I have already dealt with Ron Paul’s disingenuous Libertarian pose here and here, but frequent commenter Matt inadvertently reminded me of another of the good doctor’s phony claims that I have neglected to debunk.
Dr. Paul has often boasted, in support of his ostensible libertarianism, that he refused to accept Medicare when he practiced medicine. This claim has been widely repeated in the “news” media and it also appears at Wikipedia.
However, for anyone familiar with Ron Paul’s medical career and the nuances of Medicare, his bombastic ”refusal” is obviously another of his many affectations. Ron Paul was an obstetrician, and Medicare is a program for the elderly.
It should be obvious, even to Paul’s supporters in the wackosphere, that women over 65 don’t have a lot of babies. So, when he brags that he “did not accept Medicare,” it’s like boasting that he refuses to accept campaign contributions from aardvarks.
As with so much of Dr. Paul’s rhetoric, his claims about Medicare constitute precisely the sort of political posturing that he claims to be against. Like all political hacks, he is quite adept at exploiting the naiveté of his supporters.
Comments 78
If this is the closest thing to being disingenuous that can be associated with Ron Paul, than I’d say he’s in pretty good shape compared with the other candidates.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:05 am ¶Sounds like you are one of these:
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/where-rudy-mcromneys-money-goes/
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:12 am ¶Ever heard of Medicaid?
and
Ever heard of Gynecology?
And nothing like “wackosphere” for substantive commentary. Good luck on that.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:18 am ¶Ever heard of Medicaid?
The post is about Medicare. But, since you bring it up, his position on Medicaid is even more contemptible. By refusing to accept Medicaid, he is essentially refusing to treat poor women.
What a guy.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:27 am ¶Sounds like you are one of these:
Is that tinfoil hat uncomfortable?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:39 am ¶Ron Paul was an OB/GYN if you think old people never go see one of those… you’re very confused about what that is.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:42 am ¶If he refused to accept Medicare, he was only treating elderly women with money.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:49 am ¶The ignorance of that statement by someone that claims to understand libertarianism is beyond laughable.
Anyway, onward to debunk more of your nonsense…
From the wikipedia article you linked to:
“Dr. Paul did not accept Medicare or Medicaid as a physician; instead, he worked for free or arranged discounted or custom payment plans for needy patients.”
Yea, what a guy. Terrible, he is.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:51 am ¶I can’t believe Rudy paid you to come up with something and you didn’t even come up with anything with substance. Is this how he’ll run his administration?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:55 am ¶He’s the one who went to all those extra years of school… he’s the one who started his own practice… if he wants to except only bottle caps and pocket lint as payment, that should be up to him… I don’t understand what the problem is… you’re smearing this guy just for the sake of it… your argument has no basis in logic or morality…
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:55 am ¶Sigh …. I guess a brief lesson in health care demographics is in order:
Medicaid is a program for the poor. They, by definition, aren’t able to participate in “custom payment plans.”
Moreover, if the good doctor treated such patients, refused to accept Medicaid, and then made them pay anything, he broke several federal laws.
But he isn’t that dumb. Trust me, he just refused to treat them.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:00 am ¶Perhaps you missed this part, again:
“instead, he worked for free or”
Trust you? You have got to be kidding.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:04 am ¶Yet you’ll trust the good doctor, who is obviously playing you for a chump.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:06 am ¶***siiiiiiighhhhhhh***
yeah… you’re so above this conversation… whatever… If you can’t understand the moral opposition to treating someone on the government dole.. I guess there’s no hope for you.
Government programs are charities at the point of a gun, and advocating for them does not put you on the moral high ground. Paul has done far more charity work than the vast majority of people will ever do.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:09 am ¶kinda looks like you’re in favor of RP over here….
http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/04/ron-paul-is-right-on-health-care/
are you in favor of the market or are you in favor of medicare and medicaid? you can’t have it both ways.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:11 am ¶I liked his rhetoric when I first read about him, but subsequent research has shown him to be a major humbug.
A free market position doesn’t preclude progams like Medicare or Medicaid. Our masters in Washington could (if they wished) reform those programs so they don’t distort the market.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:18 am ¶You can call Ron Paul a fraud, but when someone points out that you may be the one that is the actual fraud, you delete the comment? Are you afraid of the truth?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:23 am ¶The deleted comment didn’t add anything of value to the discussion. I provided evidence for my “fraud” charge.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:23 am ¶Right… like calling Ron Paul a “fraud” does?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:24 am ¶Unlike me, a lowly blogger, Ron Paul is in a position to do real harm to the cause of health care reform. So, drawing attention to his phony claims is a useful exercise.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:29 am ¶He’s advocating for reform by refusing those patients… as is his RIGHT.
“Our masters in Washington could (if they wished) reform those programs so they don’t distort the market.”
yeah… it’s called privatization and charity.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:31 am ¶We have a Congress so that bills like RealID, amnesty, and even abolishment of Medicrap does not come until the country is ready for it. Society doesn’t change overnight.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:32 am ¶If anyone wants to know the in-depth truth about Ron Paul’s views on the healthcare can go here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=22
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:32 am ¶*views on healthcare
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:33 am ¶Yes, you’re absolutely right! The great part about turning 65 is that you no longer have a vagina.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:38 am ¶I recommend you actually read some of those links you have on the side. Start with Mises and Cato.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:38 am ¶right on disinter… it’s like this blogger started out good… then got replaced by his evil socialist twin.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:40 am ¶Disinter, you’re not paying attention. For those of us who dwell on planet Earth, it is obvious that Medicare and Medicaid aren’t going away. So, deregulation is the only realistic choice.
It is possible to live with Medicare and Medicaid in an environment that does not include the regulatory disaster that CMS has created (with the collusion of Ron Paul and his accomplices).
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:48 am ¶I’ve been going back through your older posts to try and get a feel for where you’re coming from, Catron… and my conclusion is that you are an free market guy… I just don’t understand where this article comes from… how can someone who supports the free market be opposed to rejecting patients based on those beliefs? You’re misrepresenting ron paul as a liar using most peoples ignorance of medicine and our socialist programs to drum up what? hatred? interest in your blog?
“So, when he brags that he “did not accept Medicare,” it’s like boasting that he refuses to accept campaign contributions from aardvarks.”
that statement is just asinine… because everyone who’s given it any thought knows that medicare patients need OB/GYNs… Just because he’s not rejecting dozens of these people a day does not make it any less of a true statement that he “did not accept medicare”.
It seems to me that you have some other policy items you don’t agree with and you’re grasping at straws to find a way to shoe horn your disagreement into this blogs topic area.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:53 am ¶You still don’t get it. Medicare/Medicaid are the antithesis of a free market.
Again, try reading the sites you have linked to. You are very confused.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:55 am ¶“For those of us who dwell on planet Earth, it is obvious that Medicare and Medicaid aren’t going away.”
because we’ve had it for several decades… now it’s permanent? I reject that philosophy.
“So, deregulation is the only realistic choice.”
I agree… complete and total deregulation… privatization even.
“It is possible to live with Medicare and Medicaid in an environment that does not include the regulatory disaster that CMS has created (with the collusion of Ron Paul and his accomplices).”
No, it’s not.. those of us that live on planet earth realize that the government is incapable of running any service without turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare full of corruption, paperwork and failure.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:59 am ¶Well, for not knowing Ron Paul’s complete position on Medicare and Medicaid and going on the writings of this blog, I would say a couple things;
Just because a women is 65 and on Medicare, does not mean that elderly women stop seeing an OB/GYN. Furthermore, just because someone is on Medicare does not mean they are elderly.
Catron said “Moreover, if the good doctor treated such patients, refused to accept Medicaid, and then made them pay anything, he broke several federal laws.”
If Ron Paul does not participate in the Medicare and Medicare program, he would not be subject to the Federal Laws that govern them. If he had his Medicare / Medicaid patients sign the correct paper work (an ABN; a among other things), he could most certainly see them on a cash / discount basis.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 11:04 am ¶danb–philosophically, we’re actually on the same page. In a perfect (Libertarian) world, Medicare and Medicaid would be gone.
Since that ain’t gonna happen, particularly in the Pelosi/Reid congress, I just think my position is more realistic.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 11:07 am ¶Scott, that is true for Medicare. It is not true for Medicaid, which is what my comment was about. And the ABN is for a different contingency altogether.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 11:13 am ¶Good thinking. Accept the status quo and label anyone that doesn’t agree with Pelosi/Reid a “fraud” for being “un-realistic”.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 11:17 am ¶“danb–philosophically, we’re actually on the same page. In a perfect (Libertarian) world, Medicare and Medicaid would be gone.”
We’re not on the same page at all.. you seem to think that just because this broken ass system has been around for a while.. that it will be around forever.. I completely disagree.
“Since that ain’t gonna happen, particularly in the Pelosi/Reid congress, I just think my position is more realistic.”
Realistic or defeatist? fine line.
disparaging someone who wants some drastic change is a fine way to see that your prophecy is self-fulfilling.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 11:21 am ¶Disparaging someone who wants some drastic change is a fine way to see that your prophecy is self-fulfilling.
That’s a nice segue to my original point. Ron Paul doesn’t want drastic change. He’s a typical DC hack who has figured a way to gain some notoriety by exploiting the naiveté of folks like you.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:01 pm ¶So he’s just making it all up and his entire platform and message is just more of the same old poo… I see. Go ahead and vote for Rudy/Obama and we’ll never know.
Your “realism” is a crutch… If you were truly interested in the free market and libertarianism, you’d see his message as a big step forward… It’s not perfect.. I don’t like his immigration stance.. and maybe he won’t be able to enact the majority of the change he has in mind.. but he’ll certainly shake things up more than the other “candidates” running for office.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:23 pm ¶BTW, you keep talking about Giuliani as if he’s for some sort of Hillarycare plan. In reality, he’s the only serious contender who touts free market reform.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:34 pm ¶Touts and does are two different things.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:42 pm ¶ever hear of medicare dude?
and he worked for free or gave big discounts with payment plans if they could not pay. Dissin the man for not spending YOUR money??? I guess whatever floats your boat.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:43 pm ¶danb–I deleted your Rudy rant because we’re not going to get into any tinfoil hat stuff about 9-11, etc. This blog deals with health care.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:54 pm ¶Touts and does are two different things.
Ron Paul “does” nothing except blow hot air.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 12:54 pm ¶Specifically, how is rudy’s hot air any different from ron paul’s hot air? Paul has a congressional voting record and experience in the medical profession.. what does rudy have? besides being in the right place at the right time?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 1:08 pm ¶Also.. if you’re going to delete my comment about the 9-11 stuff… please, delete your comment about me being in the tin-foil-hat club… as I cannot defend myself and I said nothing that falls into that category. I’m not a “truther” or any sort of conspiracy theorist.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 1:12 pm ¶danb - this guy is obviously a shill. Time to move on.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 1:37 pm ¶disinter, I hesitate to call ANYONE a shill… I think that is a cop-out.. I want to understand the position of people like Catron and have a well reasoned and logical debate about our differences of opinion. It’s obvious to me that we share some baseline beliefs and I want to get at the root of the disagreement.. not hurl accusations and dismiss his opinions.
I whole heartedly disagree with his characterization of Dr. Paul in this article, but it’s important to me to understand why we can have some of the same ideals and still end up so far apart on this candidate.
It’s unlikely that’ll I can change someone’s opinion, or my own, but I’d like to think that we can discuss our differences and add value to the debate, rather than resort to name calling and add nothing but animosity.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 1:46 pm ¶You know Catron, your lack of an anchor in terms of specific goals is causing your opinions to run assbackward into each other.
On the one hand, you complain about Medicare/Medicaid and the reimbursement system, yet then you condemn those like Paul who don’t take it of “refusing to treat poor people.” Of course, you have no evidence of that fact, even though you rigorously demand evidence of those who disagree with you.
You seem to have this odd belief that Medicare/Medicaid will simply reform itself even though every physicians does the exact same thing and continues to accept its reimbursements. It’s like the concept of incentive to change is foreign to you.
You cry “free market, free market”, yet you dismiss the politician most likely to move us back toward it. I’m no Ron Paul supporter, and even I can see that. Every single other candidate will move us toward single payer/universal healthcare. Every one of them.
You want all the benefits of the free market for physicians and healthcare, but you want to protect them from the downside. Basically, you just want the govt. and insurers to pay them more, even though physicians won’t make any move to push them to do so.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 1:51 pm ¶Specifically, how is rudy’s hot air any different from ron paul’s hot air?
Ron Paul has had plenty of time to introduce serious reform legislation and has failed to do so. Giuliani has not yet had the opportunity to do so on a national level. So, the latter has more credibility (until he also fails to deliver).
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 1:58 pm ¶Catron… I suppose we can debate the meaning of the word “serious”… but what about these?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:03 pm ¶You cry “free market, free market”, yet you dismiss the politician most likely to move us back toward it.
Ron Paul has no real interest in reform. That’s the point of this posts. He’s a fraud.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:05 pm ¶“That’s the point of this posts. He’s a fraud.”
I think we have thoroughly debunked any actual claims you made in your post… you basically said that 65 year old women don’t have babies, therefor RP could not have refused their Medicare… but that is false… because 65 year old women DO go to the OB/GYN… so I’m not sure WHAT the point of this post is anymore.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶“Ron Paul has no real interest in reform. That’s the point of this posts. He’s a fraud.”
Nor, does it appear, do you, beyond the kind of vague platitudes being put out by most of the Republican candidates.
Why is he a fraud? Because he doesn’t accept the reimbursements you have repeatedly deemed to be too low?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:10 pm ¶Matt, read the post, dude.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:12 pm ¶Catron… I suppose we can debate the meaning of the word “serious”… but what about these?
They aren’t especially serious. They certainly aren’t comprehensive. And I don’t know that he introduced them.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:13 pm ¶Catron, he did introduce 3 of them… google the bill numbers.
we can quibble about “serious” all day.. but Ron Paul introduces more legislation than any other congressman… he also reads every bill he votes on (except when it’s not available (patriot act))… which is pretty rare these days.
I’m not sure what you consider serious… or how you can possibly think that rudy would do any better… given his track record as mayor.. I am skeptical.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:22 pm ¶Ron Paul introduces more legislation than any other congressman.
That’s a sign that he’s NOT serious.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶What’s the number of legislative introductions that qualifies one as “serious”?
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶“That’s a sign that he’s NOT serious.”
It’s a sign he’s the MOST serious.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:33 pm ¶Invariably, the people who introduce tons of no-prayer bills are cranks. And most serious observers regard him as just that. I happen to think he’s less a crank than a con artist.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶Why? Do you believe his positions aren’t consistent with his principles?
Whatever criticisms one may have of Paul’s policies, consistency cannot be one of them. You’ll not find the equivocation Giuliani has often shown in his attempts to court the Christian right.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:39 pm ¶OK. Wer’e off in the weeds on this.
The point of the orginal post was that the good doctor claims he refused Medicare on principle when it is pretty obvious that he had few or no Medicare patients.
That makes him a poseur, and not one of the above comments addresses that issue.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:47 pm ¶This guy is obviously a Giuliani shill, and one who censors comments at that.
I advise everyone here to digg down this ludicrous blog and move on.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:50 pm ¶I rest my case.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 2:56 pm ¶Paul is not the solution to America’s health problems, neither is the current system.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:10 pm ¶Forget this hell cooked up by Nixon and take a cue from the rest of the Western world.
Can’t you see how barbaric the US is when it concerns public health?
I see that Nixon has replaced Rudy as the villain of the piece.
Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:22 pm ¶Rudy’s not a villain, he’s just not a very good candidate. Your attacks on Paul are simply baseless.
Posted 24 Jul 2007 at 9:48 am ¶If they are baseless, why can’t you (or any of these other folks) provide a coherent refutation of my basic point?
Posted 24 Jul 2007 at 10:44 am ¶Other than disliking Paul, and oddly favoring Rudy - I say oddly given your libertarian pretenses - what is your basic point?
Posted 24 Jul 2007 at 11:09 am ¶Read the post, Matt. The point is clearly discernable to the open mind (hint: it has nothing to do with Giuliani).
Posted 24 Jul 2007 at 1:05 pm ¶Ummm…hate to burst your bubble, but old women do still have VAGINAS! They still go to the ob/GYN…the GYN, of course standing for gynecologist, to get there their yearly check up (aka: PAP SMEAR). You may want to look a little deeper into woman’s health issues smarty pants.
Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 6:33 pm ¶OK. I thought the point of this post was pretty easy to follow, but it has obviously eluded you and many of the other folks who left comments. So, let’s try it one more time:
Since women over 65 don’t have babies, Dr. Paul couldn’t refuse to accept Medicare for such patients. I didn’t speak (explicitly) to gynecology because I thought it would be obvious to the meanest intelligence that elderly patients with Medicare are not going to use a doctor who won’t accept their coverage. Patients simply don’t behave that way. They go to someone else who does accept Medicare.
Thus, when he says he didn’t accept Medicare, the good doctor is merely exploiting your naiveté.
Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 10:19 pm ¶I believe the doctor has said he doesn’t accept Medicaid OR Medicare. Which would put him in the free market. Which oddly, you criticize him for.
Posted 27 Jul 2007 at 1:58 pm ¶The point is that he claims to have “refused” Medicare and Medicaid, and it’s a pose. In reality, he would have had virtually no Medicare patients and “refusing” to accept Medicaid means “refusing” Medicaid (i.e. poor) patients. The guy’s a fraud.
Posted 27 Jul 2007 at 7:19 pm ¶Caltron,
You are making a mistake in thinking that Ron Paul is “exploiting the naiveté of folks …”
Ron Paul isn’t exploiting me, I (and many others) are exploiting him. Ron Paul has a very consistent voting record. One that I like. I am using Ron Paul to push that agenda center stage. So many people have joined us, that it is starting to look like we can do the required work in the required time.
I am not voting for Ron Paul because I think he is honest enough to put out Diogenes’ lantern, nor am I supporting him for what I think he will do. I am supporting Ron Paul because of what he already has done.
I frankly don’t care if shovels a ton of BS daily. All the other politicians and reporters and bloggers do, so why not him? I just want to see him elected, because I want to turn his voting record into a vetoing record.
Later.
Posted 31 Jul 2007 at 10:24 pm ¶Caltron, I don’t know where you’re coming from, but your basic point is incoherent.
You finally acknowledge that older women do in fact have vaginas, but then dismiss the point saying that none of them would come to Paul since he refuses to take Medicare.
“elderly patients with Medicare are not going to use a doctor who won’t accept their coverage”
How, then, COULD someone refuse Medicare? If it doesn’t count once people stop coming because they know there is no point, how could it count? If people kept on asking even though they new he didn’t take Medicare?
On the point of “neglecting the poor”, you have not tried to refute the assertations that he has helped the poor with both free and discounted care. Do you disagree he has provided such care or do you disagree that it counts as helping the poor?
Posted 05 Aug 2007 at 3:20 pm ¶How, then, COULD someone refuse Medicare?
My point is that he didn’t. It’s a pose. Ron Paul is a phony.
Posted 05 Aug 2007 at 8:21 pm ¶No, that doesn’t answer the question. I’m asking, what would someone who refuses Medicare look like? Would they not let people know in advance, so they could turn it down in their faces? Would they hide the fact that they do not accept Medicare?
Or are you saying the Paul has actually accepted Medicare?
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 4:00 pm ¶Post a Comment