Healthcare Reform Passes
by Ron Paul
Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.
Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can’t find a doctor.
Legislative hopes and dreams don’t always stand up well against economic realities.
Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.
Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.
Processing your request, Please wait....
Your account has been banned from Huffington Post. This is what I receive when I attempt to post a comment on Huffington Post. Yet non of my comments are any more or less abusive than others simply not Liberal. What happened to the 1st. Amendment. When I try to sign on with AOL they will not let me either. At some point a court action will need to solve this action. As for Ron Paul I hardly knew him and have been around for some time. However, he is misunderstood. He is too kind and thoughtful to be a politician. He does not know how to make executive orders that kill children like Rick Pary or wonderful speaches that plundge the nation into further debt like OBAMA.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I have a suggestion on how to make health care more affordable for baby boomers. Why don’t you give a tax break for doctors and hospitals that opt out of medicare? Medicare artificially sets (high?) pricing for exam fees. Many doctors cant survive without charging these high fees and accepting medicare, but if they get a tax break maybe they can charge lower than Medicare fees. Another bonus for doctors is that they don’t have to follow the Medicare definitions on what is a “full” procedure which also throws in bells and whistles that often is not needed in the actual care of the patient.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Why is single payer considered socialized healthcare. At worst its socialized insurance/payment.
Single payer is really no different than school vouchers. It provides a free market choice to the patients what doctor, hospital, clinic they see and when and how often and its paid for. Its nothing more than an open ended healthcare voucher.
There are too many profit motives in the current system that do nothing to lower costs. Insurance has no incentive to lower costs, they will either lower their coverages and reimbursments or raise premiums, co-pays and no-pays.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Food for thought
we were looking into a vacation and Amish are sounding more and more like Americans who understood something about big government a long time ago.
is this the answer???
found this at http://www.800padutch.com/amishpeople.shtml
“Self-employed Amish do not pay Social Security tax. Those employed by non-Amish employers do pay Social Security tax. The Amish do pay real estate, state and federal income taxes, county taxes, sales tax, etc.
The Amish do not collect Social Security benefits, nor would they collect unemployment or welfare funds. Self sufficiency is the Amish community’s answer to government aid programs. Section 310 of the Medicare section of the Social Security act has a sub-section that permits individuals to apply for exemption from the self-employment tax if he is a member of a religious body that is conscientiously opposed to social security benefits but that makes reasonable provision of taking care of their own elderly or dependent members. The Amish have a long history of taking care of their own members. They do not have retirement communities or nursing homes; in most cases, each family takes care of their own, and the Amish community gives assistance as needed.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
What about if a man or woman doesn’t have children or couldn’t have children and he/she lives on his own? Who is going to take care of them?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yea thats the Amish. Surprisingly they seem to be the only ones actually practicing what Jesus preach. Instead of all these so called “Christians” in this country that want to throw other people under the bus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul is definitely oversimplifying about the free market being able to drive down costs on it’s own. I wish it would work that way but it doesn’t. The AMA and PHARMA have a stranglehold on our health care system. There are thousands of natural, herbal, and generic drugs out there and work much better than the patented monstrously profitable drugs that are pushed on doctors and taught about in medical school. With PHARMA and the AMA controlling the educational curriculum of schools our doctors are getting a horrible education. They only spend two years in the classroom, learn nothing about immunology, nutrition, biochemistry, or a number of other essential medical subjects, however they tend to take three courses in behavioral medicine where they’re told to prescribe anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines for nearly anything and everything. You can’t find doctors that understand the causes of disease, because it’s more profitable to treat the symptoms, this is what they’re taught. You can’t get your insurance to cover an herb at 1/100th the cost of a patented prescription drug because the herb was never able to be patented to start with. Our doctors are for profit drones of PHARMA and the AMA. With a totally free market, PHARMA, AMA and even AHIP, still control the schools, the research (which is mostly fraudulent to manipulate data allowing them to make a profit on something). As it stands now they’re still able to control the government, but take out the government and they still control everything else. That allows them to keep as many people sick as possible, on as many brand name drugs as possible, and as many doctors uneducated in science based medicine as possible. The keeps our cost skyrocketing and ruins our society. This is what i’d like to see Ron Paul address.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Need to clarify a few things to others reading this post.
Statement: “There are thousands of natural, herbal, and generic drugs out there and work much better than the patented monstrously profitable drugs that are pushed on doctors and taught about in medical school.”
Response: Many prescription medications are derived from natural products. See lovastatin. These medications are profitable, I agree. This is generally taught in medical school. Generic medications are the preferred medications for many physicians. Generic substitutions are performed by most pharmacies and mail order pharmacies. Cost-effective is not the same as plain “effective” for other medications. Direct to consumer drug advertising also drives high priced brand name medications.
Statement: “They only spend two years in the classroom, learn nothing about immunology, nutrition, biochemistry, or a number of other essential medical subjects, however they tend to take three courses in behavioral medicine where they’re told to prescribe anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines for nearly anything and everything.”
Response: You can generally see each medical schools curriculum online. Most if not all require immunology, biochemistry, and nutrition. Not sure what “three courses” of behavioral medicine you are referring to. Modern medical education prepares the student to deal with behavioral issues in four years of medical school with further training during residency.
Statement “You can’t find doctors that understand the causes of disease, because it’s more profitable to treat the symptoms, this is what they’re taught.”
Response: Pathology, histology, pathophysiology, physiology, anatomy, biochemistry, immunology, etc are all required courses in medical school. Generally, treatment can only be initiated after thorough evaluation. “The cause of disease” is the cornerstone to medicine training. Preventive medicine is taught and practiced by all primary care.
Statement: “You can’t get your insurance to cover an herb at 1/100th the cost of a patented prescription drug because the herb was never able to be patented to start with.”
Reponse: Patients have the ability and right to pursue alternative medicine. Insurances generally don’t pay for over the counter options. I agree, however, drug costs are often inflated.
Statement: “Our doctors are for profit drones of PHARMA and the AMA.”
Response: Great majority of physicians aren’t members of the AMA because they no longer feel this organization represents them. You can find these statistics through reputable sources. PHARMA “kickbacks” are not the norm in my experience. A free lunch to discuss new medication still occurs, however. The vast majority of physicians are reimbursed by our current medicare, medicaid, and insurance system.
Statement: “With a totally free market, PHARMA, AMA and even AHIP, still control the schools, the research (which is mostly fraudulent to manipulate data allowing them to make a profit on something).”
Response: Can’t necessarily prove a negative. Certainly data can be manipulated. With large businesses such as Enron and Worldcom operating under questionable business practices it stands to reason PHARMA may as well. However, most research is performed in academic centers with government funding.
Statement: “That allows them to keep as many people sick as possible, on as many brand name drugs as possible, and as many doctors uneducated in science based medicine as possible.”
Response: God help us if this were true.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
This is a succinct, brilliant comment. It sums it all up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul is perhaps one of the more intelligent congressman out there, but I think that he may be over simplifying the free market’s ability to lower the price of health care. The free market does not work the same way for the heath care industry as in other industries. For example, people often think paying more for health care means better health care. Aside from education, there aren’t many industries where paying more is better. This is one of the forces that is driving the price of health care. Doctors can also contribute to increasing the cost of health care because they have no incentive to reduce their price. In other words, a doctor that gives more expensive tests and charges more is a “better” doctor. Also, individuals that don’t have any insurance drive up the overall cost of health care because they don’t generally participate in preventative medicine and they tend to get treated in the emergency room. In this case, insurance companies and individuals absorb the cost of these people. There are probably more, but there is a third force that “increases” the cost and is brought up a lot is malpractice lawsuits. This is somewhat of a myth, since it only represents about 2% of the total health care cost. Now, the question is: How does one reduce the cost of health care?
1) I think doctors should be well compensated for their years of education. On the other hand, doctors should not be rewarded for unnecessary tests or treatments. One way to give doctors an incentive to reduce costs is to pay them a flat rate.
2) I think everyone should get adequate health care, but this doesn’t mean they can get every test in the world. Thus, there has to be some inherent limits placed on what can be done on an individual, unless that person is willing to pay for it. By limiting what someone can get, that would reduce the cost.
3) Preventative medicine reduces costs by preventing individuals from getting sick and treating them when they are not very sick. For example, providing physical education and nutrition education in school would be an example of preventative medicine. Another example is encouraging people to have a primary health care physician. This doctor might spot a disease before it is too advanced.
4) Everyone needs health insurance. As stated above, people without health insurance cost everyone a lot of money. This would reduce the cost by spreading around the risk.
5) As stated above, malpractice only represents 2% of the health care cost and is not really going to be a strong driving force. However, there should be some limits on compensation, when an individual can give informed consent. Medical treatment and drugs are inherently risky and health care is never 100% safe. People should be made aware of that.
6) Competition between insurance companies as Ron Paul stated above would likely reduce the cost. However, the insurance companies should be required by law to provide a minimum amount of health care. Otherwise, we all end up paying for it, when the individual with the cheap and poor quality health insurance shows up the hospital and gets treated.
I consider myself a conservative on many issues and I am skeptical with the government running anything. However, I never hear conservatives complaining or wanting to eliminate Medicare, which is an example of government run health insurance. The United States is the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have universal health care. Surprisingly, instead of paying less for health care in the United States, we pay 50-100% more per capita than other developed countries (i.e. Switzerland). The United States is the best country in the world. We should be able to reduce our health care costs by 50-100% to the level of other developed countries. I think the big failure of conservatives in congress on the issue of health care was their apparent unwillingness to engage and negotiate with the democrats. Without all the unintelligent rhetoric, we might have ended up with a more workable and reasonable health care law.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
This isn’t a Republican Rally, it’s a Ron Paul website.
Gee wiz. *thumbs back*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The United States is the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have universal health care.”
Who do you think these people get their technology/medicine etc from? The U.S.A because we don’t have a universal health care system. The people creating these great things don’t do it solely based on curing the sick. They think yea in America I can make a killer profit on inventing this. When we don’t have that kind of innovation will we look to countries with universal health care that have always waited for us to create the technology first and sell it to them for pennies to our dollars?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
I am actually one of the scientists producing the technology scottsfield is referring to and I can say that Europe and other developed countries that have Universal Health Care contribute a lot to medical technology that we use. Dialysis was invented by a dutch physician named Dr. Willem Kolff. Drs. Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell cloned the first mammal (i.e. a sheep named Dolly) in 2003 at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh in Scotland. The first robotic surgery was done at Imperial College in London on a robot named , the PUMA 560. I can give a lot more examples including contributions by both european and american scientists on the same technology (i.e. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)). I hate to say this, but Scottsfields arguments are based on emotions and not based on any facts. He is an example of why conservatives have lost a lot of credibility during the George W. Bush years.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I usually vote for the candidate that I think is best qualified for the job. I did not vote for Obama, because he gave us enough information to know he wanted our great country to become a socialist society. The only way he won, was by promising FREE HEALTHCARE to everyone, and it brought out everyone who was looking for a free ride. Nothing is free. You cannot give something to one person, without taking it from another. I wanted health care reform, but this is not the bill I wanted. I thought they were going to over haul the insurance companies, there fore, making people with pre-existing conditions, able to afford, good quality healthcare, at an affordable price for them, or making policies affordable for families who made too much for government assistance run programs, but not enough to buy a policy, able to buy a policy that would fit within their budget.
Instead, what we got was not what the people wanted. Just look all over the internet, talk to people, who were democrats, who are enraged at what they were duped into believing. It’s not only what was passed, but how it was passed. All sneaky, behind closed door deals, to get the votes for this. Now I am not saying sneaky deals have never gone on before, but they didn’t listen to the people. They basically said, we don’t care what you want, this is what we want. Forcing people to buy insurance at the crazy rates they charge, is not what the people wanted. How do they expect someone who is not working, not earning paycheck, to be able to buy a policy? Oh they say, then apply for a government subsidy. Hello, isn’t that just going around and around in a hamster wheel??
Look just how great other government programs have turned out. They are all broke. Anyone who thinks by adding 32 million more people to health care, and still expecting to receive good, quality healthcare, is just fooling themselves. If the government wants to save money, how about instead of hiring 16,000 IRS workers to enforce their rules, they hire 16,000 people to expose the welfare cheats? Why is it, my husband and I have to take random drug tests to earn our paychecks, yet those on the receiving end do not have to?? Who wouldn’t like to hang out, get high, and get a check? If someone needs government assistance, then they have to pass a drug test, same as I do, in order to get a check. Why should I work so that someone else can reap my hard earned tax benefits? When do I get to keep a little bit more of my paycheck?? Pretty soon, those 5 days a week I work, 3 of those will go to taxes, instead of the two that already do. We pay a huge premium for our health insurance, and I like our provider. We do not have any pre-existing condtitions now, but who knows what may happen health wise down the road to us? But that just not even relavent anymore, for our exisiting insurance company won’t be around any longer in 2014.
What about our seniors?? What’s going to happen to them? My parents are getting closer to retirement, and I’m terrified that when this all takes effect, and they become ill, they will not be able to receive medical care, by being able to get into the doctor that day. Instead, they will be put on a waiting list, and have to wait. Government run healthcare will be rationed, for everyone, but especially for the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions. Is this what the people wanted? Not this person, that’s for sure. But I guess it won’t matter in the years to come, since our society will slowly die a slow death. Think of all the babies who will be aborted, less people to insure, less people to keep our once great country going.
They don’t care about us in congress. If they did, then they would be held to the same health care reform rules as the rest of us, and not be exempt from them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
“I usually vote for the candidate that I think is best qualified for the job. I did not vote for Obama, because he gave us enough information to know he wanted our great country to become a socialist society. The only way he won, was by promising FREE HEALTHCARE to everyone, ”
Nooo, Obama didn’t win. McCain lost.
Big difference.
Neither of the 2 major parties represent a majority of Americans (and neither do the Libertarians).
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Fred, do tell us who represents the majority of Americans?
Given your passionate hatred of Libertarians you must believe it to be something very, very far to the left; Totalitarianism, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
It’s very simple. The Republicans and the Democrats (and the Libertarians) don’t represent the majority of Americans. Can’t you get that through your thick skull.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I wonder how long before Congress passes a ‘jobs bill’ that requires you to work 60 hours a week for $7/hr.
And if you don’t do it, they’ll fine you $5,000.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Re- “another wall street bonus”-wsj 25/3/2010.
Build America bonds.
Briefly on article.
Bonds with 7%
-4.5% paid by issuing city(people pay)&
-2.5% paid by fed.(also people pay-through taxes/tariff/land sale/privatization-very clever bankers.)
Us cities,states and the feds have issued more than 2.5t in ’08 and 2t in 2010.
Last April,New Jersey turnpike authority sold 1.3b but needed only 250m because great demand.(not because require by project!)
(like geese stuffed to create foie gras.they did this to 3rd world countries/banana republics,etc.)
Wall street pocketed 1b in fees in less than a year.
Goldman has taken out advertisement urging congress to make program bigger and permanent!
…no one mentions the downside:Build America bonds will add hundreds of billions of dollars of new liabilities to the balance sheets of cities,states and uncle Sam.
Let see how bankers carried out the looting.
Looted
(i)directly 4.5% from issuing city gov.
(ii)indirectly 2.5% through feds(privately owned)-multiple earning steams.
Feds turn paper/debts to money.
loan money to treasury in exchange for bonds.
(bonds pay interest to feds/bankers.)
the REAL WINDFALL-
feds use bonds as reserve and create 10 times through fractional reserve banking.
(loan some to local gov,cities,states,
some to companies,
some to mortgages,
some to speculators-stocks/commodities/currency,
some to proprietary trading,
some to cronies to take over companies,
some to attack targeted countries’ currency/markets.)
The looting and plunder start all over again.
And when no one believe/trust them,they go to church and said they are doing god’s work.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
lol….because “free market health-care” works so great, that’s why America is #37 in the world. Lost a LOT of respect for Ron Paul on this issue…after all he IS a Republican.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
We haven’t had a totally frree market in healthcare since the 60′s.
That’s when the government jumped into the game, and prices have been heading up ever since.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
ok jamfreak, please explain to me where we have a ‘free market’ health-care system?
This bill notwithstanding, healthcare has NOT been free market.
Compare your health insurance through your employer (or self insured if you could afford it), to your car insurance.
How many car insurance companies are there? Almost too many to count. And dont’ you find they are all competing to give you lower and lower costs?
How many health insurance companies are there? There’s only about 6 large ones (Kaiser, Cigna, Aetna, UnitedHealth, BlueCross/BlueShield group, and one or two others). These companies are exempt from anti-trust. There is no ‘free market’ (i.e. competition) between them.
Please elaborate on WHY you say you’ve Ron Paul has lost your confidence. What specifically in his health care reform proposals do you disagree with and why?
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
If we must have Health insurance or be penalized, why cannot we choose our own modality of health care? This new reform forces all to have Health insurance for Allopathic Medicine and not the health and healing modality of our own choice and the only health care we believe in. To many Americans do not even use any form of Allopathic health care but use naturopathic and Holistic alternative medicine instead. I included. Why pay for a health insurance I would never use?
This new reform is a slap in the face to our freedom of choice.
It would have made more sense to get rid of the malpractice insurance Physicians must have and pay that is so high cost for them. No wonder their prices are so high!
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
“Why pay for a health insurance I would never use?”
Because SOMEONE (YOU) has to pay for the 32 million uninsured. And heaven forbid Congress pass a bill to open competition to lower health care costs. No, they rather pass a bill to add more people to the entitlement state.
Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Congress to work on reducing healthcare costs. Then we, the people, can make our own choices on how much health insurance coverage we wish to buy?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
some of these comments are really scary, not because of the content but because of the bad grammar… (english is not my native language and I even notice that!)
healthcare need it a reform but obviously not the one passed; what’s really need it is affordability, control on the high-price premiums and deductibles…
for example: a single rate for single women from 25-35 (non smoker), no dependent a different rate for single mothers with option to cover a dependent for only a $100.00 more… control on the pharma industry and their overpriced medicines doing “branding” and “positioning” their new drugs making desapear the low cost medicine that was still effective but not so popular… stop the pharma company from giving incentives to Doctors who prescribe the most-expensive and not the most-effective… etc
the goverment should be only punishing the big evil healthcare and pharma industry not the people because still poor or rich we all need a doctor, a hospital, an ER and medicine…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Text Book definition of irony!
No offense meant, truly, but it’s obvious that English is not your native language. Your grammar is atrocious, so maybe you shouldn’t complain about other people’s grammar. I could hardly understand your point.
That said, if I understand you correctly, I agree with your point; affordability is what should be the focus of Health Care reform.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
but please remember, when we’re talking ‘costs’ we mean actual COST OF SERVICE.
Everyone seems to relate healthcare costs to health insurance PREMIUMS. There is a HUGE difference.
Imagine if the government said “everyone shall buy car insurance” even if you don’t own a car. To cover those drivers who don’t have car insurance but own a car.
They’ll limit your car insurance premium to $30pm.
Everyone would love that
But who would pay for the fund, when the cost of all the insurance claims exceeds the premiums received?
In congress’ eyes, we just add it to the deficit.
Actually this is directed more at luz than you Ryan.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
No problem, I assumed that you were talking to Luz. Due to the grammar issue I wasn’t even sure what his/her point was, precisely. I agree completely that it is the actual cost of service that should be reduced.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Maybe somewhere around 1861??? an interesting paralel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
YES YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER A LONG WAITING PERIOD AND HOW TOLD YOU THIS??? AND IT COST SO MUCH………..IT NEVER GONE WORK
AND HOW DO YOU KNOW !!!OH SOMBODY TOLD YOU THIS OR YOU HAVE LOTS OF EXPIRIENCE. iT WORKS .EVERYWHERE BUT NOT IN THIS COUNTRY
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Americans not the only one that have health care look at Germany the oldest over 120 years Healthplan and it work HOW CAN THIS HAPPEND ???AND HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE IT GO GOOGLE
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
We go erery Sunday to Church and pray to help the sick , what do you want god? to pay for it!!! I am a good christian dont you see
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
I dont need healtcare why should i care if people cand pai for it !!!i have tricare
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
I work in the health care industry. First of all, Since when is having insurance = to good health care? How can they even pretend this is a health care reform? It’s will be genicide for the elderly. They cannot afford to wait long periods for care. I cannot believe intelligent people could make this law and not realize they were signing the death warrant on millions of our most medically vunerable citizens. Is this their way of dealing with the failing social security system? Afterall, older people will not be able to draw social security if they’re all dead.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
That’s the main problem I have with this Obamacare bill, the mandating healthcare for ALL Americans and fining those who refuse to buy it. If someone doesn’t want it, why should they have to pay for it?
Highly rated. What do you think?
14 
0
This also means longer waiting periods to get surgery for diseases, illnesses, and injuries, and more people will die because of this misguided bill.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Too late folks we are now in ObamaCare!! Be READY to Carry Arms! IRS Agents will be knocking on doors and if you don’t have Health Care YOU are in Trouble! and if someone doesn’t have health care……WE the people are NOW going to pay for it with our TAXES…be ready for more Cuts from your paychecks folks and budget cuts….our country will get WORSE and WORSE thanks alot Obama you and your brainwashed Cabinet will one day wake up with the rest of us and we will see that we are in debt to YOU and every generation will have to CARRY that debt for the rest of our lives…..
Goodbye America! The Reign of the Free man has ended…a NEW Era has begin! and its all communism
Highly rated. What do you think?
21 
3
this type of “healthcare” reform is only promoting more abuse and fraud…
more third parties will be involved in selling you insurance policies good for nothing and generating more problems to get real-care
and let’s not even point at the fact that preventive care will soon disappear
what about the price of meds and the control over the pharmaceutical industry?
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
1
but Dr. Paul Government tax payer health care is good enough for you, isn’t it?
Look, I don’t like that private insurance companies get a gift from Democrats, but I didn’t like it when Bush Paulson gave Wall Street a bailout, those toxic assist on our backs was a gift to them. Nor do I like that both parties shell out tons on these ridiculous wars.
When Bush gave out tax cuts every republicans was happy, they said, ” So what if we go into debt I’m taking what I can get!” Did you think democrats would think differently about health care?
So let’s try this, tax the crap out of Wall Street for Universal Health Care for now, then cut the pentagon in half, we’ll save tons, then we can all afford our own health care.
Let’s do that first, least until Wall Streets stops robbing blind us and gambling with our futures.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
11 
23
while this sounds like i’m defending them (and I sure as hell am not), over taxing wall street will just result in them moving overseas.
This is the exact problem London is having and how they are losing their status as financial capital of Europe. They are proposing and enacting so many taxes on banks, everyone has moved offshore.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Hey jischinger
your ignorance is simply overwhelming.
Go read a book, I’d recommend Dr. Zeus for your intellect.
Like or Dislike:
1 
16
There’s no reason for name calling. Let’s act like adults here.
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
1
Dr. Paul,
I’m falling somewhere between healthcare being and not being a right of all Americans. Are all those who do not have the means to secure their own form of health coverage supposed to be just left on the streets to die? I wholeheartedly support you from a standpoint of constitutionality. But such rigid adherence feels like a brand of political fundamentalism. Do we want to be a country that lets our weak and underprivileged suffer? That can’t be the mark of a successful civilization. So in reality if we’re not expecting the ER’s to turn away uncovered people, then we’re accepting the burden of that costly care that could’ve been prevented for less. I don’t know the answer but it seems like there has to be an option for those that don’t have the means like I do. Unless we let them die, we’re paying for them one way or another. Which is the cheapest alternative?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
14 
15
The health care system is rationed, and what’s even worse is this flawed bill which will rationed it even more. & I have heard that the banks and insurance companies will make even more money.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
why do people always say this?
“Are all those who do not have the means to secure their own form of health coverage supposed to be just left on the streets to die?”
Is your city littered with dead and dying people on the streets?
My city must be really good at cleaning up all these dead people from the streets then, and the newspapers must be under government control to prevent them from reporting this, since I never see it either on the streets or in the newspaper.
Highly rated. What do you think?
26 
4
Libertarian777 You do make a great point. The government has censored the real stories of people. Government has always had false promises that they just can’t keep to disguise what they’re really hiding.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Thank you Ron Paul! Seemingly the lone voice of reason in a lair of greed and corruption. Could you do us two big favors Dr Paul?
#1. Shine a light on other Representatives who, like yourself, are Representing the people by whom they were elected. Hopefully there are more than just 1!
#2. Seize the current state of unrest among the People and direct them toward your Audit the Fed bill! Surely they will be as outraged with the lack if visibility into where all of our money is going. Our best option now is to start sweeping the legs out from under plans like this by demanding audits and, ultimately, control of our money back!!
Thank you for your continuing efforts in what must be an increasingly difficult climate for those like yourself who still hold to (or even know about) the original founding principals.
Highly rated. What do you think?
21 
3
Sadly Ron Paul is a rare intellect in the political arena.
Its the air-head Nancy Pelosi types that don’t care about the cost, they are well insulated from the total collapse of our economy. It’s us dumb middle class working fools who will be striped clean of our futures.
Highly rated. What do you think?
13 
3
It’s true. Today’s American’s are totally fine with handing over their freedom in exchange for “safer living”. I suggest the lot of you should move to some communist country before you let ours turn into one!!
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
It should’ve just focus on the cost and we pick our own healthcare! It shouldn’t be mandatory.
Highly rated. What do you think?
13 
0
on Collective Bargainer’s point … USE CASH.. thats great but almost all employers require direct deposit now. so in order to do this everybody will have to go and cash out after every pay day
oh and Ron Paul, I stand behind you the whole way. Things are getting way out of hand…
as Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. “
Highly rated. What do you think?
29 
0
Yes. We would have to cash our checks instead of direct deposit. Or withdraw our paycheck if direct deposited.
A small inconvenience is a small price to pay for liberty. Money talks .. I’m adding to the Banking RFP list :
5.) Funds held in precious metals and other tangible assets
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
God bless you Dr Paul. I agree with you most of the time, but have disagreement when it comes to healthcare.
Martin Luther King jr and the rest of the world all share something in common when it comes to healthcare & that is that healthcare should be perceived as a civil right, and NOT a luxury.
And that is where I and many other Americans stand on the issue.
Omar
@omarjead
Hotly debated. What do you think?
6 
32
You are confusing this recent bill with health care. This bill merely offers discounted insurance premiums via tax-credits to qualifying individuals. The reason there are no prior-condition exemptions is because all plans will be drawing from the same pool of money. It’s no magic wand, it’s the pooling of money by means of law-enforceable IRS tax code changes. The penalty for non-compliance will be an extra 2% tax, if you elect to remain in a plan that is not government-approved (so you too would be paying into the same pool either way).
This doesn’t cover anything that current insurance doesn’t cover. Low income people who qualify still have to pay for services. The providers still get to charge the maximum as set by the government guidelines. And, most of all, the choices will be even more limited.
The real problem with health care right now is the outrageous cost. And that has been largely influenced by the minor role that the Federal government already plays. When Ron Paul talks about free market health care he is talking about a system of competitive services and pricing that will actually drive the prices DOWN. What you mistake as free-market economics is largely corporatism (and even statism at certain levels). For example take a look at auto insurance. There are a large number of private insurance providers all competing for your business. They are constantly adjusting their services and trying to best each other with cheaper rates or more convenience. When is the last time you have seen that with health insurance providers? Instead, premiums go up, copays go up, out of pocket maximums go down, annual maximums go down, coverage as a whole deteriorates. So you have to ask the question: where is all that money going?
We need to start with the answer to that question before we can even begin to propose a solution. I’m not sure what quotes from Martin Luther King you are looking at, but I’ll give you a quote from a man who I wish was here to lead us again:
“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become
happy.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802
Highly rated. What do you think?
23 
2
Omar, I think you, along with a lot of other people are being misled by various groups as to what ‘rights’ truly are.
The government (and constitution) should enforce your right to life and liberty by preventing hospitals, doctors etc. from doing things such as refusing to see black/hispanic/asian patients due to their skin colour, race, age, religion etc.
Currently no hospital can turn ANY patient away from an ER. That there enumerates your ‘right’ to healthcare.
The difference here is this ‘bill’ is not about healthCARE. How can the government MANDATE that everyone join a health insurance plan, any more than they can mandate everyone to take public transit, or eat healthy foods etc?
These are choices best left to the people to make.
This bill does NOTHING about the COSTS of healthcare (price controls are NOT cost controls), it just grants further entitlements to everyone, and funds it with deficits (and more taxes). Rand Paul made a good argument about how where things are competitive costs go down (e.g. cellphones). People called in arguing “but i’m not a cellphone plan, i’m a person” etc. etc.
Ok, but 15 years ago cellphones were seen as things only ‘wealthy’ people could afford or need. Nowdays EVERYONE has a cellphone. Even in rural India, and Africa cellphones are prevalent.
Now if this technology which was only needed by the ‘wealthy’ is accessible to even the poorest of the poor in 15 years, why is it that government needs to get MORE involved in healthcare? Even pet care is run better than human care, since it is a private enterprise without government involvement.
Even before this bill was passed, government was the issue of creating this huge insurance companies with ogilopoly pricing power. The government should have removed this (anti-competitive / anti-freemarket) subsidy to the health insurance companies.
Mandating healthcare insurance is no more a right than the government mandating everyone have a cellphone and computer due to their 1st Amendment right.
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
1
Omar, that’s the wrong attitude.
We do not have a RIGHT to Health Care, let alone a RIGHT to Socialized Health Care, like ObamaCare. That’s absurd!
We The People have a RESPONSIBILITY to pay our own debts, including Health Care costs.
If we focus on the cost of Health Care, reducing it to affordable levels via Tort Reform and reduced Bureaucracy and reduced Regulations across the board, we can then all afford to have decent Health Care.
Nationalized Heath Care is nothing less than organized theft with Government approval. Which in turn increases the cost down the road, and at the same time reduces our personal Liberty and self-determination.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
also don’t forget, your ‘right’ to healthcare as people believe they have cannot override my rights!
I have a right to life, but not at the expense of yours.
So if healthcare is a ‘right’… that’s fine, but how do you define the limits of that right? do you get ‘free’ coverage for every ailment? and does that mean that I must be taxed at 50%/80% to pay for your coverage?
So my right to the fruits of my labour are superceded by your ‘right’ to healthcare?
if that happens, what incentive do I have to work?
If we are insistent about healthCARE as a right, we need to define it very narrowly. The ‘right’ to healthcare would only encompass hospitals and doctors not being allowed to refuse treating anyone due to their financial, religious beliefs, social status etc. And this right already exists. ER’s abide by this.
However mandating that everyone be in the same insurance pool flies in the face of actuarial and statistical practices. Why aren’t car insurance prices the same for 16 year old drivers as it is for 40 year old married women with 2 children? Why does it differ across states?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Agreed! The far left never ceases to amaze me at how much theft they are eager to justify as an imaginary “Right”.
**Why aren’t car insurance prices the same for 16 year old drivers as it is for 40 year old married women with 2 children? ***
Shhh! Don’t give them any more crazy ideas.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Ditto!
Ron Paul is right point-by-point!
If they would just focus on the real problem, the insanely high cost of health care, more people would be insured than the 32 million Obamacare supposedly insures… And it wouldn’t infringe on the people’s right to manage their own lives. Furthermore, that approach wouldn’t add one penny to our suicidally large deficit.
Highly rated. What do you think?
14 
2
HOW WE THE PEOPLE CAN TAKE BACK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – PLEASE READ :
I have discovered the way to take back our country without a single assembly or protest.
Since our Government has become a corporation, we too can collectively act as a corporation.
If we form a social network (not a company but just a membership association), we can collectively publish a RFPs (Request for Proposal) for services.
The instrument of the RFP is used on a daily basis as a means for corporations to solicit purchasing requirements and conditions to suppliers.
As a first ‘peoples RFP’, I recommend we collectively publish an RFP for banking services.
1.) Bank shall not charge more than 5% interest on credit card
2.) Zero dollar ATM fees
3.) Bear interest on savings equal to or better than best rates available internationally
4.) Offer true multi-currency accounts.
If no Bank is willing to respond to the people’s RFP, then the we the people shall USE CASH.
In this way, our wallet will become our collective lobby. I think this is the only way to get our message across. Enough talk.
The USE CASH movement has begun!
Game on bureaucrats!
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
This is genius! The banks can’t do shit if we carry our money out of our accounts.. they loose all their power. It’s like I said before, American’s today are much too comfortable letting others take care of them. That isn’t the way humanity is meant to live. You are entitled to the sweat of your brow, the shirt on your back, and so forth. This healthcare bill is just another example of the government seemingly “catering” to our wants and needs.
What people don’t understand is this all has to be paid for SOMEHOW. And HOW does the Fed get money for these programs? You, the tax payer, and them, the foreign banks overseas, thus deepening our national debt, furthering the recession and eventually leading to a dollar crisis where our paper money isn’t worth the ink used to make it! HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US MANY THINGS, BUT THOSE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO FORGET ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT’S MISTAKES.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1