It’s probably safe to say that the universe of Ron Paul partisans doesn’t overlap much with that of President Bush’s supporters. This is ironic because, foreign policy disagreements notwithstanding, the two politicians are actually in agreement on most issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of health care. Here, for example, is how each comes down on government-run health care:
Ron Paul: As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship … The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine …
George W. Bush: I’m absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don’t want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers … I don’t want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody.
And they also agree on allowing small businesses to buy insurance through trade associations:
Ron Paul: [Voted yes] to pass a bill that would permit the creation of association health plans through which small companies could group together to buy insurance for their employees.
George W. Bush: Small businesses should be allowed to buy insurance from a trade association, giving them the same purchasing power as a large company and bringing down the cost.
Another area of agreement involves health savings accounts:
Ron Paul: Voted yes on establishing tax-exempt medical savings accounts … bill allows all taxpayers to create an account for paying medical expenses …
George W. Bush: Bush wants to let consumers put enough money in their health savings accounts to cover all their health costs …
Ironically, on health care issues about which they disagree, Bush is closer than Dr. Paul to the Libertarian position. The most obvious example involves their positions on government arm-twisting of the pharmaceutical industry:
Ron Paul: Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted today to allow the government to “negotiate” the price of prescription drugs bought for Medicare Part D. Ron Paul voted for it.
George W. Bush: President Bush promised on Thursday to veto Democratic-drafted legislation requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies …
In other words, Paul (the professed Libertarian) is for government interference in the free market while Bush (the big-government conservative) is against it. An odd reversal of roles to say the least.
Nonetheless, considering the animosity that most Ron Paul partisans feel toward President Bush, it is indeed ironic that there isn’t really much daylight between the two men on health care policy.
Comments 3
I don’t see how this is that interesting. First of all, your first example is an exaggerated similarity. Bush says he is absolutely opposed to it, Ron Paul says the solution is not outright socialized medicine. There is a big difference there. Ron Paul doesn’t say there should be no socialization, he says it shouldn’t be outright. Bush says he is absolutely opposed to national health care.
Furthermore, I think most of the things mentioned are the types of things most republicans/conservatives would agree on, even those who have major philosophical differences in other areas.
Finally, the conclusion you draw from Ron Paul’s vote to allow negotiation for drug prices is wrong. He is did not vote for government interference in health care, he voted for the already intervening government to be allowed to negotiate prices for drugs so they might get them at a more fair price. It is decidedly socialist to disallow negotiation for price on a product.
Posted 16 May 2007 at 10:10 am ¶Nice try — pulling a couple of quotes without looking at the two men’s positions and VOTING Record. Checking their past pronouncements and votes, we find that Bush and Dr. Paul DISAGREE on health care.
Ron Paul wants the federal government to get out of subsidizing patients and regulating the health care industry. He sees no role for government in health care. He would close down the FDA, and rightly so.
Rhetoric aside, Bush would never seek to pull back from the quasi-socialist medical care system we have today. He wants to tinker with the system, while, if anything, EXPANDING the number of people’s health care paid for by the taxpayers.
Dr. Paul will vote for the occasional positive tinkering, such as health care IRA’s. But, given a vote on the federal involvement or funding of health care, he votes NO every time. That’s why they call him “Dr. No.”
Posted 19 May 2007 at 1:11 am ¶Actually, he doesn’t vote “no” every time. He voted “yes” for government price fixing, as I discuss here, and this would have been one of the most anti-libertarian pieces of legislation in a decade. I think a better name for him would be “Dr. Faux.”
Posted 20 May 2007 at 3:57 pm ¶Post a Comment