Health Care BS

Comments 28

1. disinter wrote:

   So you are saying we have the money? Or do you suggest we print more out of thin air, further debasing the value of the money we have? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

   And yes, democracy is to be despaired. Here is why:

   http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 1:29 am ¶
2. Chris wrote:

   For one Paul was correct and for two if he is a nut then so were the founders who wrote the constitution which he bases all of his decisions on and three, The establishment media has been ignoring the hell out of him because he is a threat to the establishment. I have no idea what rock you’ve been under but you should really quit kissing the establishments ass you’ve got a brown nose and you’re full of shit because of it.

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 1:38 am ¶
3. Jared wrote:

   Perhaps you need a pie graph. Let me put this in simple words for you. There is only so much tax revenue the government can collect. Right now we are over taxed. If you had 3 dollars in your pocket and 1 dollar went to fight some cause you thought was just. One dollar went to pay for poor peoples health care and the other dollar goes to run the government. And you also go in the red a dollar. At the same time you have more people wanting health care because only a certain percentage of people are covered.

   What are you going to cut from the budget? (Keep in mind that due to the deficit in your budget you have to borrow money from an enemy who charges outrageous amounts of interest)

   Ron Pauls plan is to bring the troops home. Save the money that is used on the war and occupying 700 bases around the world. Cut some spending that is not needed. Like the Federal Department of Education. And use the excess money to fund social security which will go bankrupt and put alot of people in financial trouble if we don’t do something soon. He also advocates allowing people to trade gold and silver as currency. So people who like to save money will have a safe inflation proof way of saving their money. Once he gets spending and our debt under control he would like to work on getting rid of the IRS and replace it with nothing. Everyone would have more money to pay their bills etc.

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 2:25 am ¶
4. Jim Ostrowski wrote:

   “Do you have any clue what you are talking about?”

   No.

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 2:48 am ¶
5. Brent wrote:

   It’s also because we have managed care.

   But he is very right on this issue. Inflation eats up the healthcare issue. Your ignorance astounds me, especially when you said the “establishment media” is “promoting him”, which is very laughable in itself.

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 3:30 am ¶
6. disinter wrote:

   Go here for full context:

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018301.html

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 4:04 am ¶
7. Ron wrote:

   Apparently you’ve figured out how to afford guns and butter. You’re a genius. Now, please tell us how it’s done…

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 8:08 am ¶
8. Rich wrote:

   Hmmmm… we couldn’t afford universal healthcare BEFORE the war…

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 9:35 am ¶
9. Catron wrote:

   “Apparently you’ve figured out how to afford guns and butter.”

   The whole guns versus butter meme is just another way of phrasing the false dichotomy.

   The uninsured problem has nothing to do with a lack of funds. It is the result of a market distorted by too much government meddling.

   If Ron Paul were a real Libertarian, that’s what he’d be talking about (instead of pandering to the isolationist nutjobs).

   Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 9:37 am ¶
10. Matt wrote:

    “But then the establishment media are promoting the hell out of him. ”

    You mean the establishment media who want to keep him out of debates?

    Your Ron Paul hatred has caused you to lose objectivity.

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 11:25 am ¶
11. erinzdad wrote:

    Catron said;

    “If Ron Paul were a real Libertarian, that’s what he’d be talking about (instead of pandering to the isolationist nutjobs).” (sic)

    Wow Catron you just keep putting your foot in it over and over. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He wants expanded trade, friendship, and CIVIL discourse. (as prescribed by our founders)

    If, not invading soveriegn nations (who have not harmed us) is your definition of isolationism then he is by your twisted definition an isolationist.

    Preemptive war is the creed of tryants. Hitler attacked without provocation. Stalin attacked without provocation. The historical list of totalitarian preemptive attacks are many. The neo-lib/cons have been and are now slouching toward a tyranical state. Is the light coming on yet Catron? WAKE UP !!! YOU HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED !!!

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶
12. Warren Norred wrote:

    I’m not sure why one thinks that universal health care is a right, or who was born to be the slave to provide other people with that service. However, Paul’s merely pointing out that a tax dollar can only be spent once, and by spending dollars in the Middle East, those dollars aren’t available to provide any other service.

    I’m not sure how you can argue with something like that, unless you are operating on a worldview that forgets money has to be taken from taxpayers, and that the money that you can take from taxpayers is limited.

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 4:32 pm ¶
13. Matt Horn wrote:

    Dang, RP is my congressman and I like the guy, but come on Paulbearers, his comment was ridiculous. For a libertarian to give any support to the universal healthcare idea is proposterous on it’s face. By bringing up the guns and butter line you show a lack of understanding of economics and free markets. The guns and butter assumes a closed market and a zero sum wealth equation. I believe it can only be applied to it’s original intent, allocating nitrate reserves to either fertilizer or gunpowder production. Even then it only applies in an economic vacuum. Want to know how to increase revenues to the federal government? Ask JFK and Regan. They knew.

    Posted 07 Jan 2008 at 1:35 pm ¶
14. Nicholas wrote:

    The above was an article by Ron Paul. I think it makes it very clear that he understands the issue at hand.

    As far as the writer’s original post: Paul’s statement is inarguable economically speaking. Every resource used by any entity is scarce and could serve multiple purposes.

    Posted 07 Jan 2008 at 2:43 pm ¶
15. Catron wrote:

    Nicholas, I deleted the Ron Paul article that you pasted into your previous comment. It’s inappropriate to drop a 750-word op-ed by someone else into a blog comment. If you want other commenters to read his stuff just provide a link.

    And, BTW, I don’t doubt that he “understands” health care. What I doubt is that he is an honest man. I also have my doubts about his emotional stability.

    Posted 07 Jan 2008 at 4:08 pm ¶
16. Matt Horn wrote:

    3075 is the government funding insurance premiums. 3076 is the government paying for malpractice insurance. 3077 is the government paying for certain medical expenses. That is pretty scary.

    3078 is great and I like it.

    Posted 07 Jan 2008 at 4:57 pm ¶
17. Rich wrote:

    The problem with the “guns or butter” argument is that it presupposes that the money SHOULD be spent in healthcare, if it were available.

    If his position is that the government should provide healthcare for all (if the funds were available and not being spent in Iraq), then he is not truly a conservative, and hardly a libertarian.

    Posted 07 Jan 2008 at 5:00 pm ¶
18. Nicholas wrote:

    Fair enough Catron….Here’s the link….Commentary and solutions on Healthcare from Ron Paul.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 8:30 am ¶
19. Nicholas wrote:

    Rich,

    I’m a supporter of Ron Paul, but my main criticism of him has been that everything is about Iraq.

    For instance, on Bloomberg yesterday, they asked him about monetary policy and he was able to invoke Iraq. Really, I see this as more evidence that he can tie any issue or ill of our country to Iraq. Frankly, it’s annoying to someone like myself, who agrees with 95% of his domestic agenda.

    To say he’s not a Libertarian….well, this blog is probably about the only place you’ll find this criticism of him. In fact, you’ll find many conservatives have a disdain for him because he’s too rigid in his Libertarian ideals.

    I don’t believe this is a call to expand Healthcare entitlements…just more of the same on his running Iraq commentary. If it is a call to expand entitlements, it would run counter to every comment I’ve read from him when discussing healthcare and his long voting record.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 9:35 am ¶
20. Matt Horn wrote:

    Nicholas, RP is my congressman and I have spoken to him on many occasions. My concerns are the pieces of legislation you mentioned. 3 out of the four are entitlement bills. Remember, the key phrase is “tax credit.” That is an entitlement and is entirely different than a deduction. It is also very un-libertarian.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 11:02 am ¶
21. Nicholas wrote:

    Matt,

    A Couple of Points:

    1) I could accept the tax credit as essentially a subsidy, but it’s not an entitlement.

    According to the Congressional Glossary:
    ENTITLEMENT SPENDING refers to funds for programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, & veterans’ benefits. Funding levels are automatically set by the number of eligible recipients, not at the discretion of Congress.

    What separates entitlement from subsidy in this case is that Paul’s plan allows for more tax payers to keep what’s theirs. An entitlement washes tax payer money and distributes it through a social program.

    2) Is this a good thing? Well, I think that Paul’s early commentary makes it clear that he’s attempting to neutralize the government involvement in Healthcare to include the irrational tax favoritism to employee sponsored health care. I would argue that we should eliminate the favoritism to business, but that will never happen.

    3) Agree the proposed legislation is probably unLibertarian on it’s face, but on strict definitions, I don’t believe that Ron Paul is a strict Libertarian. (see abortion stance, illegal immigration stance, etc.) libertarian (small “l”), yes. Good enough to be the 1988 libertarian nominee yes, but Libertarian (capital “L”) no.

    4) My point earlier in saying that he’s a Libertarian, is that he’s the closest thing in the Federal government to it. If we’re making relative comparisons among the politicians in terms of living up to their principles, I’d give Ron Paul high marks. If the main criticism of Paul were that he wasn’t Libertarian enough, then I think we’d all be in a better world ;-).

    For instance, Ronald Reagan, an eloquent defender of free trade, the same guy who famously said that “The very heart and sould of conservatism is libertarianism”, imposed “voluntary” quotas on Japanese cars. That’s the way of the world.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 12:47 pm ¶
22. Matt Horn wrote:

    1: “What separates entitlement from subsidy in this case is that Paul’s plan allows for more tax payers to keep what’s theirs. An entitlement washes tax payer money and distributes it through a social program.”
    I wil concede the wording entitlement. Now I will put it to the point: it is redistribution of wealth if put forth as a credit rather than deduction. This allows certain taxpayers to have other taxpayer subsidize their premiums.

    2. “he’s attempting to neutralize the government involvement in Healthcare to include the irrational tax favoritism to employee sponsored health care.”
    In that case, he has no understanding of the tax implications premiums have on business. Level playing field is something we all want, but businesses get deductions, not credits. If he was serious, he would support a bill that allows for individuals to recieve deductions.

    3. You are the one that used “L”ibertarian. The proposed legislation is almost Marxist and not one of RP’s most brilliant offerings.

    4. I would agree with you there, I like RP but he has a distinct nievete regarding health care and health care reform. I don’t think he needs to be more “L”ibertarian. He just needs to get educated on the true issues of healthcare and not expect the government to pick up the tab. He is remarkably weak on this issue.

    The difference with Regan was that he appreciated and understood libertarianism, he didn’t necessarily follow it.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶
23. Nicholas wrote:

    Matt,

    My only point in invoking Reagan was not that he was libertarian, it’s that for even the most principled politicians, there’s often a difference between the principles that they espouse and what they do.

    Ron Paul is stronger than any other candidate as far as consistency of principles, and that’s why I chime in when I see that he’s attacked on those grounds. If that’s the critique someone is going to put at the feet of Ron Paul, then it is de minimis in comparison to what should be laid at the feet of every other politician.

    But FWIW, I think those are some good criticisms on his proposed policies in regard to healthcare.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶
24. Matt Horn wrote:

    I agree Nicholas. My interactions with him have given me great personal regard for the man. I have called his office to discuss a piece of legislation and his stance on it and he called me personally. Not once, but twice. I have yet to get a boilerplate letter. Apart from his diversions into conspiracy land and isolationist tendancies, I agree with his general mindset. Smaller government, less taxation, put the citizen first. As I told my dad, I think his importance is in putting a focus back on those fundamentals. I don’t support his presidential bid, but I think he is indespensible to the debate.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 6:39 pm ¶
25. Rich Paul wrote:

    Wow. We’ve had a republican administration preside over the worst explosion of federal spending since FDR, and you guys want to throw stones at Ron Paul? The only candidate out there who knows that it’s your money, not his? Amazing!

    You guys are so blinded by battle-lust that you can’t see what kind of big-government scum you have been supporting for the last 8 years. I saw republicans elected, and thought there might be some spending cuts, but I’ll never make that mistake again. Not just the war. The moron-in-chief couldn’t figure out how to veto a bill for his first 5 years. No child left behind! A huge new prescription drug entitlement. Welfare, welfare, welfare.

    And why should we be surprised that he should decide to give welfare to the whole world? Why shouldn’t we dump some billions on each country in the Middle East. Maybe they’ll start to like us. Don’t hold your breath. Handouts don’t work that way.

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 10:32 pm ¶
26. Will Jolly wrote:

    Ron Paul wants to get rid of the ERISA law and shift the tax deductions therein from employers to individual employees. He also wants to repeal the HMO Act. He has also introduced, among several other bills, a bill that would allow a tax deduction for purchasing “negative outcomes” insurance, which he touts as a way to make sure anyone harmed during a medical procedure recieves compensation, therefore creating a mechanism for lowering malpractice insurance costs.
    I don’t think Dr. Paul has any true “naivete” towards the healthcare issue, as one other poster suggested. Rather, I think that his more than forty-six years as a practicing M.D. have given him great insight into this particular problem. He is also someone who has been in the medical field long enough to see the transition that the U.S. has made from free-market healthcare to bureaucratized healthcare, and he is the only presidential candidate to offer detailed, common-sense solutions on how to fix our broken healthcare system.

    Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 6:13 pm ¶
27. Matt Horn wrote:

    Hi Will, I think I outlined the problems in his proposals above. You seem to be saying that those big government and redistributionist ideas are just peachy because they come from RP. The fact that he is an MD tells me he knows the human body and how to treat it’s ailments, no more, no less.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 11:05 am ¶
28. Will Jolly wrote:

    How is repealing the HMO Act a “big government idea?” How is transferring tax deductions from businesses to individuals, thereby ending the collectivitization of healthcare costs which occurs with mandatory employer-sponsored insurance, a “big government idea?” Once again, the anti-Paul contingency puts their collective foots in their mouths.

    Posted 15 Feb 2008 at 10:32 pm ¶

Post a Comment