Comments on: RON PAUL VOTED FOR GOVT PRICE FIXING

By: Colt--1

Colt--1 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:40:11 +0000

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?

By: Meegan Pozzetta

Meegan Pozzetta — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:19:22 +0000

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.

By: Catron

Catron — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:41:08 +0000

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.

By: John Campbell

John Campbell — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:32:48 +0000

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.

By: Catron

Catron — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:36:12 +0000

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

By: disinter

disinter — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:26:20 +0000

JesuBub and oliverc - well said.

By: Andrew C

Andrew C — Sun, 20 May 2007 06:15:24 +0000

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.

By: Gene Berkman

Gene Berkman — Thu, 10 May 2007 21:57:45 +0000

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?

By: Catron

Catron — Thu, 10 May 2007 19:07:02 +0000

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.

By: oliverc

oliverc — Thu, 10 May 2007 18:45:55 +0000

@ 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??