Ron Paul has caught fire in the blogosphere primarily due to his ostensible fidelity to principle. His supporters believe that, unlike most other politicians, he won’t compromise his core values for the sake of political expediency. This is how Reason puts it:
What makes Paul especially unusual is this: He takes the Constitution’s limits on federal power seriously. Before voting on a piece of legislation, he submits it to a two-part test. First, he asks if the program is actually authorized by the Constitution. If it is, he then consults his campaign promises, which include pledges to never raise taxes or increase spending.
Unfortunately, the good doctor’s voting record on health care tells a different story. I have already pointed one betrayal of libertarian principles here, and I have now discovered another vote that cannot be reconciled with his professed libertarianism. Last year, he voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay.
By voting “nay” on this bill, he supported a heavy-handed government mandate that requires hospitals to treat patients with no urgent condition and no money to cover their co-pay. The merits of the legislation notwithstanding, this is another vote that cannot be reconciled with a libertarian philosophy.
Comments 9
“By voting ‘nay’ on this bill, he supported a heavy-handed government mandate that requires hospitals to do their job.”
Fixed that for you. Remember 911 provides 3 services, only one of which you have to pay for.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 9:50 am ¶a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
That minor gash untreated today, turns into tomorrows septic infection. That septic infection requires emergency care and bed rest. That bed rest strains the finances of the poor family and if it goes on long enough, it causes unemployment.
Thus, for the lack of $60 in prevention you now have a family of 4 living on the street.
Reconcile that with your narrow-minded political beliefs.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 10:08 am ¶perhaps you should read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2078004,00.html
Posted 12 May 2007 at 10:14 am ¶This is taken out of context because we all know that the title of the bill means nothing. Maybe something in the bill violated the constitution, you can’t be sure until you read and understand the full text.
“Last year, he voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay.”
Are you seriously going to feed us this one-liner and expect us to believe you? Their are some times when Ron Paul must choose between a good bill that includes bad things, or a bad bill that introduces good things. And by his voting record, his speeches, and his affiliations, we can trust him to make the correct decision. Calling Ron Paul a Faux Libertarian is like calling Mises a Socialist, it’s blatantly false. It’s gonna take a lot more than a single Nay vote taken out of context to slander Ron Paul.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 11:30 am ¶Edward, we’re not talking about a “minor gash” or any other condition requiring timely treatment. No hospital (in this country) would turn away that kind of patient. We’re talking about services that can be put off for weeks and even months with no ill effect. That would give the patient enough time to dig up the co-pay.
But such issues are red herrings. The point is that the good doctor claims to be a libertarian, and he clearly isn’t one.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 11:49 am ¶Dr. Ron Paul is a true libertarian as well as a scholar and a gentleman. You, Dear Catron, may be a nice guy but you come across as a misguided zealot with an agenda. Why don’t you stop nitpicking and look at the broader context.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 12:35 pm ¶There is no “one true faith” among Libertarians, only various shades of political belief. Some of my own views are rather far out of the Libertarian mainstream — Ron Paul would disagree with my geolibertarian viewpoint on real estate (I believe in the Georgist view on “land rent” is philosophically compelling) — but that doesn’t make him any more or less of a Libertarian.
However, if you do feel that strongly about the subject, then perhaps we can agree on a title like “Ron Paul: Most Libertarian candidate running in either major party.” Even if he does fall short of your view in a couple of areas, at the very least he is closest candidate we have running for President.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 1:45 pm ¶Mike, you’re correct on the “one true faith” thing, of course, but his votes on this issue and the CMS drug “negotiation” bill are just too much for me. Both bills involve VERY heavy-handed government meddling with the market.
Posted 12 May 2007 at 4:03 pm ¶Damn Ron Paul for not being a self-righteous libertarian. What’s next, taking some stance on poisonous Chinese imports or divert federal funds to local EMS? DAMN YOU RON PAUL!!!
Posted 22 May 2007 at 3:20 pm ¶Post a Comment