The Ron Paul appreciation thread!

[JeffTD]

I myself don't understand the hatred for "Obamacare" other than Obama signed it into law. The republicans are always screaming, they don't want people to be responsible for their own healthcare, so their tax dollars wont have to pay for other peoples irresponsibilities. well Obamacare tries to make that a possibility, but you don't want government to force them to do so. The republicans want smaller government when there's a democrat president but don't mind so much when there's a republican in office. When a republican president is in office, deficits don't matter, but let a democrat get into office, then "we're spending too much". Republicans want smaller government, and big government out of our lives but government big enough to tell us what religion we should practice or what a woman can do with her body.

Because it does very little to actually reform a broken system, but instead forces people via monetary penalization to buy into the current system. Some of the changes associated with it have been great and should remain intact, but the compulsory insurance purchase part is pretty lame.

Don't fool yourself, Republicans do NOT want smaller government.

 

[egan.]

Yes. That is my issue with it. Compulsory enrollment in the for profit model with government subsidies for those who can't afford it creates a worst of both worlds. The issue is that both the mainstream democratic (obamacare) AND the mainstream republican (deregulation) plans benefit the healthcare industry more than the individual. Obamacare will vastly increase their enrollment numbers while deregulation allows them to drop you if you get cancer and deny claims all day long.

There are good things in Obamacare (cobra, min. expenditure coverage %), but the fact that we neither got a national plan or a national option were very disappointing to me.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

Because it does very little to actually reform a broken system, but instead forces people via monetary penalization to buy into the current system. Some of the changes associated with it have been great and should remain intact, but the compulsory insurance purchase part is pretty lame.

Don't fool yourself, Republicans do NOT want smaller government.

Yes. That is my issue with it. Compulsory enrollment in the for profit model with government subsidies for those who can't afford it creates a worst of both worlds. The issue is that both the mainstream democratic (obamacare) AND the mainstream republican (deregulation) plans benefit the healthcare industry more than the individual. Obamacare will vastly increase their enrollment numbers while deregulation allows them to drop you if you get cancer and deny claims all day long.

There are good things in Obamacare (cobra, min. expenditure coverage %), but the fact that we neither got a national plan or a national option were very disappointing to me.

THIS

 

[scorpio01169]

Because it does very little to actually reform a broken system ,It may do very little but the little it may do is better than doing nothing but instead forces people via monetary penalization to buy into the current system. Some of the changes associated with it have been great and should remain intact, but the compulsory insurance purchase part is pretty lame.

Exactly, because people won't get insurance on their own which is partly why the current system is broken. We can either make people get their own insurance and help keep cost down or we can tax people more to cover the cost of rising health care. Don't get me wrong, I dont think healthcare cost will drop dramatically if people got their own healthcare insurance, but at least those that are screaming personal responsibly and, griping about their tax dollars are helping others will know that is not the case. greedy doctors, hospitals, lawyers, and insurance companies will find a way to justify raising cost. and that's what this fight is truly about. The right says let the free market work, but the free market tends to fuck the middle and lower class.

Don't fool yourself, Republicans do NOT want smaller government.

oh...I know this

 

[JeffTD]

Exactly, because people won't get insurance on their own which is partly why the current system is broken. We can either make people get their own insurance and help keep cost down or we can tax people more to cover the cost of rising health care. Don't get me wrong, I dont think healthcare cost will drop dramatically if people got their own healthcare insurance, but at least those that are screaming personal responsibly and, griping about their tax dollars are helping others will know that is not the case. greedy doctors, hospitals, lawyers, and insurance companies will find a way to justify raising cost. and that's what this fight is truly about. The right says let the free market work, but the free market tends to fuck the middle and lower class.

Right, and the fact that people won't get it on their own is why it probably won't be ruled unconstitutional, but it doesn't fix the current system. It would be much more efficient and effective to have everyone covered by a universal, single-payer program run by the US gov't.

 

[colonel kurtz]

BUT GUV'MENT CAINT DO NUTHIN RITE!

 

[AD Chaos]

People usually want to have cheap or even free medical care while having doctors work for next to nothing (because they have a 'right' to be taken care of). But at the same time they DEMAND the best possible care, and also to sue the fuck out of a physician, should he/she not save a person's life as expected.
Please refer me in the US Constitution where it states healthcare is a right?

Government getting involved in medicine can help better coverage, sure and I agree the best alternative in that case is a universal, single-payer program (that's how it works in my country) accompanied by private alternatives, but let me tell you such a system system ALSO can have some less than desirable side-effects: bureaucracy builds up around medicine, costs increase because of it, and the quality of care tends to deteriorate. How much those effects are overwhelming or negligible, depends on the corruption (or lack thereof) of a government.
Last time I checked though, US politicians get to enjoy all sorts of medical and pension privileges, not at all what they propose for regular people.
And AFAIK, bureaucrats still won't cure you from illness, doctors do.



It's preposterous and intentionally deceiving (or willfully ignorant?) to paint doctor Paul in so much ridiculous and extremist views as has been done here. For instance, he constantly talks about starting a TRANSITION in which he cuts on warfare overspending immediately yes, but preserves healthcare, especially for the poor and the elderly (watch the video for once? by 4:05) whilst gradually allowing younger people to opt out of the current system. The current, broken system.

But it seems popular to some here to just ignore the man, his platform, his ideas, his freedom message, and just cut right into extreme, cartoon-ish fantasies in which Dr Paul is to become some authoritarian dictator who throws any non-religious person into a concentration camp or have them assassinated, let people die and their corpses rot on the streets (because a politician or bureaucrats know SO MUCH more about medicine that an physician) and obliterate government, the constitution and all laws as to not have any more government, not even a president..
So allowing a government run by thieves to rack up any excuse to defraud the treasury, destroy the dollar and gradually run the US into total bankruptcy (as it is, in fact, happening) is the good, sane alternative.

Btw I should be obvious I'm exaggerating there (but just a little) for effect.

 

[JeffTD]

I can't see his post since he's on my ignore list but will someone notify me if AD Chaos has actually posted something that isn't indicative of a huge misunderstanding of the situation, doesn't ignore the last 2-3 pages of posts, doesn't bring up points we've already decidedly refuted as inaccurate or unfounded, or assumes a great personal insight into a system he has literally no experience with and knows relatively little about?

Or if it just doesn't have a YouTube clip in it. That alone would be worth bringing to my attention.

 

[colonel kurtz]

Please refer me in the US Constitution where it states healthcare is a right?

some would argue that it would be implied in reference to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

 

[egan.]

That's the declaration but the point is taken. You could argue that it falls under "promote the general welfare" from the preamble but it's somewhat irrelevant because the Constitution doesn't limit rights to those in the Constitution. It in fact has mechanisms to expand and adjust (Amendments and Supreme Court decisions). If it weren't for that flexibility women and people of color still wouldn't be able to vote.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. We understand Paul's position on healthcare. I've read his website. I've listened to his stump speeches. I disagree.

MD's don't run hospitals in the US. MBA's do. It's the same with insurance companies. It's valid to say that having a bureaucrat between DR and patient sucks but I don't see the advantage to having that bureaucrat work for a for profit company instead of the government.

Also, the mean annual salary for an MD in the US is $175k/yr and the average for for surgeons is $272K. So the average is 4 times what the average family of 4 earns in the US ($44k). Let's be careful how we use the phrase "next to nothing."

 

[scorpio01169]

People usually want to have cheap or even free medical care while having doctors work for next to nothing (because they have a 'right' to be taken care of).no...most people dont wanna spen 75% of what they make on healthcare insurance and cost. But at the same time they DEMAND the best possible care,

no one says doctors shouldn't get paid, but dayum everything we have?

and also to sue the fuck out of a physician, should he/she not save a person's life as expected.

. only if what the physician did cause harm or death. but it seems to me that you feel that that doesn't happen ever, and doctors, lawyers and hospital are the good guys and poor people are the evil ones

Please refer me in the US Constitution where it states healthcare is a right?

so you would be ok if, you got shot and you're laying in the middle of the street, and everyone just walks over you wondering if you have healthcare insurance. we should all say fuck him....Im not sure he has insurance? or do we call 911 with the hope that you're covered and will not be a drain on the economy? better question....what went wrong in your life that you hate mankind so much?

Government getting involved in medicine can help better coverage, sure and I agree the best alternative in that case is a universal, single-payer program (that's how it works in my country) accompanied by private alternatives, but let me tell you such a system system ALSO can have some less than desirable side-effects: bureaucracy builds up around medicine, costs increase because of it, and the quality of care tends to deteriorate. How much those effects are overwhelming or negligible, depends on the corruption (or lack thereof) of a government.
Last time I checked though, US politicians get to enjoy all sorts of medical and pension privileges, not at all what they propose for regular people.
And AFAIK, bureaucrats still won't cure you from illness, doctors do.

well I wont deny there are corrupt bureaucrats in the system, but to be corrupt, someone has to have something (usually money) to corrupt them. and that would be the lobbyist for the doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, and those people aint cheap, but we have to have laws to keep these doctors you seem to love so much from just doing whatever the fuck they wanna do to us without re-precautions.

It's preposterous and intentionally deceiving (or willfully ignorant?) to paint doctor Paul in so much ridiculous and extremist views as has been done here. For instance, he constantly talks about starting a TRANSITION in which he cuts on warfare overspending immediately yes, but preserves healthcare, especially for the poor and the elderly (watch the video for once? by 4:05) whilst gradually allowing younger people to opt out of the current system. The current, broken system.

opt out for what?

But it seems popular to some here to just ignore the man, his platform, his ideas, his freedom message, and just cut right into extreme, cartoon-ish fantasies in which Dr Paul is to become some authoritarian dictator who throws any non-religious person into a concentration camp or have them assassinated, let people die and their corpses rot on the streets (because a politician or bureaucrats know SO MUCH more about medicine that an physician) and obliterate government, the constitution and all laws as to not have any more government, not even a president..
So allowing a government run by thieves to rack up any excuse to defraud the treasury, destroy the dollar and gradually run the US into total bankruptcy (as it is, in fact, happening) is the good, sane alternative.

Btw I should be obvious I'm exaggerating there (but just a little) for effect.

Ron Paul is a republican, he votes republican, that's why I wont vote for him. I don't know if he's a racist or not and I don't care. he has every right to be a bigot if he wants. but you have to be president of everyone in America...not just the people you like. And what I hear coming from Ron Paul and most his followers is they only care about themselves.

 

[colonel kurtz]

not only are hospitals and health care providers run by MBAs and the such, but i think a lot of people don't realize exactly how shady they are, and how many corners they cut(and lives they fuck up) just to save a quick buck

i have many examples due to my mom telling me stories from 20+ years of being a nurse...some of them in an administrative position...but my fav. is when she worked at a hospital owned by tenet healthcare(twin cities community, jeff will know it), and was the head of the critical care division. she constantly bitched about how they didn't give her enough of a payroll budget to cover the legally required ratio of nurses to patients - simply because the daily fines that were imposed by being under-staffed were less than the cost of scheduling more nurses. the fact that they got away with(and probably still do) these sorts of practices for years is reprehensible enough in itself - but even more so considering that, at the time, their CEO had the highest annual salary of any executive in the USA. again, this is just one small snapshot into the kind of bullshit that happens when hospitals are run by for-profit corporations, and ever-increasing profits are put ahead of patient care.

 

[AD Chaos]

That's the declaration but the point is taken. You could argue that it falls under "promote the general welfare" from the preamble but it's somewhat irrelevant because the Constitution doesn't limit rights to those in the Constitution. It in fact has mechanisms to expand and adjust (Amendments and Supreme Court decisions). If it weren't for that flexibility women and people of color still wouldn't be able to vote.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. We understand Paul's position on healthcare. I've read his website. I've listened to his stump speeches. I disagree.

MD's don't run hospitals in the US. MBA's do. It's the same with insurance companies. It's valid to say that having a bureaucrat between DR and patient sucks but I don't see the advantage to having that bureaucrat work for a for profit company instead of the government.

Also, the mean annual salary for an MD in the US is $175k/yr and the average for for surgeons is $272K. So the average is 4 times what the average family of 4 earns in the US ($44k). Let's be careful how we use the phrase "next to nothing."

I agree with you for the most part there. About low incomes for physicians, I wasn't really referring to the US, but rather a systemic problem with some socialized medicine systems.
The more paperwork and regulation you push into medicine, the more the traditional patient-doctor relation gets hurt. You get doctors who work on more volume and don't/can't care much about patients, insurance companies overcharging patients and constantly trying to lower salaries for physicians, creating unnecessary paperwork to deter patients from seeking treatment, denying procedures and medications, bullying doctors into not prescribing them, etc.
You get more coverage yes, but at the cost of lowering the standard of care for a lot of people, specially those who cannot pay for private insurance on the side.

About healthcare being a 'right', one could then argue people wouldn't even have to pay for anything related to medicine and everything should be done for free, since people doesn't -and shouldn't- have to 'pay' for their rights.

I agree with most of you guys regulation and monitoring is very necessary to keep insurance companies and the like in check, or else paper pushers do cut corners and are abusive of both the patients and the doctors. But still with private companies competing with each other, as opposed to a government-run bureaucratic monopoly under an over sized administration, prone to corruption.

 

[JeffTD]

About healthcare being a 'right', one could then argue people wouldn't even have to pay for anything related to medicine and everything should be done for free, since people doesn't -and shouldn't- have to 'pay' for their rights.

This is a terrible argument. You already do -and should- pay for your rights - they're called taxes. You pay to keep institutions in place that protect and ensure your rights. Realistically without a governing, you have zero rights Your right to life is ensured via laws and organizations that prevent people from taking yours (taxes). Your right to property is ensured via laws that prevent people or penalize people who burgle you (taxes). Right to clean water? EPA/FDA (taxes). Right to an education? Dept of Ed/state-specific systems (taxes). Right to access basic-necessity style health care? It would be logically funded by, you guessed it, taxes.

 

[AD Chaos]

I guess I should have made a differentiation between constitutional and human or basic rights. I was thinking more about the latter, in the sense that people would think healthcare is some inalienable right and that they're entitled to it, regardless of whether they contribute to a system or not. I agree in that you have to pay for healthcare and that the state should provide for those who truly cannot afford for themselves, but with a firm hand on entities providing healthcare services, and also on consumers looking for a free ride. In that sense I think it's more a service, but not one that should be left entirely to an unregulated free market.

 

[JeffTD]

It doesn't matter whether or not things are basic, constitutional, or human rights - rights don't exist unless something can enforce them, and unless we're all willing to pick up spears and move out into the woods and live on our own we have to pay to get them.

What do you mean by "regardless of whether they contribute to a system or not?" Unless you're skirting the IRS or not working, you pay taxes. There will always be a certain amount of freeriding going on in any given system but I'd rather have that happen than 1/6th of the country go uninsured and god knows how many underinsured/screwed by their insurance company.

Let me get this straight though... you just said this:

I agree in that you have to pay for healthcare and that the state should provide for those who truly cannot afford for themselves, but with a firm hand on entities providing healthcare services, and also on consumers looking for a free ride. In that sense I think it's more a service, but not one that should be left entirely to an unregulated free market.

How are you disagreeing with us when we denounce Ron Paul's stance on health care? You literally just voiced your support for everything we've been talking about for the last 2-3 pages.