal.

especially when the statement this makes goes directly towards stopping this from happening to anyone again.

Dick Harris · 07-07-2008, 08:27 PM

if by ironic you mean SEGA MASTER SYSTEM can I play?

Bowman · 07-08-2008, 10:42 PM

Sorry for the delay I know you all couldnt wait for my input on this one. I was away from civilization. There's nothing about libertarianism that says a man shouldn't buy health insurance if he has the ability to get it. That was just a dumb move and doesnt discredit libertarianism. I think this article is pretty biased. It basically took one fact (that a libertarian died of pneumonia) and put all sorts of hypothetical bs around it. Who can say whether or not this guy was or was not getting the preventive treatment he needed? The article certainly never cites a source saying that the death could have been prevented; the whole thing is basically "a libertarian died! it must be because he doesn't believe in socialized health!" which is a fallacy of epic proportions. I mean come on...

Andres · 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowman

Sorry for the delay I know you all couldnt wait for my input on this one. I was away from civilization. There's nothing about libertarianism that says a man shouldn't buy health insurance if he has the ability to get it. That was just a dumb move and doesnt discredit libertarianism. I think this article is pretty biased. It basically took one fact (that a libertarian died of pneumonia) and put all sorts of hypothetical bs around it. Who can say whether or not this guy was or was not getting the preventive treatment he needed? The article certainly never cites a source saying that the death could have been prevented; the whole thing is basically "a libertarian died! it must be because he doesn't believe in socialized health!" which is a fallacy of epic proportions. I mean come on...

lol.
i gotta say, i'm pretty glad yours is a dying breed. anyway, you don't seem to understand this situation very well, for a variety of reasons.

Orcus · 07-08-2008, 11:02 PM

I'm sure he wasn't hurting for money. He probably could've afforded it. He was just an idiot.

NearHi · 07-08-2008, 11:18 PM

I agree with Bowman...
What does a Libertarian dying without isurance have to do with anything?
It seems like it might have been his own neglect in not buying health insurance, so it's his own fault.
And who's to say that with public health care he would have lived? For all we know he could have sat in a waiting room too long waiting for care or that th physicians who saw him would have such a revolving door policy that he might now have had the proper care.

Bowman · 07-09-2008, 01:53 AM

Hey all I'm saying here is that a libertarian dying doesn't prove his ideas are wrong. I think you're the one who doesn't understand the situation. We essentially have no information about why this guy died. The blog linked to as a source by Huffington only said that the guy was having a long struggle against Pneumonia. That's literally ALL the information the article was based on. And from that, the journalist thinks he can tell us that the man's libertarian ideas & practices killed him? I don't see how you can fail to see the problem.

Andres · 07:48 AM

Bowman, if you can't see how every aspect of this, with or without assumptions or guesses, is awful then I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you.

I'll grant you your hypothetical. Let's pretend that this guy absolutely would have died regardless of whether he was insured or not. The problem in this story isn't merely the man's death, it's the crippling, obscene debt he's left his family because of healthcare costs. Even if you do not expect to need healthcare ever, eventually you'll have to go to a hospital, and it will cost you. It will cost you obscene amounts of money. The man in question had pneumonia. What choices did he have? He could either get some treatment in order to not die miserably and horribly, and then leave his family in tremendous debt, or he could have killed himself or left the hospital without getting treatment in order to avoid the costs incurred in being there. Both of these are awful, inhumane "choices" that have no place in a civilized society where people care for their fellow man. These are the man's choices.

Those are only choices when you know the future. Pneumonia is usually not fatal, so it's probably safe to say that killing yourself before the disease takes you wasn't an option. The only realistic option is get some treatment.

... Except those are the man's choices when the hospital is forced to take care of him. But that's not a deregulated free market situation like the one modern american libertarians want. In an actual society like the one you want (or at least, have indicated you'd want), the hospital shouldn't be forced to do anything. So the uninsured man that doesn't actually have money to pay wouldn't even be attended. He'd just have a horrible, undignified death resembling something out of the 18th century, when people actually died of pneumonia.

I'll grant you your second hypothetical, which is that not buying health insurance was the man's choice. This is true. But I'm not sure why you think this somehow makes things better. It doesn't, and in fact that is the problem. When a person chooses not to get health insurance, it tends to be because the person does not want to pay for a service that they believe they will not use. They don't abstain from buying insurance because they want to die. So there's two ways of judging them. One, saying that they took the most rational decision they could take at the time (perhaps they just didn't have insurance temporarily). The other way is to say they are dumb and made a mistake and thus deserved it. Both of these options suck. One sucks because it shows you the fundamental problem with the way all these awful free market policies work: the tremendously big assumption that human beings are "rational actors" than can see every situation rationally and know every variable and every outcome possible, and always choose the better option. The other option sucks because it's morally disgusting. Yes, the person definitely made a mistake. But I don't think they should be punished with hardship and death. The fact that people often do not have enough information and can't properly assess a situation is a pretty big problem. This situation, if this guy had decided to not get insurance, would be a key example of that. No one expects to get pneumonia, let alone die from it. I personally haven't had anything but a common cold in my entire life. I could easily take this same gamble, even momentarily, and get hit by a truck tomorrow and be fucked for a long, long time because of not expecting that. But can we really argue that "expecting to be hit by a truck" is some sort of rational argument? I know I joke a lot about libertarians being evil and wanting everyone to die and all, but most libertarians don't think people deserve to die and whatnot. Most libertarians think the guy is going to buy health insurance. Or make every other good, sensible decision. No one (relevant) is out there thinking "if 60% of the poor get off insurance because they need more money to eat, then whatever man, that was their choice", because no one really thinks that a majority of the poor would neglect their health in order to have enough money to support themselves/family.

We all like to joke about people getting what they deserve and whatever, but I'm sure most 3dmmers don't actually wish death on almost anyone, or think some people who died for bad choices "deserve it". If this guy made a conscious decision to not get healthcare, regardless of how reasonable the decision was, he didn't deserve to die because of it. His family didn't deserve to lose a son. The hospital didn't deserve to lose money and time.

The thing is though, we do have information. It's not in the article, but I know this information because of looking at the Ron Paul Forums, where someone posted a message from his family. The truth of the matter is that this man didn't willingly go without health insurance because he was a moron. The truth of the matter is that this man had no health insurance because he was denied coverage. He was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. He had some money, but surely not enough to pay the surreal amounts he ended up owing. This wasn't a strongheaded dumbass who took his chances. This is a man who sadly wasn't able to get insurance and thus died leaving his family with an absurd amount of debt.

On those same forums, someone who tried to present himself as fiscally responsible said (when asked for donations, because the people in the forums wanted to help cover the debt), "why do I have to pay for his money problems, pre-existing condition or not?", one of the absolute worst things I have ever seen anywhere.

You mentioned you got your political beliefs from Friedman's "Free To Choose". Now look at the title of that. "Free To Choose". What freedom did this man have? He didn't have the freedom to get proper healthcare insurance. He had the freedom to apply for healthcare insurance, sure. That is the situation that many people live in. They cannot get health insurance because due to their conditions, they are denied or the price is too prohibitive. That's people that can actually attempt to get health insurance. This man could perhaps afford health insurance, as he certainly had a job, and money. Just not, you know, someone who would actually insure him.

So what freedom did he have, Bowman? He left a debt of 400,000 dollars. You can claim that you have the freedom to pay for your own treatment, but the overwhelming majority of people can't pay for 400,000 dollars worth of treatment. So that's out of the question.

What choices did this man have? He could beg for donations or get someone to pay for his treatment. Considering someone on the Ron Paul Forums actually said that they didn't understand why they needed to pay for this man's debt, I see that as an unlikely possibility. So what are the other choices? He could have killed himself or refused treatment, in order to not leave a crazy amount of debt. Or, he could have allowed himself to slowly die of pneumonia, a disease that is treatable most of the time, and then his parents foot the bill. The killing himself / refusing treatment option is a joke by the way. Something like that just has no place in a civilized society.

If you think that this man's death, while sad, is an acceptable consequence of having a free market, then please, stay the hell away from government.

The story of this man is tragic, and it's similar to the stories of countless Americans. Healthcare costs are the leading source of bankrupcy for most people. And they have no choice but to be treated, whether they die or not. Because you aren't free to choose to get sick, you aren't free to choose to not have enough money to not be able to pay basic necessities, and you are't free to choose whether you can get accepted for health insurance.

In a civilized world, we all give up the "freedom to not pay 1000 dollars annually in taxes" so that every citizen, regardless of how terrible he is, regardless of how terrible his choices were, regardless of his political belief, doesn't have to die uninsured leaving a crippling amount of debt to his family. That's what we do in a civilized world. Because those 500 extra dollars or whatever imaginary number you want are worth it to pay for the dignity of your fellow man.

I'll readily accept that my first post, like almost every post I make, was horrible, but the point isn't "hahaha, you made bad choices", it's "good grief, this is what some people think is acceptable".

07-07-2008, 07:45 AM	#1
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 17,797	lol @ libertarianism look i know it's mean to mock the dead, but http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-ka..._b_111079.html fuckin hell
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 17,797

07-07-2008, 07:48 AM	#2
Bown Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 18,740	Jesus that's pretty ironic
Bown Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 18,740

07-07-2008, 01:48 PM	#3
HMC Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,715	Hahahah
HMC Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,715

07-07-2008, 04:14 PM	#5
Compcat Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8,810	You guys are assholes.
Compcat Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8,810

07-07-2008, 04:18 PM	#7
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 17,797	This is the market, mate. If you ever needed an example, here it is. Free to choose. Death.
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 17,797	Last edited by Andres : 07-07-2008 at 04:44 PM.

07-07-2008, 03:01 PM	#4
Rabid Dinosaur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 14,894	Oh my god, this is amazing.

07-07-2008, 04:23 PM	#8
Cubert Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,990	Aaaaahahaha this great.
Cubert Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,990

07-07-2008, 04:44 PM	#9
Compcat Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8,810	I'm pretty sure I'd think the same thing if this about Hilary's manager, somebody dies and their family is left hugely in debt and you cheer, thats horrible.
Compcat Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8,810

07-07-2008, 04:58 PM	#11
Aaron Haynes Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 15,125	No one's cheering. They're using a genuine example of libertarian philosophy towards health care being a disaster for someone -- someone who crafted "government should not do anything, ever" policies for the most recent well-known libertarian candidate. It's not very sensitive, but the irony is downright incredible. Since when can people not use real-world examples to prove or disprove political theories?

07-07-2008, 05:10 PM	#12
Lord Trasher Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 4,739	cue bowman in 5, 4...

07-07-2008, 05:10 PM	#13
Raz Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 10,485	Clearly this is a man that deserves my sympathy because he was too busy championing idiotic views instead of looking after his own wellbeing. I mean don't you find it scary that there are people trying to get these people into the White House? People who can't even LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES? I love when ideals are crushed by reality. I suppose you're against people reading the Darwin Awards too?
Raz Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 10,485

07-07-2008, 05:31 PM	#14
Jesterfoot Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 7,470	Sucks that he died, but wow, this is awesome. I can't even conceptualize a more ironic situation.

07-07-2008, 06:26 PM	#15
Cubert Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,990	The ironing is delicious
Cubert Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,990

07-07-2008, 08:21 PM	#16
Dick Harris Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 5,503	I could use some iron ore.

07-07-2008, 08:26 PM	#17
Tuna Hematoma Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 10,055	irony is so ironic

07-07-2008, 08:27 PM	#19
Dick Harris Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 5,503	if by ironic you mean SEGA MASTER SYSTEM can I play?

07-08-2008, 10:42 PM	#20
Bowman Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 613	Sorry for the delay I know you all couldnt wait for my input on this one. I was away from civilization. There's nothing about libertarianism that says a man shouldn't buy health insurance if he has the ability to get it. That was just a dumb move and doesnt discredit libertarianism. I think this article is pretty biased. It basically took one fact (that a libertarian died of pneumonia) and put all sorts of hypothetical bs around it. Who can say whether or not this guy was or was not getting the preventive treatment he needed? The article certainly never cites a source saying that the death could have been prevented; the whole thing is basically "a libertarian died! it must be because he doesn't believe in socialized health!" which is a fallacy of epic proportions. I mean come on...
Bowman Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 613

07-08-2008, 11:02 PM	#22
Orcus Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 8,146	I'm sure he wasn't hurting for money. He probably could've afforded it. He was just an idiot.
Orcus Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 8,146

07-08-2008, 11:18 PM	#23
NearHi Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,483	I agree with Bowman... What does a Libertarian dying without isurance have to do with anything? It seems like it might have been his own neglect in not buying health insurance, so it's his own fault. And who's to say that with public health care he would have lived? For all we know he could have sat in a waiting room too long waiting for care or that th physicians who saw him would have such a revolving door policy that he might now have had the proper care.
NearHi Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,483

07-09-2008, 01:53 AM	#24
Bowman Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 613	Hey all I'm saying here is that a libertarian dying doesn't prove his ideas are wrong. I think you're the one who doesn't understand the situation. We essentially have no information about why this guy died. The blog linked to as a source by Huffington only said that the guy was having a long struggle against Pneumonia. That's literally ALL the information the article was based on. And from that, the journalist thinks he can tell us that the man's libertarian ideas & practices killed him? I don't see how you can fail to see the problem.
Bowman Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 613

07-09-2008, 05:35 AM	#25
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 17,797	Bowman, if you can't see how every aspect of this, with or without assumptions or guesses, is awful then I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you. I'll grant you your hypothetical. Let's pretend that this guy absolutely would have died regardless of whether he was insured or not. The problem in this story isn't merely the man's death, it's the crippling, obscene debt he's left his family because of healthcare costs. Even if you do not expect to need healthcare ever, eventually you'll have to go to a hospital, and it will cost you. It will cost you obscene amounts of money. The man in question had pneumonia. What choices did he have? He could either get some treatment in order to not die miserably and horribly, and then leave his family in tremendous debt, or he could have killed himself or left the hospital without getting treatment in order to avoid the costs incurred in being there. Both of these are awful, inhumane "choices" that have no place in a civilized society where people care for their fellow man. These are the man's choices. Those are only choices when you know the future. Pneumonia is usually not fatal, so it's probably safe to say that killing yourself before the disease takes you wasn't an option. The only realistic option is get some treatment. ... Except those are the man's choices when the hospital is forced to take care of him. But that's not a deregulated free market situation like the one modern american libertarians want. In an actual society like the one you want (or at least, have indicated you'd want), the hospital shouldn't be forced to do anything. So the uninsured man that doesn't actually have money to pay wouldn't even be attended. He'd just have a horrible, undignified death resembling something out of the 18th century, when people actually died of pneumonia. I'll grant you your second hypothetical, which is that not buying health insurance was the man's choice. This is true. But I'm not sure why you think this somehow makes things better. It doesn't, and in fact that is the problem. When a person chooses not to get health insurance, it tends to be because the person does not want to pay for a service that they believe they will not use. They don't abstain from buying insurance because they want to die. So there's two ways of judging them. One, saying that they took the most rational decision they could take at the time (perhaps they just didn't have insurance temporarily). The other way is to say they are dumb and made a mistake and thus deserved it. Both of these options suck. One sucks because it shows you the fundamental problem with the way all these awful free market policies work: the tremendously big assumption that human beings are "rational actors" than can see every situation rationally and know every variable and every outcome possible, and always choose the better option. The other option sucks because it's morally disgusting. Yes, the person definitely made a mistake. But I don't think they should be punished with hardship and death. The fact that people often do not have enough information and can't properly assess a situation is a pretty big problem. This situation, if this guy had decided to not get insurance, would be a key example of that. No one expects to get pneumonia, let alone die from it. I personally haven't had anything but a common cold in my entire life. I could easily take this same gamble, even momentarily, and get hit by a truck tomorrow and be fucked for a long, long time because of not expecting that. But can we really argue that "expecting to be hit by a truck" is some sort of rational argument? I know I joke a lot about libertarians being evil and wanting everyone to die and all, but most libertarians don't think people deserve to die and whatnot. Most libertarians think the guy is going to buy health insurance. Or make every other good, sensible decision. No one (relevant) is out there thinking "if 60% of the poor get off insurance because they need more money to eat, then whatever man, that was their choice", because no one really thinks that a majority of the poor would neglect their health in order to have enough money to support themselves/family. We all like to joke about people getting what they deserve and whatever, but I'm sure most 3dmmers don't actually wish death on almost anyone, or think some people who died for bad choices "deserve it". If this guy made a conscious decision to not get healthcare, regardless of how reasonable the decision was, he didn't deserve to die because of it. His family didn't deserve to lose a son. The hospital didn't deserve to lose money and time. The thing is though, we do have information. It's not in the article, but I know this information because of looking at the Ron Paul Forums, where someone posted a message from his family. The truth of the matter is that this man didn't willingly go without health insurance because he was a moron. The truth of the matter is that this man had no health insurance because he was denied coverage. He was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. He had some money, but surely not enough to pay the surreal amounts he ended up owing. This wasn't a strongheaded dumbass who took his chances. This is a man who sadly wasn't able to get insurance and thus died leaving his family with an absurd amount of debt. On those same forums, someone who tried to present himself as fiscally responsible said (when asked for donations, because the people in the forums wanted to help cover the debt), "why do I have to pay for his money problems, pre-existing condition or not?", one of the absolute worst things I have ever seen anywhere. You mentioned you got your political beliefs from Friedman's "Free To Choose". Now look at the title of that. "Free To Choose". What freedom did this man have? He didn't have the freedom to get proper healthcare insurance. He had the freedom to apply for healthcare insurance, sure. That is the situation that many people live in. They cannot get health insurance because due to their conditions, they are denied or the price is too prohibitive. That's people that can actually attempt to get health insurance. This man could perhaps afford health insurance, as he certainly had a job, and money. Just not, you know, someone who would actually insure him. So what freedom did he have, Bowman? He left a debt of 400,000 dollars. You can claim that you have the freedom to pay for your own treatment, but the overwhelming majority of people can't pay for 400,000 dollars worth of treatment. So that's out of the question. What choices did this man have? He could beg for donations or get someone to pay for his treatment. Considering someone on the Ron Paul Forums actually said that they didn't understand why they needed to pay for this man's debt, I see that as an unlikely possibility. So what are the other choices? He could have killed himself or refused treatment, in order to not leave a crazy amount of debt. Or, he could have allowed himself to slowly die of pneumonia, a disease that is treatable most of the time, and then his parents foot the bill. The killing himself / refusing treatment option is a joke by the way. Something like that just has no place in a civilized society. If you think that this man's death, while sad, is an acceptable consequence of having a free market, then please, stay the hell away from government. The story of this man is tragic, and it's similar to the stories of countless Americans. Healthcare costs are the leading source of bankrupcy for most people. And they have no choice but to be treated, whether they die or not. Because you aren't free to choose to get sick, you aren't free to choose to not have enough money to not be able to pay basic necessities, and you are't free to choose whether you can get accepted for health insurance. In a civilized world, we all give up the "freedom to not pay 1000 dollars annually in taxes" so that every citizen, regardless of how terrible he is, regardless of how terrible his choices were, regardless of his political belief, doesn't have to die uninsured leaving a crippling amount of debt to his family. That's what we do in a civilized world. Because those 500 extra dollars or whatever imaginary number you want are worth it to pay for the dignity of your fellow man. I'll readily accept that my first post, like almost every post I make, was horrible, but the point isn't "hahaha, you made bad choices", it's "good grief, this is what some people think is acceptable".
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 17,797	Last edited by Andres : 07-09-2008 at 07:48 AM.