News Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!

[Moridin]

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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

'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?

 

[kasse]

Vote democratic!

 

[phoenixy]

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.

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[Manchot]

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.

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[Manchot]

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.

 

[drankin]

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?

 

[farmfriend]

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.

 

[farmfriend]

I am paying attention to Senator Ron Paul and I *LOVE* this guy.

Everyone should go out and vote for him and get rid of the hacks like Giuliani .

I hate Giuliani .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1420110230915641061&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6323231741178568391&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Id vote for this guy any day of the week.

I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary, then I will change my party registration to the Constitution party. I've had it with the RINOs the Republicans push on us.

 

[Manchot]

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?

I don't know about you, but I have a severe problem with someone's preexisting conditions dictating whether they can be self-employed or not. It's unproductive and un-American.

 

[drankin]

I don't know about you, but I have a severe problem with someone's preexisting conditions dictating whether they can be self-employed or not. It's unproductive and un-American.

So, what do you want? Me to pay for your health insurance because you choose to be self-employed? Your health is your responsibility, not mine.

 

[Manchot]

Your health is your responsibility, not mine.

I take issue with that statement. First of all, whether you like it or not, it is your financial responsibility. When the uninsured require health care, who ends up paying for it? The hospitals, who in turn pass on the costs to the consumer. In many cases, people go without basic treatment because they can't afford it, leading to much worse complications later on. This is well-documented as a reason for our high costs. Secondly, I'd argue from a moral standpoint that it is wrong for someone's career options to be limited because of a health condition. That's the "un-American" quality I was referring to.

While I'm at it, let's expand beyond preexisting conditions. What about all the low-end jobs which don't offer health insurance? You can opine all you want about how they could educate themselves and get a better one, but let's face it: there is a segment of our society which will always be in the bottom 10% intelligence-wise, and that's not going to change. Education cannot make someone smarter. At the same time, the job market for these people is being squeezed out of existence. Do they not deserve health care?

 

[drankin]

I take issue with that statement. First of all, whether you like it or not, it is your financial responsibility. When the uninsured require health care, who ends up paying for it? The hospitals, who in turn pass on the costs to the consumer. In many cases, people go without basic treatment because they can't afford it, leading to much worse complications later on. This is well-documented as a reason for our high costs. Secondly, I'd argue from a moral standpoint that it is wrong for someone's career options to be limited because of a health condition. That's the "un-American" quality I was referring to.

While I'm at it, let's expand beyond preexisting conditions. What about all the low-end jobs which don't offer health insurance? You can opine all you want about how they could educate themselves and get a better one, but let's face it: there is a segment of our society which will always be in the bottom 10% intelligence-wise, and that's not going to change. Education cannot make someone smarter. At the same time, the job market for these people is being squeezed out of existence. Do they not deserve health care?

You make it seem like since you are breathing everyone owes you your health. BS. Own your own life. Noone owes you health insurance regardless of your condition. If you are disabled, then the community will take care of you. If you aren't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!. If you can't afford it, then get to where you can. THAT'S AMERICAN. You don't have to be a college grad to work at most government jobs (for example) and a myriad of other places. If you are a good worker, regardless of trade, employers will offer what it takes to get you on. If you work for yourself, then you should have your business in order enough to afford your own insurance. If you feel you are uninsurable then pay for your own meds and care. If you are that bad off that you can do neither, you are disabled, IMO.

 

[Art]

You make it seem like since you are breathing everyone owes you your health. BS. Own your own life. Noone owes you health insurance regardless of your condition. If you are disabled, then the community will take care of you. If you aren't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!. If you can't afford it, then get to where you can. THAT'S AMERICAN. You don't have to be a college grad to work at most government jobs (for example) and a myriad of other places. If you are a good worker, regardless of trade, employers will offer what it takes to get you on. If you work for yourself, then you should have your business in order enough to afford your own insurance. If you feel you are uninsurable then pay for your own meds and care. If you are that bad off that you can do neither, you are disabled, IMO.

Some costs in society are best shared for the common good and IMO public health should be one of them.

For instance if you drive to work you are driving on a road built by public funds. Some of the people who helped pay for that road don't use that road and some don't drive at all but the common good determines their tax dollars should be used to help construct a transport system. If everyone took your attitude then you and your fellow commuters would have to personally pay for the roads you use and so the country would quickly grind to a halt. The same is true of health. Sick people can't work and so the country misses out on their labor and their tax dollars, it also misses out on the productivity of whoever stays at home to tend to them and so it is actually in one's own selfish interest to ensure sick people are treated quickly and returned to the labor pool.

As an interesting anecdote there was a manager in a company I worked for with socialist leanings who didn't wish to avail of the company's private health insurance as he believed on principle he should join the public health queue if ill. It was pointed out to him that the company didn't pay his health insurance for his benefit it was for their own. If he ever needed treatment they wanted to make sure he was back working for them as quickly as possible.

 

[drankin]

I don't entirely disagree with you, Art. I'm more interested in people taking personal responsibility for their health and welfare. Ultimately, who is responsible for ones health? In my opinion, it is the individual first. There is a grey line between ones responsiblity and a communities responsibility to provide care for individuals. A lot, if not a majority, of illness is caused by ones lifestyle. Where does the community draw the line between it's responsibility and ones irresponsible lifestyle?

Personally, I think the crime in our current system is with the pharmacuetical companies and their lack of regulation.

 

[BillJx]

I'm quite happy with our (Canadian) medical system. The public plan covers the basics while dental and other items are covered for some people by employer plans. It isn't perfect, but the biggest cost of illness is the lost work, and my medical coverage won't be cut off. There are political efforts to weaken the public plan, but no Canadian politician dares to openly admit it.

Any health care system faces hard limits. , Modern medicine is so high-tech and expensive that there will never be enough money to go around. There will always be people who need more that what's provided, and sooner. There will always be people who claim that "the system is broken", no matter what the system is. Most developed countries try to distribute the resources more or less equally among their citizens, but maybe that's not the American way. That's your business, I'm not American. You make that decision at the voting booth.

 

[Astronuc]

Chuck Hagel is stepping down in 2008!

Nebraska's Hagel Confirms He Will Bow Out
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14300639

All Things Considered, September 10, 2007 · Sen. Chuck Hagel, the anti-war Republican from Nebraska, made it clear Monday that he will not seek the presidency in 2008. He also confirms he will not seek re-election to the Senate.

 

[mathwonk]

my wife called me with a bumper sticker sighting today:

its a circus scene with a guy and a broom, and caption

"who's going to clean up after the elephants?"but i preferred the direct one i saw last week, a "W" upside down, caption "the moron".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't mind helping pay for people who really need the help, but I hate thinking about paying for someone's smoking habit or some kids broken spine doing a jackass stunt. Why don't we have universal car insurance too?

 

[proton]

I heard Ron Paul is getting less vote percentage than the margin of error!

 

[Astronuc]

There seems to be a separate thread (on healtcare and health insurance) within this thread.

Insurance is predicated upon sharing the risk, with the implicit assumption that everyone involved chooses to minimize risk to themselves. Ideally, costly medical care for some catastrophic illness would be used on a 1/10,000 or 1/100,000 basis. That way the per capita cost would $'s per person, rather than $100's or $1000's per person.

However, the system will fail if 1/10 or greater require costly medical service.


As others mentioned, it is unfair for someone to engage in risky behavior and then expect others to pick up the cost resulting from that risky behavior. This recently came up with respect to motorcycle accidents where many of those suffering head injury because they didn't wear helmets (they exercised their freedom to take that risk) also didn't have insurance, so the rest of the community has to pay for their healthcare. Add to that people who smoke, drink alcohol excessively, or eat (high calorie, low nutrition foods) excessively without exercise, automobile and industrial accidents, and the system has to fail, because many people cannot personally afford the costly healthcare. There are just too many folks requiring costly healthcare, and too few practicing preventitive measures.

 

[Maxwell]

I don't mind helping pay for people who really need the help, but I hate thinking about paying for someone's smoking habit or some kids broken spine doing a jackass stunt. Why don't we have universal car insurance too?

Agreed. It's insane to think that in this country of choices, something like socialized health care is practical or even neccessary. The last thing I want to do is to sacrifice the ability to choose the proper (and better) health care and insurance plans that I need just so some moron smoker can have the same care as my family.

However, I do see the necessity of making sure all of our citizens are taken care of. Insurance companies are robbing people of the ability to get affordable health care by jacking the prices so insanely high.

That's why I like Giuliani's health care plan. Have a listen:
http://blip.tv/file/358196/

Basically, choosing health care should be like choosing a university. Even poorer people/low income citizens are able to go to school in this country nowadays. There are many sources of funding available for them. Giuliani explains that instead of letting the government control people's health care, if you gave people who can't afford insurance a 'waiver', they could make the choice for themselves. You can also give people huge tax incentives to purchase health insurance.

I think that's a pretty sound plan. Take a listen to the interview I posted if you are interested in a reasonable alternative to socialized medicine.

 

[ShawnD]

I don't mind helping pay for people who really need the help, but I hate thinking about paying for someone's smoking habit or some kids broken spine doing a jackass stunt. Why don't we have universal car insurance too?

Some provinces in Canada do have government car insurance, and it rocks. I'm stuck in Alberta with private car insurance, and I'm paying $1800 yearly for minimum legal coverage. What the hell? The guys in Saskatchewan, the next province over, pay less than half that. Government insurnace is a very good idea.

edit: same deal with government vs private health insurance. Canada has government health insurance, USA has private health insurance. Who pays more? You or me? My monthly premium for UHC is $40. Dental and vision are extra, but they too can be purchased for similar low prices.

 

[BobG]

There seems to be a separate thread (on healtcare and health insurance) within this thread.

Insurance is predicated upon sharing the risk, with the implicit assumption that everyone involved chooses to minimize risk to themselves. Ideally, costly medical care for some catastrophic illness would be used on a 1/10,000 or 1/100,000 basis. That way the per capita cost would $'s per person, rather than $100's or $1000's per person.

However, the system will fail if 1/10 or greater require costly medical service.


As others mentioned, it is unfair for someone to engage in risky behavior and then expect others to pick up the cost resulting from that risky behavior. This recently came up with respect to motorcycle accidents where many of those suffering head injury because they didn't wear helmets (they exercised their freedom to take that risk) also didn't have insurance, so the rest of the community has to pay for their healthcare. Add to that people who smoke, drink alcohol excessively, or eat (high calorie, low nutrition foods) excessively without exercise, automobile and industrial accidents, and the system has to fail, because many people cannot personally afford the costly healthcare. There are just too many folks requiring costly healthcare, and too few practicing preventitive measures.

Some of these differences could be handled by taxes on a product to cover the probable increase in cost.

For example, even after private insurance and out of pocket expenses, smokers cost taxpayers in increased medical costs, but save taxpayers in decreased Social Security benefits (they die sooner). The net is about a $1.44 per pack in cost to society (Smoking’s Real Cost ). Federal taxes on cigarettes are only $0.39 per pack. On the other hand, state taxes on cigarettes vary greatly from $0.17 in Missouri to $2.00 a pack in Alaska. In some states, smokers chip in more money than they're withdrawing from society and in some states they're removing more money than they're chipping in. Realistically, the tax on cigarettes should cover the cost of smokers to society with the balance between federal and state tax reflecting the balance between state costs and federal costs.

Tax rates probably won't work on things like motorcycle helmets unless you decide all motorcycle riders should chip into cover those that choose not to wear helmets. But, once you're headed down that road, you may as well tax motorcycle riders to cover medical costs for all motorcycle accidents, helmetless or not, and then tax car purchases based on the average cost of providing medical care for auto accidents for that particular brand of car.

 

[Maxwell]

Some provinces in Canada do have government car insurance, and it rocks. I'm stuck in Alberta with private car insurance, and I'm paying $1800 yearly for minimum legal coverage. What the hell? The guys in Saskatchewan, the next province over, pay less than half that. Government insurnace is a very good idea.

edit: same deal with government vs private health insurance. Canada has government health insurance, USA has private health insurance. Who pays more? You or me? My monthly premium for UHC is $40. Dental and vision are extra, but they too can be purchased for similar low prices.

And how long do you have to wait for your health care? Are you able to see any doctor you want immediately? Are you able to choose your own doctors? Are you receiving top quality care in all areas (dental, vision, cardio, etc)?

I'd much rather pay a lot more than $40 a month for quality, immediate health care than have to wait a week to see a crummy doctor that I was not able to choose.

Also, government car insurance is absolutely insane. It's vomit inducing to even imagine the logistics of the government having to pay for people's car insurance. Why don't we let the government choose our careers for us? That way every person in society is guaranteed a job and therefore income and food?

Communism didn't work and never will work -- especially in a country like America.

 

[ShawnD]

And how long do you have to wait for your health care?

Last time I had to see a doctor, I waited for about 2 hours. Most clinics will make you wait based on how serious the problem is. If you are bleeding, they take you right away. If you're concerned about a rash on your arm, be ready to wait a few hours. If it's not serious at all, you can always schedule an appointment.

Are you able to see any doctor you want immediately?

Yes at walk-in clinics, no at family doctors.

Are you able to choose your own doctors?

You can go into any walk-in clinic and get care, but family doctors are picky. If you want to get a new family doctor, you look through a phone book and call doctors offices to find which ones are accepting new patients. Right now my city is having a population explosion, so it's a bit hard to get a family doctor. I don't even have a family doctor at this time.

Are you receiving top quality care in all areas (dental, vision, cardio, etc)?

Yes for dental and vision, but I've never even heard of cardio insurance. Sounds like some kind of scam.

 

[edward]

There was a recent attempt at overhauling the health care system in California. It has been or will be vetoed by Awwnold. The video below was pro the new system. Even though it didn't pass there is some pretty good information in the video that applies nation wide.

There are things that you may or may not know. I was a bit surprised that the HMO's spend 30% of our premiums on administration. I thought that a figure more like 10 to 15 % would be the maximum.

 

[Astronuc]

San Francisco to Offer Care for Every Uninsured Adult
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/14health.html

SAN FRANCISCO — Since contracting polio at age 2, Yan Ling Ho has lived with pain for most of her 52 years. After she immigrated here from Hong Kong last year, the soreness in her back and joints proved too debilitating for her to work.

That also meant she did not have health insurance. Not wanting to burden her daughter, who was already paying her living expenses, Ms. Ho delayed doctors’ visits and battled her misery with over-the-counter medications.

“Sometimes the pain was so bad, I would just cry,” she said. “I didn’t know what else to do.”

Last month, unable to bear her discomfort any longer, Ms. Ho went to North East Medical Services, a nonprofit community clinic on the edge of Chinatown, and discovered to her delight that she qualified for a new program that offers free or subsidized health care to all 82,000 San Francisco adults without insurance.

The initiative, known as Healthy San Francisco, is the first effort by a locality to guarantee care to all of its uninsured, and it represents the latest attempt by state and local governments to patch a inadequate federal system.

It is financed mostly by the city, which is gambling that it can provide universal and sensibly managed care to the uninsured for about the amount being spent on their treatment now, often in emergency rooms.

It looks like parts of California are taking their own initiative.

In the long run, if society can spend $100 to prevent $1000 or $10000 or $100K on one person for health care, then it would seem to be worth it.

Uninsured cost the health care system because they use emergency services. Some pubic hospitals loose money because they must treat anyone who comes in the hospital.

In the long term, the emphasis of public healthcare must be on preventitive care.

 

[scpg02]

That's San Fransisco, one of the most expensive places to live. California's healthcare system is broken. The cost of illegal immigration is killing us.

 

[slugcountry]

LOL where do you get this crap... illegal labor is the only reason our economy is still running

 

[turbo]

LOL where do you get this crap... illegal labor is the only reason our economy is still running

True, for some sectors of the economy. In the agricultural sector, which seems to be immune from overtime provisions and can demand that employees work grueling hours, Maine has an inordinate number of Mexicans, Jamaicans, Guatemalans, etc laboring on dairy operations, harvesting fruits and vegetables, etc, because the farmers cannot pay Mainers enough to do the jobs.

 

[Maxwell]

LOL where do you get this crap... illegal labor is the only reason our economy is still running

Um...that is completely incorrect.

You can go into any walk-in clinic and get care, but family doctors are picky. If you want to get a new family doctor, you look through a phone book and call doctors offices to find which ones are accepting new patients. Right now my city is having a population explosion, so it's a bit hard to get a family doctor. I don't even have a family doctor at this time.

That doesn't sound like something I'd want to have occurring here.

Yes for dental and vision, but I've never even heard of cardio insurance. Sounds like some kind of scam.

By 'cardio' I meant cardiologist -- is that type of care free or covered by the government?

 

[slugcountry]

Um...that is completely incorrect.

No actually its completely CORRECT, although I should clarify that I'm speaking specifically of California. Its also the reason nothing is actually being done to stop illegal immigration (despite the vitriol). Illegal immigrants are basically the labor pool for the agricultural industry among others.

edit: Oops it was already said above. Ah well... regardless this is a MAJOR reason California hasn't completely crashed despite the horrible deficits in our economy (energy industry not withstanding).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The labor pool for the trades, such as construction, used to be skilled workers who made a decent wage and did quality work. Now, its cheaper to hire some illegal from a street corner, and in the case of housing construction, you're lucky if the doors are hung straight.

Illegals are decimating the school and medical systems. And we are importing poverty which only serves to separate the classes even further, and quickens the demise of this country.

To say that we need workers does not imply that we should treat immigration with reckless abandon, as we have treated the imports from China.

 

[Astronuc]

I used to watch truckloads of illegal immigrants coming onto job sites when I was working construction around the Houston area 25+ yrs ago. They basically worked min wage, if that, and received no benefits like health insurance or retirement. If one got injured he was just let go. And there were some big name companies using illegal immigrants.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I used to watch truckloads of illegal immigrants coming onto job sites when I was working construction around the Houston area 25+ yrs ago. They basically worked min wage, if that, and received no benefits like health insurance or retirement. If one got injured he was just let go. And there were some big name companies using illegal immigrants.

Its clear who gains from this, and it isn't the general population.

Illegals effectively destroyed my home; where I grew up in L.A. The last time that I visited it was hardly recognizable.

 

[turbo]

I used to watch truckloads of illegal immigrants coming onto job sites when I was working construction around the Houston area 25+ yrs ago. They basically worked min wage, if that, and received no benefits like health insurance or retirement. If one got injured he was just let go. And there were some big name companies using illegal immigrants.

In the season, immigrants roll in by the bus-loads, and I'm sure that there are a great number of them that are illegal (undocumented). They plant trees for forestry operations, and conduct thinning and spraying operations, milk cows, muck the stalls, harvest broccoli, apples, pears, etc. There are not enough able-bodied unemployed people in this state willing to work long hours for minimum wage and no benefits to support the operations of these agricultural and forestry businesses for the few weeks of seasonal employment available. For this reason, people who broker seasonal migrant labor are making a killing up here.

 

[slugcountry]

To say that we need workers does not imply that we should treat immigration with reckless abandon, as we have treated the imports from China.

to compare immigrants with imports from china is not only offensive but racist

As an immigrant myself (although a legal one.. from russia) I have to sympathize with these people, they are coming here to make a life for themselves. If you live in this country its pure hypocrisy to deny that right, considering this country's own origins. And for that matter if you call yourself a human effing being, you should show a little more compassion.

 

[Geekster]

A lot of talk about his views or as you said "ideas he preaches". Out of curiousity, it's really easy to state opinions. What are his realistic plans to do anything he preaches about?

Edit: Wow, just went through his website and he doesn't explain how he would do anything, just a bunch of rhetoric, and honestly, it scares me that he's an elected official.

I guess you missed the part where he talks about the federal government NOT doing things. That is the ONLY thing he wants to do...

To do that he has stated he will get rid of things like the department of commerce, the FBI, the CIA, get the US out of the UN, get the US out of pro corporate trading practices like NFTA, and cut taxes and spending.

He will pull troops out just about as fast as is logistically possible.

He will slowly try to erase welfare, knowing that a full transition would take years for the government dependent people to get used to.

I think this speaks for itself.



http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

You are only surprised because you expect the federal government to be handling issues it has no business handling.

Ron Paul knows that the key to cheaper health care is for government to get out of the way. That is the single best solution there is.

Sounds like if he were to be elected we'd all be wearing crystals and magnetic bracelets and living in vans with shag carpeting.

A lot of people do that already, in case you didn't realize it.

Although I would rather wear a magnetic bracelet than take any new FDA approved drug like say, vioxx!

At least a magnetic bracelet will not significantly increase my risk of a heart attack (keep in mind that the pseudo effect is real.) All the while our supper expensive bloated government giving the drug the go ahead...that bureaucratic house of worship really seems to work well the benefit of the public (sarcasm.)

Of course if we look at consumer protection groups like UL, we see a system that works as well as anyone can expect any system to work and guess what? It does not cost us a single tax dollar. Imagine that, a private consumer protection agency can actually work.

In other words, we do not need, and at least for me, do not want the government to go around trying to fix things like health care. We need them to get the hell out of the way so that a truly viable solution to our health care problem can come forward.

That is what Ron said he will do, and that is reflected in his voting record, and so that is exactly what I believe he will do.

And, that is the best thing for this country at this moment. I hope you agree...

That is unless you believe that more government, the same one that got us in the mess in Iraq, can make things better. Then by all means vote for a traditional candidate, republican or democrat. All in all they are mostly just two sides of the same coin so it is completely irrelevant which one you pick.

 

[Geekster]

For instance if you drive to work you are driving on a road built by public funds. Some of the people who helped pay for that road don't use that road and some don't drive at all but the common good determines their tax dollars should be used to help construct a transport system. If everyone took your attitude then you and your fellow commuters would have to personally pay for the roads you use and so the country would quickly grind to a halt. The same is true of health.

In reference to the bold text.

I don't disagree with your perspective...however, you do know that if a need for a road or service comes up that more often than not people in a local community will get together and form a cooperative effort to help pay for the required service.

If you don't believe me I would invite you to have a drive to the Midwest states of the US.

There you will find tiny towns without a large enough tax base to support much or any city infrastructure. Yet these people got together and formed things like farmers COOPS that were, or I should say, still are, needed for the common good.

Guess what Art? The Federal government didn't have to form a committee to review the problem and then form a department and then waste 30% of the funding on administration cost alone to get it done. It was accomplished without ANY government involvement.

So my point is that you are correct in saying that society does need certain infrastructures that are best paid for by everyone. But I believe that you are wrong to assume we need the government to accomplish that, and I believe that private citizens better understand the needs and so better understand how to deal with it in a cost effective and efficient manner.

 

[Maxwell]

As an immigrant myself (although a legal one.. from russia) I have to sympathize with these people, they are coming here to make a life for themselves. If you live in this country its pure hypocrisy to deny that right, considering this country's own origins. And for that matter if you call yourself a human effing being, you should show a little more compassion.

You're wrong once again. It is extremely hazardous to a country to allow it's borders to be uncontrolled. It can be severely damaging to a nation's sovereignty to allow undocumented people running around within its borders. The argument that Americans should be completely fine with illegals running around our borders because of our countries origins is nothing but complete nut-job talk. It's an insult to the many legal immigrants in this country.

 

[scpg02]

they are coming here to make a life for themselves.

I would not compare legal immigrants with the illegal ones who come across the border. They are the true racists. They hate whites and they hate this country. Did you watch the protests? It wasn't the American flag they flew over their heads. Only after it hit the news and they realized their mistake did they use the American flag.

 

[slugcountry]

You're wrong once again. It is extremely hazardous to a country to allow it's borders to be uncontrolled. It can be severely damaging to a nation's sovereignty to allow undocumented people running around within its borders. The argument that Americans should be completely fine with illegals running around our borders because of our countries origins is nothing but complete nut-job talk. It's an insult to the many legal immigrants in this country.

you have to survive any way you can... if the only thing sitting between me and a better life is a border fence, I'd hop it too.

 

[Maxwell]

you have to survive any way you can... if the only thing sitting between me and a better life is a border fence, I'd hop it too.

Well, if you want to view it that way, then that is your decision. However, just remember that allowed millions of people, who for all intents and purposes, do not 'exist' to the government is extremely dangerous for you, your family, and friends. If you had basically no identity and did not exist to the government, yet you lived in poverty, what would you do? How would you act? Recklessly - and not within the law - is guaranteed by at least a significant portion of the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Some of them legitimately want to work, but you have to assume that there will be rampant crime whenever you allow millions of faceless, 'identity-less', people within our borders.

Nations must have laws and they must have borders. The safety and strength of our citizens should be paramount over any feelings I have for illegal immigrants who want a better life. I can understand they want to survive any way they can, but let be honest - when it comes down to the wire (and truthfully, much before that) - I'll take the safety of my family, and the sovereignty of my country, over the well-being of any illegal immigrant any day.

They'd do the same if the situation was reversed.

 

[slugcountry]

Nations must have laws and they must have borders. The safety and strength of our citizens should be paramount over any feelings I have for illegal immigrants who want a better life. I can understand they want to survive any way they can, but let be honest - when it comes down to the wire (and truthfully, much before that) - I'll take the safety of my family, and the sovereignty of my country, over the well-being of any illegal immigrant any day.

They'd do the same if the situation was reversed.

What makes you and your family, or the citizens of your country, more worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than an illegal immigrant? In the words of our own fore fathers these rights are inalienable. It is not the immigrants' fault that governments have this bull**** concept of citizenship. In the lead up to WW2 the US Government (along with every European power) DENIED sanctuary to Jewish refugees, literally condemning them to death.

If people want to come into this country and make an honest living for themselves they should be given that opportunity without question. Any argument to the contrary is simply an elitist and exclusionary construct in my view.

 

[Maxwell]

What makes you and your family, or the citizens of your country, more worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than an illegal immigrant?

When did I ever say that any people are more deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I never said that.

It is not the immigrants' fault that governments have this bull**** concept of citizenship.

And it is not the fault of the American citizens that the people of Mexico are not happy within their own country. It is not the fault of the American people that the Mexican government is not able to (or willing to) provide for and take care of their own people.

I understand that people want to enter this country. They are free to do so legally. Now, if you want to make the case that our immigration laws are not functional, I'm completely willing to have that debate with you. However, you are 'demonizing' the citizens of this country in order to pull on people's heart-strings and make a cheap point. I do not believe one group of people are more deserving of happiness than another. That is not the point of this discussion.

If people want to come into this country and make an honest living for themselves they should be given that opportunity without question. Any argument to the contrary is simply an elitist and exclusionary construct in my view.

If you allow EVERYBODY into this country a few things will certainly occur:

1) The overall quality of life in this country will absolutely plummet.

2) We will inherit the debt and poverty of other nations and become downtrodden and buried under the dead weight.

3) We will lose control of the citizenry and we will not be able to provide for them. Right now our health-care system needs reforming -- if we allow every single person into this country the health-care system will be absolutely destroyed. We simply can not care for that many people.

4) We will lose any sort of economic or technological power due to the amount of 'bottom-feeders' that will enter this country. We will have to feed and provide medical care for these people. We will have to redirect money that would have went towards scientific research and our military towards food stamps and other handouts.

There are many more arguments as to why a country needs to have AND enforce border laws. I wish I could cure cancer, feed the world, and get rid of AIDS. Unfortunately, life is not as simple as 'wishing' for a solution and having it appear. In a perfect world, every person would be able to enter any country and make a fine life for themselves. However, this is far from a perfect world and we must have priorities.

 

[slugcountry]

4) We will lose any sort of economic or technological power due to the amount of 'bottom-feeders' that will enter this country. We will have to feed and provide medical care for these people. We will have to redirect money that would have went towards scientific research and our military towards food stamps and other handouts.

LOL there is your problem right there. God forbid we lose the popularity contest! Oh my god! CUT OUR MILITARY SPENDING??!? NEVER!

You've never been downtrodden or you wouldn't spit such crap sorry and good night.

 

[Maxwell]

LOL there is your problem right there. God forbid we lose the popularity contest! Oh my god! CUT OUR MILITARY SPENDING??!? NEVER!

Excuse me? Did you ignore my entire post except for this single point? Who mentioned a popularity contest? You keep repeatedly going off topic. There is a lot more at stake than just popularity.

I said economic and technological advantages. These are extremely important for our country. A strong economy is one of the most important facets of any nation. One of the best ways to accomplish this, these days, is through technological strength. Just look at India and China.

I don't understand your way of thinking - you seemingly have no respect or care for this country. You ignored every single negative aspect (and some very horrible negative aspects, at that) and jumped on to a single point I made -- and you didn't even truly address it! You used my words and spun them completely.

You know, patriotism does not have to be a bad thing.

You've never been downtrodden or you wouldn't spit such crap sorry and good night.

What does that have to do with anything? How do you know anything about my past or station in life?

What I do have is respect for my country. I also have an extreme dislike for this new-age, non-thinking, new type of vitriol people have for this country. Especially coming from someone like you. You've mentioned that you are an immigrant yourself. How come you came to this country? If you truly dislike it so much, why don't you head back to Russia?

I'm sure the Russian government would have no problem with letting in every single person from downtrodden countries. I bet Putin would love to entertain the thoughts of downgrading his military and economic strength so that he can help the downtrodden people from another country.

Would you even be able to talk like this in Russia?