[worst-case scenario]

Well I have a ton of sympathy for Parkinson’s patients. They have a horrible and eventually fatal disease that renders them unable to care for themselves eventually.And they have it trough absolutely no fault of their own.

Lecter makes the point that he wasn’t trying to bait anyone. He never said anything, just sat there in front of them with a sign about his disease as a way to remind them that sick people need help, not anger or derision. He didn’t fight back when they started to mock him, or say anything. And on the video that seems to make somew people angrier.

Lecter’s disability is relevant to the debate because there are a lot of people who are ill through no fault of their own, who can’t work, and who stand to lose everything, including their homes, in order to get so impoverished that they can qualify for Medicaid. And most doctors won’t accept Medicaid patients anymore because the payments they get are far too low. It’s not despicable to remind folks of that.

I’ve always read that Bible injunction as saying that the courts should favor the truth and justice, no matter who is rich or poor. Our ways seem to me to be far too much about wealth and income and caring about how much money we have, or don’t have, or might have someday, or somebody else has. Justice and truth before the Law of God should be men’s ways, not the man-worshiped Mammon. What would be just, in this case?

[throwback]

It's fine for him to invoke sympathy to encourage others to help him or others directly. This is not the mechanism that he's advocating, however. He's putting a human face on a huge uncaring federal bureaucracy that cares not a wit about anyone. So when he uses his disability to support a government that will compel me to submit to a government bureaucrat as to what I can buy under penalty of law, I find that despicable. It may well be me sitting on the ground in front of someone pleading my case someday. I just know I don't want it to be in front of some government official, because I know in that case no will mean NO. Ever dealt with the government? I have..."we've considered your appeal, and your case is denied".

[Christian_Capitalist]

I’ve always read that Bible injunction as saying that the courts should favor the truth and justice, no matter who is rich or poor. Our ways seem to me to be far too much about wealth and income and caring about how much money we have, or don’t have, or might have someday, or somebody else has. Justice and truth before the Law of God should be men’s ways, not the man-worshiped Mammon. What would be just, in this case?

What would be just?

"Thou shalt not steal".

Doesn't matter if you're stealing for the sake of someone who's terribly ill.
Doesn't matter if you've got a majority vote to commit the theft.
Doesn't matter if you're stealing from someone who's so wealthy, he's set for seven-times-seventy lifetimes, and who spends all his vast income on idle recreations for his own selfish enjoyment.

Theft is still, without exception, always, a crime against God.