Health Care BS

Comments 13

1. effay wrote:

   Ya, I was initially shocked by his vote on that as well, but I think he has good intentions. I guess his thinking was that socialist health care isn’t going away any time soon so he might as well vote to try and make it better. After thinking about it, the vote wasn’t about saying yes or no to socialist healthcare, it was about changing the way that it works. I’m certain that if there was a vote on keeping or getting rid of the program altogether, Ron Paul would vote to end it.

   Posted 09 May 2007 at 12:48 am ¶
2. JesuBub wrote:

   When is it not libertarian to reduce government spending?! If he can’t abolish socialized health care, the next best thing is to make it cost less for the taxpayer.

   Brush up on his efforts to reduce the taxpayers health care burdens:
   http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082106.htm
   http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst092506.htm
   http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr062503.htm
   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr111005.htm

   Posted 09 May 2007 at 1:28 am ¶
3. Catron wrote:

   The essence of libertarianism involves the belief that the government should not insert itself in any activity that can be handled by the private sector. For the government to insert itself in the pharmaceutical market is completely antipathetic to that philosophy. The excuse that such interference will save money, an assertion that many doubt by the way, is irrelevant.

   Posted 09 May 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶
4. oliverc wrote:

   @ Catron

   This vote was not about government involving itself in health care! The choice was this:

   1. Government involved in health care and paying what they are paying now.

   2. Government involved in health care and paying less.

   If you give a libertarian that choice what are they going to pick??

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 1:45 pm ¶
5. Catron wrote:

   An real Libertarian would have known that this kind of government meddling creates unintended consequences that end up costing the taxpayers MORE money rather than less. So, the honest course of action would have been to abstain. Ron Paul is a LINO.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶
6. Gene Berkman wrote:

   Are you suggesting that the proper free market position is that government should pay whatever the pharmaceutical companies charge? How is that different from a government subsidy of the pharmaceutical corporations? Or, how is it different from paying “cost-plus” contracts to defense industries?

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 4:57 pm ¶
7. Andrew C wrote:

   An ‘abstain’ would have been the best solution for Ron Paul on this vote. Still, on the vast majority of issues economic and political he still seems to be the most libertarian of the major party candidates.

   Posted 20 May 2007 at 1:15 am ¶
8. disinter wrote:

   JesuBub and oliverc - well said.

   Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:26 am ¶
9. Catron wrote:

   Your kidding, right? Both “JesuBub” and “oliverc” are engaging in the worst sort of special pleading.

   Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:36 am ¶
10. John Campbell wrote:

    I was over at the car dealer and I was just about to make an offer on that new car, but then I remembered my Libertarian priciples and paid sticker.

    Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:32 am ¶
11. Catron wrote:

    John, you missed the point. One can’t claim to be a Libertarian and vote for government price fixing. The two are simply not compatable.

    Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:41 am ¶
12. Meegan Pozzetta wrote:

    The fact that you all are quibbling over this issue only further demonstrates Ron Paul’s integrity - that one has to dig so deep only to find one instance of a possibly questionable vote…

    Ron wasn’t voting for socialized health care; he wasn’t voting to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars and go into massive debt to support the elite’s mercantilistic aims; he simply voted yes to the idea that the purchaser (which just so happens to be the government) should bargain with the seller for fair prices, just as any other health insurance company would be expected to do. It wasn’t Paul who decided that the government should foray into the health insurance industry, but since it already has, it should at least function efficiently as such.

    I am a doctor, MBA, and mother of two.

    Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
13. Colt--1 wrote:

    Wow Michelle, I really liked you, but something tells me you’ve get a certain something against Paul. Otherwise you wouldn’t have superficially glanced over his comment:

    Everybody, here is the quote in it’s entirety (emphasis mine so we can see where the lovely Ms. Malkin missed the point):

    “The government is already involved in giving out prescription drugs, in a program that the drug companies love and spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS LOBBYING FOR, this interventionist program. The drug corporations love it. Should government say something about controlling prices since it’s a government program? I want to cut down spending, so why not say that government has a responsibility to get a better bargain? BOTH CHOICES WERE HORRIBLE, but the person who complained on the Internet DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE VOTE. I don’t vote for price controls, obviously, but if government has to buy something—even if they shouldn’t be buying it!–they have a responsibility to get the best price. But most importantly, WE SHOULDN’T BE IN THAT BUSINESS [of buying drugs].

    It’s one thing to impose a “heavy-handed bureaucratic intrusion into the market”, another thing to quell what is basically a subtle form of corporate facism: the government is ALREADY in bed with the drug companies, and they benefit TOGETHER.

    Tells you a little something about why the cost of medicine goes up so rapidly, no?

    Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 6:40 pm ¶

Post a Comment