Real Hope & Change - Ron Paul 2012

[Ms Tree]

I do not see how this answer flies. Either the hypothetical man dies or we save him at the tax payer expense. Paul seems to be implying that there is a third option but there is not.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…"

Paul disagreed with the audience on that front. "No," he responded, noting he practiced medicine before Medicaid when churches took care of medical costs--a comment that drew wide audience applause. "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."

If the hospital cares for an uninsured patient, then we pay for it on way or the other. I am not sure what Paul thinks is going to happen.

The Ticket

 

[777 fixer]

Can you show any politician who is the dyed in the wool stick by his convictions type guy?

And get elected?

If one doesn't pander to all flavors, will he cross the great divide and get elected?

Only if all flavors see a common quality.

????

You're point is what dell?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Health Care and the airline business have one thing in common. They are highly regulated. The problem is (As usual) not why the government is involved but HOW it's involved.

You cannot have an industry living in regulatory limbo when that industry accounts for about 1/7th of the US Economy and expect the overall economy to survive. Currently the industry is funded around 50% by the government and the remaining by private insurance or private pay. Cost shifting is rampant due to government reimbursement rates. This is what happens when well meaning individuals in government want to "Fix" a real or perceived problem.

Airlines are a dramatic case on point. They were "Deregulated" and prices dropped dramatically and travel options increased. Good for consumers. In that regard deregulation has been a rousing success. Yet airlines struggle to be consistently profitable. Wage growth is in the pooper, etc etc. However what was NOT deregulated was the requirement the airlines still have to comply with all of the myriad FARS and the DOT and so on. The cost of compliance is staggering and the airlines trundle along one foot in a regulated environment and the other in an unbridled free market,

The same is true in Healthcare and as a nation we either need to go "All in" in either direction. A European style socialized system or a free market system. A free market system will lower cost and make services more available. However it will also increase the risk in some ways. This is why Socialized medicine looks so attractive.

My point is that as a nation we need to "Pick One" and stick with it for ten years and see how it works. Status quo isn't it and neither is ObamaCare

Please take a listen to this Obama-Care

 

[Ms Tree]

The same is true in Healthcare and as a nation we either need to go "All in" in either direction. A European style socialized system or a free market system. A free market system will lower cost and make services more available. However it will also increase the risk in some ways. This is why Socialized medicine looks so attractive.

There is nothing to substantiate that a 'free market' system of health care will lower costs. The only thing a free market system will do is allow the market to find it's equilibrium. It may be higher or lower. There are costs involved in health care. Those cost need to be covered. It may be cheaper to get $1000 from 100 people than it will be t get $100 from 1000 people. If that's the case, there will be quite a few people without health care because they cannot afford it.

There is no reason that anyone in this country should be forced to go without health care.

 

[SparrowHawk]

There is nothing to substantiate that a 'free market' system of health care will lower costs. The only thing a free market system will do is allow the market to find it's equilibrium. It may be higher or lower. There are costs involved in health care. Those cost need to be covered. It may be cheaper to get $1000 from 100 people than it will be t get $100 from 1000 people. If that's the case, there will be quite a few people without health care because they cannot afford it.

There is no reason that anyone in this country should be forced to go without health care.

Nothing except YEARS of evidence that a free market lowers prices. This has been true since the birth of capitalism. What more prrof would one require. Look at the USSR and it's subsequent collapse and the re-birth of wealth and entrepreneurial activity in Russia as an immediate example of the free market as exhibit A.

No is forced to go without health care today. There are laws on the books and I was reading about them this very day and now I can't find the links. It' not the roll of government to make up with redistribution of wealth schemes because people like my ex are heroin addicts in order to keep them healthy so they can rob and steal to support their habits.

 

[Ms Tree]

I disagree with the lower cost premise. That is like telling me that a half gallon @ $.50 costs less than a gallon @1.00. I'm getting less gas. The cost of the given service is not decreasing, the quality and the service is decreasing and as a result the end user cost is decreasing but you are getting less. I do not see a correlation between a corrupt dictatorship and the US.

A heroin addict? That's what you are using as an example? Why not add a Nazi reference and call it a day. How about the 21% who cannot afford medical and drug bills?

I love how Paul skirted the issue of health care. Sure if someone comes to the hospital they have to prove care and at that point it is the most expensive care possible and the tax payer has to pay for it. No one ever mentions that had the person been able to go to their doctor when the pain first happened that it probably could have been taken care of at a much lower cost to the tax payer. Of course we could just let the poor bastard die as some of the TP's suggested.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I disagree with the lower cost premise. That is like telling me that a half gallon @ $.50 costs less than a gallon @1.00. I'm getting less gas. The cost of the given service is not decreasing, the quality and the service is decreasing and as a result the end user cost is decreasing but you are getting less. I do not see a correlation between a corrupt dictatorship and the US.

A heroin addict? That's what you are using as an example? Why not add a Nazi reference and call it a day. How about the 21% who cannot afford medical and drug bills?

I love how Paul skirted the issue of health care. Sure if someone comes to the hospital they have to prove care and at that point it is the most expensive care possible and the tax payer has to pay for it. No one ever mentions that had the person been able to go to their doctor when the pain first happened that it probably could have been taken care of at a much lower cost to the tax payer. Of course we could just let the poor bastard die as some of the TP's suggested.

No skirting, just the truth. When he was practicing before government intervention in healthcare his descriptions of how things were was accurate. I know first hand when my Dad got very sick at age 38 it turned out to be his final illness. We had health insurance through his union job and it was good but nothing to replace his income. The community "Took us in" and I went to work illegally at the age of 13 (Full Time while in school) we had the Lion Club at the house, Salvation Army, Rescue Mission and I don't know how many others because I was kind of busy becoming an adult at 13. This was also my first experience with unwanted government intrusion into my personal life.

I was in school and working. Get a call to come to the guidance office (15 now) and this jackass confronts me over not having working papers and working 45-50 hours a week was effecting my grades, which they were. I told him and I quote "Look don't F**k with me, it's none of your business how or what I do when I'm not in school. I'll be 16 in a few months and I can quit school and get a GED without you or your school" and I left the office. In 1970 you didn't talk to Guidance Counselors that way and of course the A-hole contacted my Mom at work which was his second mistake of the day as he caught an earful from her as well. See, the very last gift from my dad was a button with the words "Question Authority" wore it every day in school and was ordered to take it off more than once and each time the person got the middle finger and a card from the local ACLU as the school did not enforce it's published dress code.

So you'll pardon me if I see very little that is good about a large central government. Funny thing is it was that very bureaucracy that made me a screaming Libertarian. The price of Liberty is risk and to me it's worth it.

 

[Ms Tree]

Nice story. Nothing to do with the issue we are discussing but nice story none the less.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Nice story. Nothing to do with the issue we are discussing but nice story none the less.

It has plenty to do with the story as it demonstrates that Government intervention almost never results in a positive outcome

 

[Ms Tree]

I see no indication of that. I would agree that excessive intervention is just as counterproductive as no or limited intervention. Business has one interest. Profit. They have no interest in the public good. Just look at all the unsafe products that have been produced. Look at all the dumping and hazardous practices that companies participate in. They will do what ever they can to make a buck, public be damned.

 

[delldude]

. Of course we could just let the poor bastard die as some of the TP's suggested.

You have proof TP made this claim?

 

[Ms Tree]

Nope.

The voices were at a CNN/TP sponsored event and it is an assumption on my part. Since no one knows who said it we will never be able to resolve that question. I like my perspective, you like yours. The liberal media is going with mine. OH well.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Nope.

The voices were at a CNN/TP sponsored event and it is an assumption on my part. Since no one knows who said it we will never be able to resolve that question. I like my perspective, you like yours. The liberal media is going with mine. OH well.

LOS ANGELES – Minutes ago in front of the California Republican Party convention delegation at the JW Marriott at L.A. Live, CRP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro announced Congressman Ron Paul as the winner of the 2011 California Straw Poll.


A full breakdown of the results is copied below. A total of 833 ballots were cast during the 2011 Straw Poll which included a write-in opportunity for the first time.


The 2011 California Straw Poll was held on Saturday, September 17th between 9:00AM – 5:00PM, where CRP members, associate members, and registered guests were allowed to choose their favorite from among the 11 official Republican presidential candidates.

2011 Straw Poll Full Results (Votes, %)

Congressman Ron Paul (374, 44.9%)

Governor Rick Perry (244, 29.3%)

Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%)

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%)

Jon Huntsman (17, 2.0%)

Herman Cain (15, 1.8%)

Newt Gingrich (14, 1.7%)

Thad McCotter (7, 0.8%)

Rick Santorum (7, 0.8%)

Gary Johnson (2, 0.2%)

Fred Karger (1, 0.1%)

44.9% isn't the performance of a fringe candidate! It's the performance on a CONTENDER!!!! We're coming to get ya Barack!

 

[Ms Tree]

I'm not sure if I am keen on the idea of Paul being the republican candidate. I mean on the one hand it guarantees Obama a second term. On the other hand, it guarantees Obama a second term. I really don't think the Dems have anything to worry about from Paul. I doubt there is a chance in hell he will get the nomination.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I'm not sure if I am keen on the idea of Paul being the republican candidate. I mean on the one hand it guarantees Obama a second term. On the other hand, it guarantees Obama a second term. I really don't think the Dems have anything to worry about from Paul. I doubt there is a chance in hell he will get the nomination.

Funny thing is you're full of crap as the polls show a statistical dead heat between Paul and the Empty suit