News Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Support
Click For Summary
Support for Congressman Ron Paul is strong among some voters who appreciate his old-fashioned ideas, contrasting him with candidates like Rudy Giuliani, who is viewed negatively by some participants in the discussion. However, Ron Paul faces significant criticism regarding past statements in his newsletters that have been labeled as racist, with accusations suggesting he correlates race with crime. While some defend Paul by claiming he did not personally write those statements, others argue that the content reflects poorly on him regardless of authorship. Despite his appeal to a niche audience, many participants believe he lacks the support necessary to win the Republican primaries. The conversation highlights the complexities of political support and the impact of controversial statements on a candidate's viability.
  • #31
cyrusabdollahi said:
He is a medical doctor, so I don't think hed tell people to wear magnetic bracelets. :-p
Crystal bracelets? But only as long as they're not FDA approved. So that limits the types of crystals.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I think Ron Paul is way of on health care.

Giving people the ability to 'alternative medicine and new treatments' seems to miss the point of health care and public health entirely. The US health care system is spending more money on expensive and invasive procedures late in life instead of improving public health over all. I'm willing to bet that the US spends ~4 times as much on those over 65 years of age than the ones below (old figures, might not be relevant today). I think that the focus should be on improving public health instead of pledging to pay for all the procedures for old people in a system that ignores preventative measures. What public health needs seems to be more funding from a federal level on this that matters, instead of 'alternative medicine' and expensive treatments mentioned above.

What makes me sad is that the discussion on health care is about providing these late age treatments instead of public health efforts.
 
  • #34
Moridin said:
I think Ron Paul is way of on health care.

Giving people the ability to 'alternative medicine and new treatments' seems to miss the point of health care and public health entirely. The US health care system is spending more money on expensive and invasive procedures late in life instead of improving public health over all. I'm willing to bet that the US spends ~4 times as much on those over 65 years of age than the ones below (old figures, might not be relevant today). I think that the focus should be on improving public health instead of pledging to pay for all the procedures for old people in a system that ignores preventative measures. What public health needs seems to be more funding from a federal level on this that matters, instead of 'alternative medicine' and expensive treatments mentioned above.

What makes me sad is that the discussion on health care is about providing these late age treatments instead of public health efforts.

As was mentioned many times after Sicko was released, US health care is difficult to fund because there are no price caps on anything. Places like Canada and UK don't have a problem funding health care for those same numbers of old people because each person costs less than half as much. If drugs will cost $100 in the US, it will be more like $10-20 in Canada, UK, France, Australia, etc.

I can't speak for Ron, but he's probably talking about preventative measures with alternative medicine. Yoga (stretching) is generally a good idea; I don't think any good doctor will tell you not to stretch. Tai chi is exercise for fat and old people, so that's a good idea. Chiropractors can fix minor back problems for a lot less than what an osteopath will charge. Magnet therapy cures hypochondria (lol). Herbs are very strong placebos.

Alternative medicine is not a bad idea when you're talking about an expensive system that accounts for the majority of personal bankruptcies. If your problem can be prevented with a bit of stretching and slow movements, that's probably a lot cheaper than having heart bypass or prescription pain killers.
 
  • #35
I would never vote for a Texan or a fundamentalist christian, I will only vote for an American.
 
  • #36
rockytriton said:
I would never vote for a Texan or a fundamentalist christian, I will only vote for an American.

Is that statement supposed to mean anything? :confused:
 
  • #37
jimmysnyder said:
I looked for the words pray and religion in that document. Pray does not occur at all. Religion appears once, but does not say that the Boy Scouts are allowed to hold religious ceremonies in schools. I don't think your phrase 'regardless of the ceremony they're performing' was supported in that article, but I didn't read it thoroughly. My guess is that the document changes nothing in this regard, you still can't spend tax money on religious ceremonies.


This is a straw man argument. The only activities barred are religious ones.

You're right. Saying the Boy Scouts of America perform religious ceremonies is a big stretch, but there is a reason there was a special legislative act to ensure they had equal access to public facilities.

Being open only to members that share the same moral and religious beliefs caused a lot of litigation. About 400 military bases and a 1,000 other government entities (mainly schools) were forced to quit sponsoring Boy Scout troops.

The only reason that's relevant is that those are the types of situations that make some of Paul's comments attractive to quite a large number of people. Any damage the Boy Scouts may cause to society (either actively or just by helping prolong discriminatory traditions) is certainly unclear to the average person and contributes to the "ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded)".

Paul said:
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.

Edit: Rereading, maybe you thought I was saying your first post was wrong. I was asking if your Hugo Black quote was relevant to CINA's scenario. It may have been relevant specifically to a Christmas play, but I kind of had the impression he was talking in more general terms about how any association with religion at all is driven out of public facilities.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
As was mentioned many times after Sicko was released, US health care is difficult to fund because there are no price caps on anything. Places like Canada and UK don't have a problem funding health care for those same numbers of old people because each person costs less than half as much. If drugs will cost $100 in the US, it will be more like $10-20 in Canada, UK, France, Australia, etc.

Please. Health care is not about drugs. Or the cost of drugs. The reason the US health care / public health system is in such a disarray is because of Republican cut backs and their attempts to limit federal funding of basic public health. We are not talking expensive drugs or even expensive procedures, but preventive public health, health education.

The reason health care is 'difficult to fund' is because the Republicans does not understand what health care is about. The majority of the sensible health care propositions or motions has been butchered in Congress by republicans throughout the late 20th century.

I can't speak for Ron, but he's probably talking about preventative measures with alternative medicine. Yoga (stretching) is generally a good idea; I don't think any good doctor will tell you not to stretch. Tai chi is exercise for fat and old people, so that's a good idea. Chiropractors can fix minor back problems for a lot less than what an osteopath will charge. Magnet therapy cures hypochondria (lol). Herbs are very strong placebos.

Do you even know what the term 'alternative medicine' means?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alternativemedicine.html

Homeopathy, for instance, is 'alternative medicine'. It is basically about drinking diluted substances (almost water) and is nothing more than pseudoscience. Yoga is not alternative medicine. Neither is any form of exercise. The Placebo effect is just a way of ripping people off most of the time. What is needed is actual public health, focusing on prevention and education.
 
  • #39
As was mentioned many times after Sicko was released, US health care is difficult to fund because there are no price caps on anything. Places like Canada and UK don't have a problem funding health care for those same numbers of old people because each person costs less than half as much. If drugs will cost $100 in the US, it will be more like $10-20 in Canada, UK, France, Australia, etc.

The problem with price caps is that they don't alter costs. It has been said that it costs pharma companies $800 million to develop a new drug. And how many years of education and money does it take to be part of developing a new drug. How many drugs come out of Canada, UK and France? They all use American drugs because there is better incentive and rewards here. How many of those companies import med staff? It's been said that the UK imports half, because UK med students have to deal with more bueracracy and lower salary. Changing price does not change cost, that is simple economics.

Moridin said:
Please. Health care is not about drugs. Or the cost of drugs. The reason the US health care / public health system is in such a disarray is because of Republican cut backs and their attempts to limit federal funding of basic public health. We are not talking expensive drugs or even expensive procedures, but preventive public health, health education.

Democrats have massive health education campaigns planned? I haven't heard any. What has a liberal congress done so far? I don't think health education would do much for genetic problems. Also personally speaking I never got much out of sex ed or health class in school. It should come from parental teaching and examples in the household, not the government.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Democrats have massive health education campaigns planned? I haven't heard any. What has a liberal congress done so far? I don't think health education would do much for genetic problems. Also personally speaking I never got much out of sex ed or health class in school. It should come from parental teaching and examples in the household, not the government.

No, that would be at state or county level. Its funding, however, comes from federal dollars. Congress is all about funding public health. I'm not looking short-term here. These (severe) budget cuts for funding public health has been going on under the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, where democrats have been at the forefront in advocating it. Resurrecting functional health care is a massive task. A case in point was when Rodham Clinton got a taste of when her health care reform hit Congress in -93. The point is that every good suggestion is slaughtered by Congress to nothing more than sharply reduced block grants. Time and time again. The politics concerning public health is a long, long struggle.

Preventative education and care would even help 'genetic problems', such as heart disease by alternating ones life style.

The problem with US health care is not the government, it is the lack of government. If you leave it up to the states or counties and at the same time cutting back on funding public health (which has been done repeatedly on Medicaid, Medicare throughout the last ~20 years, heavy layoffs etc.) it is a disaster waiting to happen (and it has). People who are uncovered is steadily increasing. More and more people are falling under the poverty line.
 
  • #41
Moridin said:
People who are uncovered is steadily increasing. More and more people are falling under the poverty line.

Mostly because of poor life choices. Why should the government bail them out? Moreover, why should I bail them out. I am a small business owner and have to pay for my own health insurance. It's only $70/m. Who can't pay that? In my city you can goto the ghetto and see cars lined up, block to block. You can see tvs with cable in every house and I bet cellphones in every pocket. The poor is not really poor in the US. It's just people with terrible budgeting and poor life choices.
 
  • #42
Mostly because of poor life choices. Why should the government bail them out? Moreover, why should I bail them out.

Yes, I'm sure that all poor and sick people are just trying to rip you off, personally. All poor people living in misery are doing so by their own free will. How delusional can you get? Your own experience (and probably cognitive bias) is nothing compared with statistics. Try backing up your argument with statistics please.

I'm sure that you are in desperate need for the few miserly dollars that goes to public health from your taxes. A better question is why you should pay for an unjustified war that is going nowhere? For giving away arms to the Middle East? Come to think about it, why should you pay for state primary education? After all, you do not use it right now? Why should you pay for any number of things that benefit the citizens of the US for what you do not use at the moment? Threats to public health does not understand class borders. It does not care if you are rich or poor. Public health is about the collective, not the individual.
 
  • #43
Moridin said:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alternativemedicine.html

Homeopathy, for instance, is 'alternative medicine'. It is basically about drinking diluted substances (almost water) and is nothing more than pseudoscience. Yoga is not alternative medicine. Neither is any form of exercise. The Placebo effect is just a way of ripping people off most of the time. What is needed is actual public health, focusing on prevention and education.

According to Harvard it is, along with everything else that was mentioned.

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968.html#tuvwxyz
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Moridin said:
Yes, I'm sure that all poor and sick people are just trying to rip you off, personally. All poor people living in misery are doing so by their own free will. How delusional can you get? Your own experience (and probably cognitive bias) is nothing compared with statistics. Try backing up your argument with statistics please.
He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.

Job requirements are on a bell curve, just like everything else at life. If suddenly 100% of the population had finished high school and had a bachelor degree, jobs would start requiring masters and PhDs. Just look at current job requirements and you can see how this is true; entry level jobs for analytical chemistry often require 5-10 years of experience or they won't even look at you. Engineering is a bit better, requiring maybe 2+ years of experience. Anything IT related practically needs a PhD because the market is so heavily saturated. Employers never care about absolute, they always want relative. They want the top 10% of people no matter what.

Greg has a point when he says poor people have cell phones and RIMZ, but that doesn't change the fact that not everybody can have a good paying job. I can't think of any economic model that would "fix" that problem, except for communism, but that doesn't really bring up the bottom as much as it cuts down the top.
 
  • #46
ShawnD said:
I can't speak for Ron, but he's probably talking about preventative measures with alternative medicine. Yoga (stretching) is generally a good idea; I don't think any good doctor will tell you not to stretch. Tai chi is exercise for fat and old people, so that's a good idea. Chiropractors can fix minor back problems for a lot less than what an osteopath will charge. Magnet therapy cures hypochondria (lol). Herbs are very strong placebos.

Alternative medicine is not a bad idea when you're talking about an expensive system that accounts for the majority of personal bankruptcies. If your problem can be prevented with a bit of stretching and slow movements, that's probably a lot cheaper than having heart bypass or prescription pain killers.

I thought he was talking about having health insurance companies pay for the chiropractor visits or any alternative medicine visits, as I think those are not covered under health insurance policies
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.

Does not matter because there was no evidence that back it up. Yes, I'm sure that "most" people with high school education becomes rich automatically. Your position is a naive one. You might be able to show that people who have a low education generally have a low income, but you will have to work harder to show the other way around. Ever heard of unemployed academics?
 
  • #48
Vote Republican!

Well, Republicans hope you will.

Warner's Move Adds to Growing GOP Senate Woes
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14102297

Craig Set to Join Flurry of GOP Exits
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14112408

Weekend Edition Saturday, September 1, 2007 · Republican political departures are keeping Washington in the spotlight during what is often a quiet time for politics. Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is expected to resign Saturday in the wake of a sex scandal and Virginia Sen. John Warner announced Friday he will not run for a sixth term.

. . .

But the image of the party that heralds decency, family values and faith-based initiatives has become sorely tarnished lately. Mostly recently, Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, apologized in July for his use of a D.C. "escort service."

. . .
:rolleyes:

In addition to the executive branch, lots of seats in Congress up for grabs in 2008 it seems.
 
  • #49
ShawnD said:
Job requirements are on a bell curve, just like everything else at life. If suddenly 100% of the population had finished high school and had a bachelor degree, jobs would start requiring masters and PhDs. Just look at current job requirements and you can see how this is true; entry level jobs for analytical chemistry often require 5-10 years of experience or they won't even look at you. Engineering is a bit better, requiring maybe 2+ years of experience. Anything IT related practically needs a PhD because the market is so heavily saturated. Employers never care about absolute, they always want relative. They want the top 10% of people no matter what.
I like your bell curve statement, interesting. However, job promotions stating requirements are usually completely off base. This is extremely apparent in the tech industry, where if you goto monster.com you'll see tech job ad with about 20 tech acronyms requirements. When I was in high school, I got summer intern jobs at very nice tech companies, but if you looked at the ads you'd think I needed to be Bill Gates. Most job ads are made by HR who just plug in trendy words.

ShawnD said:
Greg has a point when he says poor people have cell phones and RIMZ, but that doesn't change the fact that not everybody can have a good paying job. I can't think of any economic model that would "fix" that problem, except for communism, but that doesn't really bring up the bottom as much as it cuts down the top.

A job has very little to do with whether you are poor or rich. It's about lifestyle, budgeting and investment choices. If I started work at Burger Kind starting tomorrow I could get by very "comfortably". Now, do I really blame a kid how he turned out because his dad was a deadbeat in jail, his mom always pregnant and his friends all do drugs? Of course not, it's a sad cycle. I certainly don't have the answer, but the realities are easy to figure out.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Does not matter because there was no evidence that back it up.

I live downtown in a major US city with one of the largest poor populations. I have several social worker friends and regularly walk/drive through neighborhoods where shooting occur daily. I also have first hand experience being in the Big Brother program.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Greg Bernhardt said:
I live downtown in a major US city with one of the largest poor populations. I have several social worker friends and regularly walk/drive through neighborhoods where shooting occur daily. I also have first hand experience being in the Big Brother program.

'Saying that something is true because someone told me it is' is not a strong argument, especially when you have been faced with credible statistics.
 
  • #52
Moridin said:
'Saying that something is true because someone told me it is' is not a strong argument, especially when you have been faced with credible statistics.

Do you have a source for these stats that show most people living in poverty are not personally responsible for their situation and rendered inherently helpless in getting out of it?
 
Last edited:
  • #53
Vote democratic!
 
  • #54
Ron Paul @ Republican Fox Debate 9-5-07



In today's political climate, there is democrats, republicans, neo-cons, and then there is Ron Paul. This guy is in his own league. A completely different class of animal. An one man army.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
I pretty much agree with this guy. Let's mind our own country for awhile. If we are going to go to war, let's wipe out the "enemy" or don't bother in first place.
 
  • #56
I am a small business owner and have to pay for my own health insurance. It's only $70/m.
Let me guess: you are a young, single male without any preexisting conditions. If I am correct, you have the cheapest health insurance in existence, and it will only continue to rise.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Manchot said:
Let me guess: you are a young, single male without any preexisting conditions. If I am correct, you have the cheapest health insurance in existence, and it will only continue to rise.

This is true. I'm paying for health insurance for my family and the monthly amount is substantial. But, I'm not complaining (I'm not saying you are, Manchot, just making a statement). I can pick who my health insurance provider is and find the best deal. Just like auto, life, and home insurance. I can choose to have it or not. Unless you are disabled (in which case the American community is responsible for taking care of the individual IMO), Americans are capable of taking care of it themselves and their families if they choose to.
 
  • #58
drankin said:
This is true. I'm paying for health insurance for my family and the monthly amount is substantial. But, I'm not complaining (I'm not saying you are, Manchot, just making a statement). I can pick who my health insurance provider is and find the best deal. Just like auto, life, and home insurance. I can choose to have it or not. Unless you are disabled (in which case the American community is responsible for taking care of the individual IMO), Americans are capable of taking care of it themselves and their families if they choose to.
The problem isn't just the disabled: it's all people with preexisting conditions. Many are simply uninsurable, and thus cannot have affordable health care regardless of how much they are willing to pay. Ultimately, this is where the market-based system fails: past events, many of which are beyond your control, can affect your ability to get health care.

With auto insurance, your driving record determines your rates, so personal responsibility plays the dominant role. With life insurance, you can only die once, so the question is moot. With home and property insurance, past events do not really play an important role in determining your rates. (Unless, of course, you have a history of burning down your houses to collect the insurance money.) The health insurance "market" simply goes against basic notions of fairness, because there are a multitude of ways in which something beyond your control can adversely affect you. Do you have Type 1 diabetes? You were at a hospital when someone stuck you with an AIDS- or hepatitis-infected needle? You've had cancer? You're a woman whose entire maternal line has developed breast cancer? You have asthma? It doesn't matter whether any of those things were your fault or not: you're either going to pay exorbitant rates, or you're not going to be able to get insurance at all. It doesn't matter how much you shop around.
 
  • #59
Manchot said:
The problem isn't just the disabled: it's all people with preexisting conditions. Many are simply uninsurable, and thus cannot have affordable health care regardless of how much they are willing to pay. Ultimately, this is where the market-based system fails: past events, many of which are beyond your control, can affect your ability to get health care.

With auto insurance, your driving record determines your rates, so personal responsibility plays the dominant role. With life insurance, you can only die once, so the question is moot. With home and property insurance, past events do not really play an important role in determining your rates. (Unless, of course, you have a history of burning down your houses to collect the insurance money.) The health insurance "market" simply goes against basic notions of fairness, because there are a multitude of ways in which something beyond your control can adversely affect you. Do you have Type 1 diabetes? You were at a hospital when someone stuck you with an AIDS- or hepatitis-infected needle? You've had cancer? You're a woman whose entire maternal line has developed breast cancer? You have asthma? It doesn't matter whether any of those things were your fault or not: you're either going to pay exorbitant rates, or you're not going to be able to get insurance at all. It doesn't matter how much you shop around.

Well, if you start working at a company that offers insurance, you fall into their program regardless of your pre-existing condition. You pay what your coworkers pay. If you work for the city or state, you get even better benefits. So, what would prevent you from working at a company that provides these kinds of benefits?
 
  • #60
drankin said:
So, what would prevent you from working at a company that provides these kinds of benefits?

Educational level, experience, self employment just to name a few.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
15K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K