2 ms·
Your argument is inconsistent. If we accept the premise that being legally compelled to treat a patient makes a doctor a slave, it is perfectly reasonable for
by dahfizz 7y ago
Your argument is inconsistent.
If we accept the premise that being legally compelled to treat a patient makes a doctor a slave, it is perfectly reasonable for Rand Paul to argue against the expansion of such a law. Similarly, the current existence of such a law does not contradict his moral stance unless he advocates or supports the current system, which he does not.
- AWildC182 7y agoI don't believe it is. Rand Paul's entire platform on the issue is based on a false premise. Nobody is putting guns to doctors heads, there is just a legal impetus for hospitals to treat sick people, rather than sitting around demanding payment while the house burns. He makes the argument entirely because he was searching for something to support his platform, not the other way around. He doesn't appear to even delve into the issue beyond healthcare == slavery but rather focuses on supporting his strange forever contradictory hyper-capitalistic vision. As such he waives any possibility to debate the issue from the position that he doesn't support the current solution because he doesn't support anything.