Ron Paul For President

[Laura]

Much as I respect you Laura and I'm sure you aren't implying that half the world is mediocre, I do take offence at this.

It seems it's an ideological thing - should we look after ourselves or should we look after each other?

I'm just a pot stirrer.

Before I say anything, I must note that I am not suggesting that our country does a bang up job on healthcare. We have problems, no doubt. But I don't believe a government run healthcare system is the answer. I pay almost $1000 a month to make sure my family has health insurance. I am painfully aware of healthcare costs and problems here.

That said, you can also find PLENTY of cases where those who can afford it come to America for their treatment. I know that when I faced surgery last fall for a serious health issue, I was incredibly thankful that I could find a private hospital that was at the cutting edge of treatment to take my case. I do not to give up that option.

We may be a young country, but we are a country that was founded on different principles than Europe. That's kind of the point.

From reading some of the over-the-pond views, it seems like people think that we don't do anything to support the poor here. Of course we help the poor (and spending has consistently grown every year for a very long time).

No country is perfect. There isn't a SINGLE thing that you can Google with a +sucks and not get plenty results. Even if we had the most perfect healthcare system on earth (whatever that might be), there would be just as many people to find fault in it.

This thread makes me unproductive. :anon.sml:

 

[LazyHippy]

I'm just a pot stirrer.

Before I say anything, I must note that I am not suggesting that our country does a bang up job on healthcare. We have problems, no doubt. But I don't believe a government run healthcare system is the answer. I pay almost $1000 a month to make sure my family has health insurance. I am painfully aware of healthcare costs and problems here.

That said, you can also find PLENTY of cases where those who can afford it come to America for their treatment. I know that when I faced surgery last fall for a serious health issue, I was incredibly thankful that I could find a private hospital that was at the cutting edge of treatment to take my case. I do not to give up that option.

We may be a young country, but we are a country that was founded on different principles than Europe. That's kind of the point.

From reading some of the over-the-pond views, it seems like people think that we don't do anything to support the poor here. Of course we help the poor (and spending has consistently grown every year for a very long time).

No country is perfect. There isn't a SINGLE thing that you can Google with a +sucks and not get plenty results. Even if we had the most perfect healthcare system on earth (whatever that might be), there would be just as many people to find fault in it.

This thread makes me unproductive. :anon.sml:

Me too... but it's so interesting!

"but we are a country that was founded on different principles than Europe. That's kind of the point."

Yep, that's the point completely - Most of Europe wasn't founded, it evolved over millennia.

You pay $1000 a month on healthcare?? Haven't you thought that that might be reduced if there were no shareholders to pay at the insurance companies? I'm pretty sure that when healthcare is paid for from taxes the amount per family is no where near that much. (Although, money isn't everything is it?)

Many Britons go to America for treatment - but often it is treatment considered unproven or unethical in other countries (kinda ironic considering the abortion thing)... but if doctors are willing do do things and patients are willing to pay and it doesn't affect other life then no arguments from me.

Sort out New Orleans and the rest of the World might start to believe that rich Americans maybe do give a shit about their poorer fellow countrymen. Compare what happened there to the tsunami in Asia at a similar time, then compare the situation now.

It's a fuckin disgrace to humanity that the richest county on Earth has taken longer to respond to a natural disaster than some of the poorest countries.

 

[John]

I don't know why everyone thinks "free" healthcare systems suck, I've never complained, nor have I heard one complaint about our healthcare system in my city, top facilities, great, fast care, and a hell of a lot cheaper then in the US.

 

[Deliguy]

Anyone wondering whats better, our current health system, national healthcare, or free market just ask your doctor. Doctors are the biggest advocates for free market and national than anyone. It's for a good reason, they see the bullshit everyday with our current system. They know the politics and the money involved. If you want a good earfull ask one.

btw. DR. Paul is one.

 

[geekcognito]

On quick interjection, if I may (I don't want to become unproductive )

I think that many people believe that those that reject the notion of universal healthcare are evil, twisted rich folks that want the poor to suffer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What most of us are worried about is putting our health care into government control. I know that I am. I've been under government-controlled healthcare before when I was active duty military and then for a short time after when I had to use VA services. I'd rather piss glass than go back to that.

Our federal government loves to red-tape the hell out of everything to where it slows any simple task to a crawl. Do you really think that I want to trust the same government that takes six months to mail a copy of my DD214 (military discharge papers that prove that I completed my obligation honorably) to prospective employers when I have a ruptured appendix? I think not. I also don't want my regular check-ups to become the equivalent of waiting in line at the DMV, which it WILL become.

Yes, the American healthcare system has problems but in spite of its flaws we have a large amount of innovative research, medications, and procedures to come on the market each year that saves lives. Like it or not, physicians and researchers like to be compensated for their skill level and demand just like every one else. Of course, they do it to be altruistic as well, but that doesn't mean that they don't want to be compensated accordingly. A market-based health care system helps keep this process and these innovations going.

I pay right under $600 a month for the finest PPO that Blue Cross/Blue Shield has. That's just for me alone. I also pay $65 a month for health insurance for my dogs as well.

With my plan I can choose which doctor I want to see when I want to see him or her and I can go to a specialist without wasting time asking permission from a primary care physician that I don't even want to have (which is what an HMO does in many cases).

Now, I realize that many people can't afford that and I am thankful that I *finally* can. But even when I was struggling to gain a foothold financially after I left the military I didn't support a national health care system.

Instead of the federal government implementing a blanket plan, we could do much more good if the states were to offer some kind of subsidy for legal residents that are in need. Combined with subsidies for lower income households (NOT WELFARE) that last for set time limits along with assistance for job placement and educational opportunities, the poor will actually have a chance to break the current cycle that they are in and do it in a way that they can be proud of (not accepting a government handout) and not being nearly as much as a burden to the taxpayer. Additionally, it will keep the federal government from growing even larger and looming over our daily lives.

This country was founded on states rights and that is what we need to get back to. This is what Ron Paul supports and that is why I support Ron Paul.

 

[ChicaRica]

I have never been that passionate about presidential elections b/c it always seems to be the choice of the "lesser of two evils", but i really think Ron Paul has great ideas. I think he is the first guy who stood FOR the constitution and wants the rights to go back to the states...the way it was intended to be. I know I will be voting for him and I hope that other people will too. We could sure use a change in this day and age, and I think Ron Paul could be that change.

 

[Karnul]

I just don't understand...

Pharmaceutical companies rape us all.. how? by lobbying a government that has too much power and can legislate us into using whatever company lobbies them best.

Insurance companies rape us... how? See above.

So the answer is make government bigger??? Give them more power???

It has no logic...

We are the best in the world at anything in a truly free market... see grocery stores and movie theaters. Take government out of health care and we'll get a far better system.

Government sucks... they are incompetent.. wasteful... and intrusive. I think Lazy Hippy said social programs help the poor... not true -- see the war on poverty.

Or hell.. talk to the poor about how they don't want jobs that are beneath them or pay less than welfare. This system guarantees they'll never develop the skills to get ahead in the work force -- reminds me of meth-heads that piss away 10 years of their life and finally come clean. Then they are 10 years behind everyone else they grew up with.

 

[LazyHippy]

Surely if the Government is wasteful and full of bureaucracy the best thing is to sort that out rather than reduce the scope of a government. I'm sure many state governments are full of red tape too.

It seems logical that reducing the scope of the government would cost less and reduce the bureaucracy as there would be less public services, whereas reducing the bureaucracy would also reduce costs yet maintain services.

"We are the best in the world at anything in a truly free market... "

A truly free market isn't likely to exist, unfortunately. Moving on to a different issue, America and the EU pay obscene amounts of taxpayers money to their farmers to 'compete' with poor Africans.

I agree with scrapping NAFTA, the WTO, etc but not for the same reasons as Ron Paul. The world needs truly open, free and fair trade - no import/export restrictions, no subsidies, no tariffs. Allow produces from poorer countries to compete on equal terms.

(This would mean - until the rest of the world catches up economically - that production and manufacture would die out in rich countries and jobs will be lost. However that would be a good thing for the World as a whole.)

 

[lnissen]

The one thing I don't get about the health care debate is, shouldn't it be possible to have a public health care that has no blood sucking HMOs and then private health care as well? Isn't our best health care in private hospitals anyway? I'm honestly asking this as I've been to a hospital once in the past 10 years. It was a public one, and boy was it was a nightmare.

 

[BeerHat]

I find it funny how many of you love the fruits of capitalism, are actively working to make more money (you're on a marketing forum are you not?) yet are willing to be rabid socialists when it suits your purpose.

The more power you give to the federal government, the less freedom you have. This can be applied to health care or anything.

 

[LazyHippy]

The one thing I don't get about the health care debate is, shouldn't it be possible to have a public health care that has no blood sucking HMOs and then private health care as well? Isn't our best health care in private hospitals anyway? I'm honestly asking this as I've been to a hospital once in the past 10 years. It was a public one, and boy was it was a nightmare.

Yes, of course. I don't think anyone is saying get rid of private healthcare. Here we have private healthcare available if you prefer to pay more for better choice (as geekcognito mentioned) and the NHS often uses private companies and facilities to provide public healthcare (sometimes this works well, sometimes not).

For a country like the US it wouldn't have to mean increased taxes either - Ron Paul's suggested policy on non-intervention in global affairs should free up billions that is currently spent on the military and on military aid to countries like Israel.

 

[lnissen]

I find it funny how many of you love the fruits of capitalism, are actively working to make more money (you're on a marketing forum are you not?) yet are willing to be rabid socialists when it suits your purpose.

The more power you give to the federal government, the less freedom you have. This can be applied to health care or anything.

I see, it's wrong to want to suit your purpose on something like health care. Perhaps we should just let the health care costs continue to rise at what... 15-20% a year until no one can afford it. We should also turn a blind eye to the fact that 25% of children don't have health care. Clearly being the capitalists we are, we can only think one way, that government is bad and that government is here to harm us, not help us. Don't fix government, get rid of it as much as possible because that's what Bill O'Reilly tells us to do. If we don't want the smallest government possible, we're just rabid socialists, or worse, communists.

I think almost everyone that's posted in this thread agrees that government and government spending has gotten WAY out of control. Republicans used to be fiscally responsible and no longer are. Democrats were always big spenders and still are. Clearly it's time for a change, we'll see what happens in 08.

 

[Kier]

But if you believe abortion is murder, you wouldn't be able to make that statement because murder is never the right of the person who committed it. It then wouldn't be about her body at all - it would be about the child's life.

Abortion is not a "reproductive choice." A reproductive choice would be keeping her legs shut in the first place, or putting the child up for adoption once it's born.

An interesting viewpoint but I must respectfully disagree. You believe abortion is murder, plenty of people don't. No one really disagrees about whether shooting someone in the head is murder, or whether stabbing someone is murder. Generally speaking the issue seems to be based on religious convictions more than anything and I think that's why its a non issue here in the UK as people aren't very religious at all. Personally I would expect a truly consistent Libertarian to not want to allow the government to impose people's religious views on each other in this way *especially* when it comes down to what goes on in your own body. More than that though I would expect a Libertarian to recognise that criminalising something like abortion would not prevent abortions taking place, it would simply make them unsafe, unregulated in the worst possible way and in all likelihood increase dependence on government by single mothers as already mentioned. Look at the War on Drugs for an example of what government prohibition can effectively achieve in areas of personal behaviour and conscience.

As I say its very odd for me because in the UK this is simply a non issue. One thing that has always puzzled me though is that if pro lifers do genuinely consider abortion to be murder why don't they do more about it? If I thought my government was allowing the murder of thousands every year I would be actively fighting them not just voting Republican in the hope one day Roe vs Wade will be overturned. The fact that this doesn't happen makes me think the issue is more about the culture war that you guys have raging and about controlling women generally.

That's my view, as an Englishman who tries to take an interest in the USA.

 

[LazyHippy]

I've got to say, it really is a credit to the community here that we can discuss emotive issues and disagree on things without resorting to insults and cheap point scoring as is so common in these sorts of debates.

Respect to you all.

 

[sleepylee]

I've got to say, it really is a credit to the community here that we can discuss emotive issues and disagree on things without resorting to insults and cheap point scoring as is so common in these sorts of debates.

Respect to you all.

I've done your mum.

 

[BeerHat]

I see, it's wrong to want to suit your purpose on something like health care. Perhaps we should just let the health care costs continue to rise at what... 15-20% a year until no one can afford it. We should also turn a blind eye to the fact that 25% of children don't have health care. Clearly being the capitalists we are, we can only think one way, that government is bad and that government is here to harm us, not help us. Don't fix government, get rid of it as much as possible because that's what Bill O'Reilly tells us to do. If we don't want the smallest government possible, we're just rabid socialists, or worse, communists.

I think almost everyone that's posted in this thread agrees that government and government spending has gotten WAY out of control. Republicans used to be fiscally responsible and no longer are. Democrats were always big spenders and still are. Clearly it's time for a change, we'll see what happens in 08.

I never said we weren't without problems in our health care system. To your point on having 25% of children not having health care, I assume you meant health insurance. I blame the parents for that. There are more than enough social programs that provide health care for the poor and children of the poor. One of the first things I was offered when I had my daughter here in Florida was the option of applying for health care benefits for my daughter if I met certain criteria i.e. making below $xx,xxx amount. Luckily I didn't need to, but the option was there.

I also never said the government was bad. What I said in so many words was that too much government was bad. The government has its role. Providing health care to all people, shouldn't be its role.

Ok, enough time wasted with this thread. And as lazyhippy stated I'm glad people here can disagree with civility.

I'm off to work again leave this thread behind.

 

[Karnul]

"It seems logical that reducing the scope of the government would cost less and reduce the bureaucracy as there would be less public services, whereas reducing the bureaucracy would also reduce costs yet maintain services."

That might seem logical if government provided a 100% ROI. Instead, we get about 25% of the money they steal from us back in piss-poor services.

Increasing efficiency by 100% would still mean we are getting ripped off for half of our hard earned dollars.

Socialism looks good on paper, but it just doesn't work. For every bureaucrat you hire, you are taking a productive member of society out of the work force. In addition, you are stealing money from 5-10 other workers to pay the bureaucrat. It is impossible to get your money's worth...

And... this is besides the point of whether stealing from one person to give some back to others is ethical. I think from my use of the word 'stealing' you know where I stand.

There just aren't any long term sustainable examples of socialism working. Sure, it might seem nice at first (to some) - but it quickly leads to poverty-level subsistence for all.

For instance -- if unions were to get into Wal-Mart. Immediately we'd have a workforce of 1 million making more money and getting better benefits. The news stories would be glowing. But... a year or two down the road we'd all suffer. Prices would be going up, quality of service down, and in the long run - Wal-Mart would lose it's ability to compete and start shutting down stores.

Best solution for all is to cut government back to the bare minimum. Allow people to decide where to spend their own money. It won't lead to a perfect society (nothing will), but it will provide the maximum amount of freedom and economic opportunity possible. Over time, the welfare addicts will enter the workforce, develop skills, and soon or later enter the middle class.

 

[LazyHippy]

There just aren't any long term sustainable examples of socialism working.

Hmmm.... Most of Europe, big chunks of South America, Asia and Africa? In fact most of the world is more socialist than the US. Socialism can work with capitalism, they aren't mutually exclusive - it's not about black or white, it's about the shade of grey.

 

[popeye]

Me too... but it's so interesting!

"but we are a country that was founded on different principles than Europe. That's kind of the point."

Yep, that's the point completely - Most of Europe wasn't founded, it evolved over millennia.

You pay $1000 a month on healthcare?? Haven't you thought that that might be reduced if there were no shareholders to pay at the insurance companies? I'm pretty sure that when healthcare is paid for from taxes the amount per family is no where near that much. (Although, money isn't everything is it?)

Many Britons go to America for treatment - but often it is treatment considered unproven or unethical in other countries (kinda ironic considering the abortion thing)... but if doctors are willing do do things and patients are willing to pay and it doesn't affect other life then no arguments from me.

Sort out New Orleans and the rest of the World might start to believe that rich Americans maybe do give a shit about their poorer fellow countrymen. Compare what happened there to the tsunami in Asia at a similar time, then compare the situation now.

It's a fuckin disgrace to humanity that the richest county on Earth has taken longer to respond to a natural disaster than some of the poorest countries.

"Sort out New Orleans"!!...How much more money must the Amercian tax payers pay to New Orleans?

I was there in the aftermath with the Red Cross. My city was a haven for the displaced of New Orleans. You keep mentioning New Orleans like America is setting by letting it and it's inhabitants rot but yet I have seen the efforts their first hand. The government has spent billions and millions of people have contributed money and or time in helping those people.

From my first hand experience. It's not the federal governments fault N.O. is still in shambles it's the local government and the citizens.You can only lead a horse to water you know.

 

[Andrew]

Generally (very simplistically), lower taxes benefit the rich, while increased public spending benefits the poor.

Of course it depends how you spend the taxes - by slashing military spending and 'aid' to countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, America could easily afford to provide free healthcare and a higher standard of education for everyone - without higher taxes.

I just read an article in The Economist that quoted a study finding a 1% rise in corporate taxes correlated with a .8% drop in manufacturing wages. Not exactly a libertarian magazine, in fact they were making fun of Ron Paul the other week.

Compared to many countries in Europe, the US's corporate tax rates are worse. In addition, wealthy Europeans can relocate to a country with a low personal tax rates while US citizens are forced to pay federal taxes no matter were in the world they reside.