113 responses to “Ron Paul Introduces Bill to “End the Mandate””

  1. Joan

    Bob From District 9, I don’t know. I think Morris loves the game. I think his mind goes a mile a minute. I think he likes to see how he can get politicians in different countries elected, just to see if he can. What he did with Clinton is when the health care bill failed and the voters put a lot of Repubs in office after that, he told Clinton to play to both sides, do away with permanent welfare to please the right, do don’t ask, don’t tell to please the left. He pulled Clinton back from the left to the center and gave Clinton suggestions that would please everyone, and Clinton got re-elected. That’s how really good attorneys think. They think about every point of law to win a case, load their memorandums of points and authorities to the judge with many different points, instead of focusing on just one issue, they’re always thinking ahead about what if this doesn’t work, then what, things like that. I do get it that he turned on Clinton and wrote books about the Clintons to get rich. He just wrote another book, it just made the NY Times Best Sellers list. He is kind of like a lawyer. Maybe he is a JD for all I know. I get his books from the library, he lists pages and pages of facts, statistics, that’s his thing. I like how he looked at the health care bill and went, how to undo this, and came up with a way to undo it. I agree it’s odd he went from being a Dem to a Republican supporter on Fox News. I just enjoy people who’s minds go a mile a minute and who think about how do we undo this bill, how to do what seems impossible to do. There isn’t anyone else I’ve seen on CNN or Fox or MSNBC who is that proactive and who comes up with the clever maneuvers Morris does. Each to their own.

    It sounds like you know a lot about economics. I haven’t studied economics, so a lot of it is over my head. I have the legal mind, that’s what I think about. I emailed Morris and I told him the states’ AGs should sue over Medicaid bankrupting the states, I don’t think the individual mandate is a good suit. It’s fun to think about stuff like that, see what you can do with it.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Bob From District 9

      “Bob From District 9, I don’t know. I think Morris loves the game. I think his mind goes a mile a minute. I think he likes to see how he can get politicians in different countries elected, just to see if he can. ”

      A quick mind does not equate to brilliance. You can be fast as lightning and still be wrong. From what you describe he is a man without honor. Getting someone elected just to do it can be a death sentence to many in a third world country.

      “What he did with Clinton is when the health care bill failed and the voters put a lot of Repubs in office after that, he told Clinton to play to both sides, do away with permanent welfare to please the right, do don’t ask, don’t tell to please the left. ”

      Colin Powell, in his book, “My American Journey” said Don’t Ask Don’t Tell didn’t come from Clinton, but from the pentagon. It was the General’s attempt to be more fair, without completely opening it up.

      “He pulled Clinton back from the left to the center and gave Clinton suggestions that would please everyone, and Clinton got re-elected.”

      Trying to please everyone is very dangerous. Whatever one side wants that is important to them the other side will hate it. By siding with each side on something, he gives each side reason to hate him. I don’t see that as an effective policy.

      ” That’s how really good attorneys think. They think about every point of law to win a case,”

      IOW, you are saying Morris is completely amoral. I can believe that.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Julie from San Francisco

    Guys, guys, guys.

    I think you’re all forgetting that this mandate is completely constitutional, as you can read under the Good and Wellness Clause.

    Or is that the Well and Goodliness Clause.

    Goodness and Wellfulness Clause?

    Welfare and Godliness Clause.

    Interstate Welfare Goodliness and Swell Feelings Clause.

    And so on.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. Bob From District 9

      One of the few changes the republicans offer to reduce the cost of health care is to allow insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines.

      The federal government has the same right to do that as they have to institute the insurance exchanges. After all, that is all an insurance exchange is, an interstate market for insurance.

      Either the federal government has the right to reform health care financing, or it doesn’t. Sales across state lines, tort reform, insurance exchanges, they are either all legal or none.

      The government can reform the system, or do nothing to fix it. There is no in between.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  3. Free Arthur

    Doesn’t the mandate to buy health insurance violate the Tenth Amendment? Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, thinks so. He has filed a suit on the state’s behalf. The State has also passed a law stating that residents of Virginia need not buy health insurance. The so-called “Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act” and its sequel, if allowed to stand, do not leave much room for the Tenth Amendment.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      I don’t think people in the 1700′s (1800′s) envisioned a government forcing people to purchase insurance. I don’t think it’s even in the Constitution.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Bob From District 9

        If there was health insurance in 1789, if there was even much health care in 1789, your comment might mean something.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  4. SoulSearcher

    Another thing. Freedom means you have the choice to not buy ANY insurance. But freedom also means taking responsibility for ALL your actions. No more Nanny State to take care of you. You become an adult and live like one as a result.

    We granted these agencies, the police, courts and government and so on to defend our freedoms, the Constitution and promote free trade. That’s all. Nothing more. So if they do anything outside of that, they have violated their job description and need to be removed. The ONLY thing they’re authorized to do, is promote freedom. There are no reds or blues, only freedom fighters or something else other than freedom.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      There you go, you said that word “free trade”, instantaneously you lost at least 50 million votes. In a country of 300 million it’s a big deal.

      And this country was run on Tariffs via the Constitution for most it’s history.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      1. gander

        i also sometimes think that free trade should be abolished. then there would be a repeat of the great depression and immigrants would stop coming into the country, people would lose weight, and maybe there would be another great war to bring the human population back to a more reasonable number.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. longshotlouie

          Kind of funny, in a sick way.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        2. Bob From District 9

          The repeat of the great depression will be brought on by the right’s eagerness to cut spending and squeeze the credit markets. The Great Depression had little to do with free trade, esp since it didn’t really exist back then. Smoot Hawley’s effect was about 40% of 3% of our economy back then. Think about that.

          That’s less than 1.5% of our economy.

          The real cause was the failure to regulate banks, which is being repeated by the repeal of the regulations enacted in the wake of the depression. That and the creation of derivitives and credit default swaps.

          When Clinton’s head of the Commidities Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born, tried to institute such regulations the republican dominated congress pretty well savaged her. With the leadership of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan of course.

          IOW, the current crises is the result of the Federal Government doing too little, not too much. At least on the domestic front.

          Ron Paul is absolutely right on the war front. And he had the courage to stand up to Rudy 9-11 Guilianni.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          1. gander

            your knowledge of economic history shows promise yet is juvenile in nature. no great depression had ever occurred before the FED was created. It was the FED that created a large stock asset bubble during the 20′s that burst, creating the havoc and the depression. regulation of private banks wouldn’t have prevented anything. however, if the FED had bailed out the banks and secured the money supply, things would have been better, as was done during this crisis. the problem with the FED is that it creates the bubbles and the problems that it is intended to fix.

            can you explain how regulations would have stopped the recent financial collapse? lets pretend derivatives didn’t exist and investment banks couldn’t own these mortgages. the market still would have been over inflated and popped, the difference is that the commercial banks would have lost all the money instead of AIG and the investment banks. the problem still would have happened, just with different victims. and in reality, the collapse of the commercial banks would have been even more damaging to the economy.

            come on bob, you read time magazine and you think you know about credit default swaps and bank regulation. you should stick to your day job.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          2. Bob From District 9

            Your knowledge of economic history shows promise yet is juvenile in nature.

            ” no great depression had ever occurred before the FED was created.

            During the 1800s there were three periods where the economy expanded then contracted drastically. They didn’t call it a depression because the word wasn’t used for such things then. They did have repeated such downturns, but they called them panics, or even recessions. The word “depression” was used in the Great Depression because they wanted to avoid using the word recession because there had been so many.

            Google 19th century panics. There were 5 major ones, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873 and 1893. All of them were depression level. There have also been numerous recessions. Those of the 20th century are easy to look up.

            Each of the panics had different immediate triggers, but they all became depression level because of excessive bank speculation. The post Great Depression laws severely regulated bank investments to secured investments and loans. Note that we have had recessions, but nothing like the great depression or the 19th century depressions. Not even the S&L failures of the late ’80s reached that level.

            Those laws have been weakened and repealed in recent years, and the result of that has been speculation gone wild.

            The notion that the Fed caused the stock bubble is given the lie by looking at the bubbles of preceding years.

            Without derivatives and such packaging vehicles the market would not have been so inflated, for the simple reason there would have been no one to sell those mortgages to. Without someone to sell the mortgages to the banks would have been limited in how many mortgages they could make. Freddie mac and Fannie Mae were not their resource, their portion of the mortgage market dropped in the bubble. Besides, FM^2 had limits on what mortgages they could take. Which is why the mortgage market, esp sub-prime, shifted to the unregulated mortgage brokers.

            “It was the FED that created a large stock asset bubble during the 20’s that burst, creating the havoc and the depression.”

            regulation of private banks wouldn’t have prevented anything. however, if the FED had bailed out the banks and secured the money supply, things would have been better, as was done during this crisis. the problem with the FED is that it creates the bubbles and the problems that it is intended to fix.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          3. Bob From District 9

            “come on bob, you read time magazine and you think you know about credit default swaps and bank regulation.”

            I do subscribe to Time. I also read Paul Krugman, and The Economist. And I have every copy of the Statistical Abstract of the US ever printed up till last year, and the “Historical Statistics of the United States From Colonial Times to 1970″. Both volumes. As well as multiple copies of the Federal Budget History Files, several years back. And one hell of a lot more stats.

            And anyone can google and learn more about this than you seem to know.

            ” you should stick to your day job.”

            You should look for a day job.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          4. gander

            i don’t have a life time to answer all this mumbo jumbo so i’ll keep it brief.

            the only economist you referenced was krugman, who is one of the most extremist and biased economists today. he won the nobel in trade economics and thinks he therefore is a master of everything else.

            you mentioned the panics of the 19th century. they weren’t called depressions because they didn’t last for 10 YEARS. implying that they were similar is disingenuous to put it mildly.

            and then you tried to talk about freddie and fannie and you actually made it seem like the regulations helped them and that they weren’t involved in subprime. this is blatantly untrue.
            after bear sterns THEY WERE THE FIRST TO FAIL. your statements made me confused. were you just not clear in your writing style or have you been deliberately misinformed? perhaps krugman, contributed?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          5. Bob From District 9

            “the only economist you referenced was krugman, who is one of the”

            Sorry, I don’t recall referencing Krugman. It’s possible as I do sometimes. Irrelevant, he’s still good.

            “most extremist and biased economists today. ”

            IOW, you don’t agree with him.

            he won the nobel in trade economics and thinks he therefore is a master of everything else.”

            A: Being a working economist involves a lot more than one small area. He is far more an expert on any part of economics than such as Amity Shlaes or Ben Stein.

            B: They don’t give a Nobel in trade economics. Saying he got a Nobel in trade economics and implying he doesn’t know much more than that is like saying, because Einstein won the Nobel for his work on the Photoelectric effect his work on relativity and gravitational lensing and brownian motion were a waste of time.

            After all, you can get enough brownian motion from a really hot cup of tea for most purposes.

            C: There is no Nobel Prize in economics.

            Next topic:

            “you mentioned the panics of the 19th century. they weren’t called depressions because they didn’t last for 10 YEARS. implying that they were similar is disingenuous to put it mildly.”

            Believe it or not there is no rule saying a downturn has to last 10 years to be called a depression. And you don’t get to write the rules. In fact, the depression didn’t actually last 10 years. It hit bottom in 1933, then started up. In 1937 it went down again, but that was due to FDR being convinced to start fighting the deficit instead of unemployment.

            See a depression is just a really bad recession. And the end of a recession is dated at when it hits bottom. Which was 1933.

            Don’t believe me? Google recession.

            Yes, they were similiar. Or, do we say 1929-1941 wasn’t a recession because it was more than 3 years long? Maybe it needs another name entirely.

            “and then you tried to talk about freddie and fannie and you actually made it seem like the regulations helped them ”

            If it seemed that way to you perhaps you need some more study on the subject.

            “and that they weren’t involved in subprime. this is blatantly untrue.”

            It most certainly is untre that I suggested in any way that Freddie and Fannie were not involved in subprime. Had you known about this before reading it would have been more clear. FMandF M were involved in subprime, but they also had more restrictions on them. In the Bush II era the market shifted away from FM&FM, not completely, but their market share dropped. The extreme subprimes were done by unregulated mortgage brokers. Oh, and FM&FM didn’t originate the subprime mortgages, nor did they bundle toxic mortgages and sell them as CDOs. Like Goldman Sachs did.

            after bear sterns THEY WERE THE FIRST TO FAIL. your

            They were the victims of the subprime mortgage brokers. The victims often went down first. Goldman Sachs is just now being revealed for their fraud.

            statements made me confused. were you just not clear in your writing style or have you been deliberately misinformed?

            I have been perhaps trying too hard to make clear to you something that is rather complicated.

            perhaps krugman, contributed?

            He may be a bit above your level, but I tried to keep it where you could understand.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Joan

      But the problem is when people don’t have health insurance and they get sick, some of them bankrupt hospitals, some go onto Medicaid, the taxpayers, some file bankruptcy. So, they are not able to take responsiblity for themselves when they get sick unless they have health insurance. People need medical care to live, same as they need water and food and air to live, so it is an absolute necessity, not some good or service they don’t need. I’ve seen several law professors say the states’ lawsuit over the mandidate will lose. It’s not the best argument to do away with the bill. The fact that the bill forces states to put milions more people onto Medicaid, bankrupts the states, NY just went bankrupt over it. I think it’s a better lawsuit to say this bill forces states to go bankrupt, which is detrimental to the welfare of the people. The best way out of the bill is like Dick Morris said, vote enough Republicans who will refuse to fund the bill, game over. I think everyone knows we do need to get every person insured one way or another, it does have to be done.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Bob From District 9

        Anyone who cites Dick Morris as a source has nothing to say worth hearing.

        “The best way out of the bill is like Dick Morris said, vote enough Republicans who will refuse to fund the bill, game over. I think everyone knows we do need to get every person insured one way or another, it does have to be done.”

        Don’t you realize you just contradicted yourself? Elect republicans and you will have no health insurance at all. They don’t want to expand insurance, if they did they would have argued for a better way to do it, not argued against doing it at all.

        Elect enough democrats to amend the bill without worrying about a filibuster. Even the dems know this bill needs more work, but opening it up with the republicans in a position to block action means no improvement at all.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        1. Joan

          Dick Morris is the one who got Clinton re-elected, by creating triangulation, which how many people still reference all the time? His IQ is in the 150s, and who else came up with the idea of refusing to fund the bill as a means to stop it? No one. Who told the public the bill would cut 500 billion out of Medicare? Morris, when he’s not busy contacting everyone with information and ways to fight the bill, or writing NewYork Times best sellers or helping polticians in other countries to get elected. Why always make personal attacks?

          You are not thinking things through. Most people claim to be so responsible, yet 90 percent of them are screaming about having to carry health insurance. They all should, and most won’t do so unless they are forced to do so. Getting rid of this bill has nothing to do with not having health insurance. I don’t want millions dumped onto Medicaid, my state just went bankrupt over it, we lost tons of taxpayer services and they just let 65,000 prisoners out early because they can’t afford to keep them in prison. What will be cut next time from this bill shoving millions more onto Medicaid. I don’t want 500 billion cut from Medicare when 70 million more people are about to go onto it. I want it solved in a humane way, vouchers, privatize it, the Repubs came up with the idea of vouchers for private insurance. It is unsustainable for one more generation, but simply gutting it and leaving elderly people with no care is not any kind of an answer. This bill is a crapola pile of messes, refuse to fund it, start over and solve the problems. Medicare, Medicaid and SS cost most of the tax money. Unless you want that 10 percent VAT tax for the rest of your life to pay for this health care bill to have millions more people on Medicaid and to continue to have the federal government pay for every surgery and every test for 110 million old people forever, then we better make sure this bill is stopped and solve the Medicaid and Medicare bleed of taxpayer money. No wonder you don’t like Morris, his IQ is in the 150s, your IQ is hovering in the low 90s, obviously. No wonder this country is a mess, look at the idiots in this country.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          1. Bob From District 9

            “Dick Morris is the one who got Clinton re-elected, by creating triangulation, which how many people still reference all the time? ”

            Uh… nobody.

            His IQ is in the 150s,

            So he says. Did you test him? And does that mean anything? Lots of psychopaths are highly intelligent.

            ” and who else came up with the idea of refusing to fund the bill as a means to stop it?”

            Just about everyone who wants to let people die instead of do something good.

            ” No one. Who told the public the bill would cut 500 billion out of Medicare?”

            A very big liar. It will cut $50bill/yr from insurance companies, not from medicare services to recipients.

            ” Morris, when he’s not busy contacting everyone with information and ways to fight the bill,”…

            Not to mention telling lies on Fox News. And inventing new lies and deceptions.

            ” or helping polticians in other countries to get elected. ”

            What business does he have interfering in other country’s elections and why would I care?

            “Why always make personal attacks?”

            That is the forte of the do nothing right. In the case of Dick Morris, he is scum. It needs to be told.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          2. Bob From District 9

            “You are not thinking things through. Most people claim to be so responsible, yet 90 percent of them are screaming about having to carry health insurance. They all should, and most won’t do so unless they are forced to do so.”

            Most of them get insurance through their employers. So most of them are not screaming about any such thing. You are supporting the mandate, but that is the first thing Ron Paul wants to get rid of.

            “Getting rid of this bill has nothing to do with not having health insurance. ”

            That’s exactly what it does. The republicans are united in opposing any real reform to provide health insurance.

            “I don’t want millions dumped onto Medicaid, my state just went bankrupt over it, we lost tons of taxpayer services and they just let 65,000 prisoners out early because they can’t afford to keep them in prison. What will be cut next time from this bill shoving millions more onto Medicaid. ”

            If you think it’s bad now, repeal this bill and watch the system slowly collapse putting millions more on medicaid, or nothing at all.

            “I don’t want 500 billion cut from Medicare when 70 million more people are about to go onto it.”

            You have not been paying attention. First, the number is $50billion/yr. Second, it’s not a cut from medicare services. Medicare pays that money and more to private insurance companies for medicare advantage. That is where the cut is taken. Services paid for by medicare are not touched by that.

            ” I want it solved in a humane way, vouchers, privatize it, the Repubs came up with the idea of vouchers for private insurance. ”

            Privatization has been the cause of much of our current problems. Privatization caused the Walter Reed scandal with wounded soldiers kept in wards with filth all over the place. Privatization is a major reason we are still in Iraq, instead of that being settled years ago.

            Vouchers are the dumbest idea ever come up with for insurance. Ron Paul wants to complain about a one size fits all solution? Vouchers are a one size fits all solution. For my children in their 20s it’s a cost savings, for myself and my wife in our 60s it’s a disaster.

            Vouchers are not the solution to anything, when they work at all it’s as a stopgap only.

            “It is unsustainable for one more generation, but simply gutting it and leaving elderly people with no care is not any kind of an answer. ”

            Medicare is every bit as sustainable as any other system. Our real problem is out of control costs which will run to $1trillion/yr excess costs in the near future, when we spend 20% of GDP compared to the 12% cost in the most expensive National Health Care system in the industrial world. (Switzerland)

            We need to focus on rebuilding our economy by restoring our industrial base, rebuilding 0ur infrastructure, and removing illegal immigrants. That will provide the means to resolve pretty much all our other problems.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        2. Joan

          I worked in law firms for 20 years, and I immediately started thinking about what points of law could undo this health care bill. Everyone should be doing that, considering what legal issues could possibly stop this bill. Obama was a Constitutional law professor, he told the Repubs to go for it, which means the Dems think they dotted every i and crossed every legal t in that bill. This is the fun of law, how to find his weak side, that’s what lawyers do, what point of law would reverse the bill. Like I said, the individual mandate is a weak argument, bankrupting the states over Medicaid is a much better argument, and, for Morris to come up with the idea of electing the Repubs to refuse to fund the bill, big win, beats the law professor at his own game. You come up with a legal argument or legal maneuver to stop the health care bill before you talk badly about the only person so far who has been able to do so. You will be hearing soon on the news that the states’ attorney generals decided to sue the federal government over Medicaid bankrupting the states. I figured it out, so will the lawyers. About 2 more weeks and this will be the new legal strategy.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        3. Joan

          Why the personal attack? You said “Anyone who cites Dick Morris as a source has nothing to say worth hearing.” Everytime Obama goes to the left, all the talking heads, even people like George Stephanopolus ask if Obama will triangulate and mention how Morris created it. Politicians in other countries would not pay him money as a campaign consultant if they thought he was an idiot. He is the only one who came out on the news and said this bill cuts 500 billion from Medicare, and then other news sources started admitting it as well. He is the only one who came up with unfund the bill by voting the Dems out. Have yet to hear anyone else come up with that idea. Maybe men don’t like him because he sounds a bit gay, who knows. I’ve seen all of the talking heads on the left and right, seen really smart people on Charlie Rose and Bill Moyer’s shows. I just personally see some higher intelligence in Morris than most of the rest of them. Beck is not very smart, he gets most of his info from other people, and goes of on the crazy train, O’Reilly is clever, but not that smart, Olbermann is average intelligence, Matthews same thing, Maddow is over-educated but no real life experience with poor people, that’s for sure, Ed Schultz is a blubbering idiot. Steve Moore is pretty smart, some of the economists are sharper pencils in the box. I just get it that Morris is really, really smart, maybe because I’m a woman, I don’t care if he talks kind of gay or whatever. I like people who solve things, who come up with big wins and ideas, who are knowledgeable and clever at the same time. I worked for attorneys for 20 years, I can tell a good lawyer from an average one or a bad one. Just my take on it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. Bob From District 9

            “Why the personal attack? You said “Anyone who cites Dick Morris as a source has nothing to say worth hearing.”

            Dick Morris is scum. If you consider him a reputable source, why would anyone consider your post meaningful? Oh, Morris is lying scum.

            “Everytime Obama goes to the left, all the talking heads, even people like George Stephanopolus ask if Obama will triangulate and mention how Morris created it. ”

            I thought you meant real people. During the campaign I thought George S was trying so hard to appear unbiased he could be on McCain’s campaign team. Wasn’t it Stephanopolis who claimed economists agree business tax cuts increased revenue? Economists don’t agree, and there is no history showing that they do.

            Hardly a left wing thing to say.

            However, I haven’t heard of triangulation, in the political sense, since the campaign.

            As to the rest, all his political activities you cited show he is a self centric self promoter with no consideration of actual principle. Why would any reasonable person consider him as a source?

            Oh, and a quick tongue does not add up to brilliance, just a talent for BS.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. SoulSearcher

    I guess at least several here don’t get it. It’s not about democrat or republican agenda or beliefs, so remove those phrases out of your mind and mouth. There are no such things. There is only one party in America now, the communist party, and there’s two different branches of that party called the red and blue parties. And as American’s there is only one party, the freedom or Constitutional party. None of the rest matters. It’s just another way to keep “the people” divided and distracted from the real goal. Don’t play their game. Everybody needs to unite and defend the Constitution under the Constitutional or Freedom party.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  6. SoulSearcher

    What a smart move by Ron Paul! Once again he shows he’s the only real freedom fighter left. I will never pay for this communist healthcare system! NEVER! If we don’t stop it here then when? When they tell us we have to buy a GM car and then their government houses and live in their government cities? Screw that garbage! They do what we tell them or they’re fired! And as of now they’re all fired! Support Ron Paul and the Guardians.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  7. sTEVE

    One question.
    How come Democrats always voted for taxes ? do we have enough taxes or is it away to get American people broke?

    I find that Democrats always voted for taxes and yes they voted for taxes all the time and guess who paids those taxes lower class and middle class.

    Democrats been voting for taxes for years, and right now is enough taxes and yes we are over tax.

    When is the Democrats are going to stop voting on TAXES???

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      When are the neocons going to stop voting to reduce taxes in the face of massive budget deficits?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    2. Fred the Protectionist

      See, 3 neocon/Libertarians voted against what I just said because they are reckless deficit lovers.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  8. TK

    I hate to be forced into anything, it’s better to decide for yourself

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

    1. Bob From District 9

      That’s how I felt back in 1965, but Uncle Sam said I had to register, and eventually serve, anyway.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  9. Anti-Bob rom Dist.9

    So , Bob from D.9, If our system of you said “A society that does not include everyone, and bring everyone up is a failing society.” What you don’t realize in your socialist mind is that “society” is not responsible to bring any one up, each individual is responsible for there own ‘bringing up’. And what puzzles me is why you weak minded, lazy, anti-freedom, socialist, such as yourself don’t leave to say maybe China, or N. Korea, or better yet, start your own nation based on your own policies and leave this terrible country.

    P.S. One rule that you do seem to hold to though is , if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BULLS#!#.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    1. Bob From District 9

      Do you realize you are not making a whole lotta sense?

      The part that got through is where you displayed a temperament more suited to N Korea or China, do it my way or get the hell out.

      BTW, did you raise yourself? School yourself? Teach yourself to read? Put yourself in your high chair?

      You do represent a failing element of society.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  10. bobsanidiot

    give me liberty or give me death

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

    1. Bob From District 9

      As long as I get to chose which.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  11. Bob From District 9

    “When the cost of government–mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals, small employers, and the government, ”

    And this is what it really is all about. It is the cost that congress is debating, not the principle. Few opponents of nat health care in congress care about your principles, they only care how the cost will affect their re-election.

    “Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will reimburse.”

    Yet the system works in every other industrialized country in the world, covering everyone, for a cost savings of 60% of GDP for the most expensive plan against our system.

    Our system already limits what is covered, by cost. Insurance companies will pay for cheap treatments gladly, but dodge the expensive ones with every effort they can muster.

    “First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.”

    The mandate is the portion of the bill that I have a problem with, but I do not see how it will work without the mandate.

    And the republicans who are fighting on that point are faking it, and you know it. They don’t object to the mandate, they object to any bill that doesn’t cater to their constituency.

    The current system does not work. Even the republicans agree on that. No other system they have proposed would be any better. Until you can come up with a system that provides health care for all Americans this is what we have.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15

    1. Jim

      That’s fine Bob if it’s private industry giving us affordable health care, but you obviously have not read and understand the limits that our Constitution places on the size and scope of government. Go read your Constitution Bob. You are trying to convince the people here that the constitution is nothing more than a paper from which to carry on debates Bob.
      Go read your Constitution Bob.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3

      1. Bob From District 9

        “You are trying to convince the people here that the constitution is nothing more than a paper from which to carry on debates Bob.”

        You seem to be trying to convince people it’s a suicide pact.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

        1. gander

          bob from district 9

          does that mean that you are really roberto from tijuana?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          1. Bob From District 9

            No.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          2. gander

            if not then why would you support legislation that forces everyone to pay for poor mexican kid’s health care? you want free cat food for all your crustacean friends. i don’t want to pay.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          3. Bob From District 9

            “if not then why would you support legislation that forces everyone to pay for poor mexican kid’s health care? you want free cat food for all your crustacean friends. i don’t want to pay.”

            You are a very shortsighted person.

            Get the illegal immigrants out and that problem is solved.

            Next time think more than one step ahead.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          4. gander

            first off, my vision is 20/20

            second, illegal immigrants are going nowhere because no one will ever expel them. i repeat, no one. they are going to expel you, bob.

            viva azatlan

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Bob From District 9

            “second, illegal immigrants are going nowhere because no one will ever expel them. i repeat, no one. they are going to expel you, bob.”

            We may not get them all out, but we can get a significant number out. That and strangle the continuing crossings. That will go a long ways.

            Remove the incentive to be here and they will stop coming. Lock up people who knowingly employ illegals, and make it much easier to know. And require they try. Really try.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Forrest

    How about a mandate such as is required by the PSC http://www.psc.state.fl.us/ in the state of Florida, to be be a regulated part and parcel of every insurance company; as I do not know one of us who wants to, or will not get sick.

    For sure we want gov’t out of our hair, but when is the last time anyone of us
    lobbied to have the controls lifted on the utility companies; who for the most
    part do quite well indeed. Same for pharmaceuticals, wherein last month, I was quoted $432.00 for 30 pills of pain meds for my wife; or $ 8,172.00/lb.

    Maybe it’s too simple.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

    1. Just say no

      We want the Federal government out of our hair. The states need to reassert their power over unconstitutional federal power.

      When we get Federal government manipulation and subsidies to special interests out of the free market, only then will we see competition force prices down to an affordable level. Socialized medicine is certainly not the answer.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

      1. Bob From District 9

        Your way hasn’t worked so far.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

        1. SS

          It has not been tried.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Bob From District 9

            Yes, it has. The states have been regulating insurance for a very long time. In fact, the demand to allow sales of insurance across state lines are intended to preempt state authority to regulate insurance.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Fred the Protectionist

    Socialist? SOCIALIST?! Haha. No.

    This is “privatized” health care, like “privatized” social security, or “privatized” roads, or “privatized” currency; all things Libertarians love.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

    1. Free market, not government market.

      Fred, Fred, Fred. Haha ,yes. You have a lot to learn with regards to the socialist government control of privatized business.
      Government subsidized health care has nothing in common with private enterprise any more than government subsidized unionized bankrupt chevy and chrysler has.
      Free market means exactly the way it sounds. Free of all manipulation from government and government backed special interest sources.

      Hence the words (Free Market).

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

      1. Bob From District 9

        There is no free market. There has never been a free market since cave men did barter. The free market has never worked, and never will.

        An unregulated market is anarchy. When I was young I believed in anarchy. I have seen too much of life since then.

        Fair trade, not free trade.
        Fair market, not free market.

        A society that does not include everyone, and bring everyone up is a failing society.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13

        1. longshotlouie

          1) “There is no free market. There has never been a free market since cave men did barter. ”
          2) “The free market has never worked, and never will.”

          ——

          If #1 is true how can you know #2 to be true?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

          1. Bob From District 9

            No 2 is true because if a free market worked number 1 would not be.

            The reason number 1 is true is number 2 is true. Any attempt to move toward a totally free market fails. And there have been attempts.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9

          2. longshotlouie

            Sorry, I’m allergic to circular arguments.

            If #1 is true, you have no basis to determine if #2 is true.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

          3. Bob From District 9

            longshotlouie

            “Sorry, I’m allergic to circular arguments.

            Go back and study logic 101.

            “If #1 is true, you have no basis to determine if #2 is true.”

            Actually, you got that one right. By sheer luck I would say. Back to logic 101,:

            1) “There is no free market. There has never been a free market since cave men did barter. ”
            2) “The free market has never worked, and never will.”

            If number 2 is true, then number 1 must be true.
            Syllogism: If A then B.

            However, the truth of number 1 does not prove number 2.
            If B then maybe A maybe not A.

            Ok, that one ain’t in the book. But it’s true.

            That was one of the hardest principles for most students to understand. I was working with digital electronics when taking logic 101, so I understood it easily. Do you?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16

          4. longshotlouie

            Are you dizzy from your spinning?

            Neither #1 or #2 are accurate.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

          5. Bob From District 9

            Your opinion. That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

        2. Jim

          What we had before the first world war was very much a free market system Bob and it worked quite well Bob. It wasn’t until the government moved in with things like prohibition that this nation began seeing anarchy and the likes. Your dead wrong once again big government Bob. You must have an awful lot of faith in big government manipulation of private industry Bob.
          You must also be very busy replying to every ones posts big government Bob.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            “What we had before the first world war was very much a free market system ”

            No it wasn’t, the average Tariff across all goods was like 40%, and instead of international corporations disproportionally influencing government there were national corporations disproportionally influencing government (robber baron era).

            The rich are always trying to squeeze everyone else until they are the only ones left with food in their mouths. It’s just easier to do it with open-borders/free-trade, but essentially it’s the same fight; the progressives vs. the regressives. The regressives are really economic feudalists.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

          2. Bob From District 9

            Your dedication to personalizing it is evidence of the weakness of your position.

            Even you don’t believe it. Or don’t understand it. Your choice.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

        3. Fred the Protectionist

          Absolutely Bob.

          Over.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  14. No mercy

    These socialist congressmen decided decades ago that America belongs to them.
    We Americans who want freedom will have to realize that our congress is illegally ignoring and violating the Constitution. The Congress of these united states are criminals and they need to be removed from office and incarcerated for crimes against a free people. These people have failed to represent a free society, and in this free nation, they do not have that option. It is time to put a stop to these violations to our Constitution. If our Congress and president are so powerful that they feel that they are above the laws of a free society, then we had better go after these criminals in government with a vengeance. Our supreme court has failed our nation as well. They are the ones who should be demanding that congress and the president follow the Constitution. Instead, they have chosen to sit back and grow old, collect dust and wait for rigimortis to set in while our Constitution gets trashed by our government. Is there anybody at all in government that has the balls to stand beside Ron Paul and help restore law and order to our Congress and this socialist president? Anybody?……..Anybody at all?

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1

    1. Bob From District 9

      “These people have failed to represent a free society, and in this free nation, they do not have that option. ”

      Free society and free nation are buzz words, not meaningful points.

      When I was young it was common to answer any challenge about what you could do or say with, “It’s a free country”.

      Since then I have learned, we learned, no country no society is completely free. Even an anarchy is not truly free, it’s just a different sort of rule, true despotism, in it’s worst form.

      Without freedom from fear there is no freedom at all. The only question really is, what fear and how much.

      “It is time to put a stop to these violations to our Constitution. ”

      Violations to our constitution are legalistic arguments, not moral arguments.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

      1. Ron

        Hey Bob, You keep working on that freedom from fear.
        I have my doubts that you were ever young Bob.
        I believe that you were born middle aged Bob.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. Bob From District 9

          Those without fear are fools.

          I may have been born middle aged, or even old, but I do believe you need to mature a bit.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

          1. Rob

            Bob, have ya bothered to take note of how people are perceiving your ridiculous Liberal comments? Take a moment and check out all of the thumbs down you have received. They are a testament to your slim following Bob.
            Bob, have you noticed that this is not a Liberal sight?
            Yer killing us with laughter Bob.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          2. Bob From District 9

            If you think siding with the mob indicates you are right then you are most certainly wrong.

            I have noticed a complete dearth of reasoned discussion here. I just wonder, if any of you can manage it, get a copy of this exchange to Ron Paul. I would like to know which of us he would rather talk with.

            I’m betting it’s not you.

            Long ago I discovered I learn more from those I disagree with than those I agree with. Mostly because those I agree with already hold the same reasoning. I may not agree with those I didn’t agree with before, but at least I saw something differing from what I already knew.

            In the best cases anyway.

            I suspect you have not yet learned that.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  15. Freedom or kiss my a$$$

    Get out the notebook and start taking the names of every socialist republican who votes against Ron Paul’s repeal bill. In my opinion, these republicans don’t have a clue just how pi$$$ed off many Conservatives have become over this socialized medicine being rammed down our throats by our congress. These republicans have no clue as to the fight they are in for from many Americans when they try to fine, intimidate, harass or otherwise force the people to take part in this unconstitutional socialized medicine. In my opinion, this repeal bill had better pass if this socialist congress wants a peaceful resolution to their forced socialism. The line has been drawn and if these socialist bastards cross that line, I believe many Americans will finally decide to put these socialist ba$tard$ in their place. If my comment has angered any socialist ba$tard$, by all means, kiss your a$$$$ and go to hell. Many Americans have had it with these one world socialist jerks. This is America, we have a Constitution and I suggest the socialists in congress sit their a$$$$Es down and read it, understand and protect it.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2

    1. Bob From District 9

      You don’t have a clue how little most republicans care. Damn few republicans are libertarians.

      All you are ranting about is the money side of libertarianism, that’s the only connection you have with republicans. On most issues republicans find libertarianism anathema. Republicans want to control your life more than democrats ever did. The only difference is where they want to control, now the fact of control.

      And most republicans do not oppose national health care, but either oppose some detail of the bill, or are falling in line out of fear of opposition in the next election. Given the details they want and remove that fear of losing the election and they will happily vote for national health care.

      Hell, most libertarians I know believe in a woman’s right to an abortion, but that is the one issue republicans lined up against the health care bill against, for the most part. And that opposition was faked. A great many republicans favor legalized abortion, but they are pandering to the religious right.

      You are on the losing side of this battle. If you want a libertarian government, you better find someplace else to live, cause you ain’t gonna find it here. Not under either party, not by the choice of the overwhelming majority of the American public.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

      1. longshotlouie

        You seem to be attempting to convince yourself.
        Having said that, you make at least one valid point,
        Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs really are more the same than different.

        We watched the Neo-Cons piss in their own well, now we are witnessing the Neo-Libs doing the same.
        You guys are our best advertisement. Thanks.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        1. Bob From District 9

          “You seem to be attempting to convince yourself.
          Having said that, you make at least one valid point,
          Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs really are more the same than different”

          You really don’t get it. There is a vast difference between conservatives and liberals, and both sides have elements of libertarianism.

          And Neo anything is pretty much nonsense. It’s just a new name for something that is very old.

          If you insist in living in a world of pure theory you can argue any point, but sooner or later you have to come back to the real world.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

          1. longshotlouie

            Let us know when you are finished convincing yourself.
            The differences you speak of are simply rhetorical. The results are the same.

            It is you that does not ‘get it’.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      2. Freedom or kiss my a$$

        Well bob from district 9…..So whats your point? If you have a point to make then make it. No one is debating the fact that republicans care or don’t care about Conservative values. Their votes for the past 40 years have shown that they do not care. Maybe republicans do not care but Conservatives sure as hell do. Many of those Conservatives just happen to call themselves Libertarians.
        You seem to believe that because we have two parties in control who both have a Liberal agenda, that America is doomed to that reality forever so we might just as well sit back and live with it? You might just be surprised how wrong you are. I believe the majority has already began to rethink their ideas with regards to how much socialism they can stomach.
        I am not arguing that republicans aren’t socialist and want control of our lives, I am however pointing out that many Americans are getting pi$$ed off at the lack of Conservative thinking in the republican party. I would prefer to have a Constitutional Conservative government and I have no intention of moving somewhere else to get it. Unlike you, I refuse to just accept the majority view. I prefer to join the fight to change it. You go sit in your easy chair and accept the socialism that is surrounding you and leave the fight to those who refuse to give up……….Deal?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

        1. Bob From District 9

          I do believe you do not understand any of the basics.

          There is a great difference between those who are called liberal and conservative, but the words themselves mean little. Back in the early ’60s, when I was in high school, we argued those things over and over, but the words meant meant much different things. Well, I guess liberal hasn’t changed much, but conservative today we would have called radical reactionaries.

          Liberals tend toward social libertarianism, and conservatives tend toward economic libertarianism. In the old meanings, anyway.

          Republicans may not care about conservative principles, but they are lined up behind them 100% when it comes to money. That’s party discipline, not individual belief.

          Democrats are all over they field, probably because they do not have the religious fervor to keep them in line.

          “I am not arguing that republicans aren’t socialist and want control of our lives,”

          If you think the way republicans want to control your life is socialism, you have no idea what socialism is.

          When republicans try to tell you who you can marry, give your money to churches, and make war without regard to truth or justice, they are hardly even close to libertarian. And when someone who considers himself a libertarian also calls himself a republican in spite of all that, he is compromising his integrity.

          A strict libertarian is a contradiction in terms, but a fanatical libertarian suffers from the inability to recognize that some rules are necessary, and the difference is in what rules you recognize as necessary.

          “I would prefer to have a Constitutional Conservative government and I have no intention of moving somewhere else to get it. ”

          IOW, you are willing to compromise on libertarianism. I expected that. The only question is what compromises you are willing to accept.

          “Unlike you, I refuse to just accept the majority view. ”

          I doubt you even know what the majority view is. You aren’t required to accept it, just live with it until you can change it. I have the same requirement. There are things in the present system I am strongly opposed to, but I have to live with them until I can change them.

          “I prefer to join the fight to change it. You go sit in your easy chair and accept the socialism that is surrounding you and leave the fight to those who refuse to give up……….Deal?”

          I refuse to allow those who don’t give a damn about the poor and the powerless to run this country, so I will continue to oppose you.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

          1. longshotlouie

            We get it, bob.
            You understand, and the rest of us are simply confused.
            Thx for the clarification.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

          2. Tom

            Bob, you get a little stranger every time you post.
            You are a legend in your own mind Bob.
            Is it possible that you could just shut up before you confuse yourself?
            You are arguing with every point that each person posts.
            You seem to be trying to convince yourself that everybody but you is wrong if they have an opinion.
            Take a break Bob. Go fishing or maybe do some sewing. OK ?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

          3. Bob From District 9

            “Bob, you get a little stranger every time you post.”

            Around here that is nothing to be ashamed of.

            “Is it possible that you could just shut up before you confuse yourself?”

            Thinking getting to hard for you?

            “You are arguing with every point that each person posts.”

            Not every post, but you do get a lot of them wrong. BTW, more trying to enlighten you than argue.

            “You seem to be trying to convince yourself that everybody but you is wrong if they have an opinion.”

            Not everybody, some agree with me.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          4. Rob

            Stop Bob, yer killing us. We have serious work to do here before the 2012 election and we can’t waste so much precious time laughing our assssses off over your ignorant, foolish Liberal comments. Get a life big government Bob.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  16. rob

    I’d like to see Ron Paul pull a President Polk and only run for one term, thrash and burn through the congress and set the government in this country in the right direction.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

    1. Bob From District 9

      If Ron Paul won election to the Whitehouse he would be an empty shell by the end of one term. Congress would run over him if the tried to force his views on them. The republicans and democrats would join forces and make deals to get what they want.

      If you try to stand there like you are some kinda superman you are going to learn you are not, and they are not impressed.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

      1. longshotlouie

        If Ron Paul won the presidency, it would not happen in a vacuum.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        1. Bob From District 9

          That is the only way it is going to happen.

          Freaky things like that do happen.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

          1. longshotlouie

            So the same country that voted in Paul would not be voting in sinilar kinds of candidates to other positions?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Bob From District 9

          “So the same country that voted in Paul would not be voting in sinilar kinds of candidates to other positions?”

          Very likely correct.

          Very few Americans are Bushites, but he still took the Whitehouse.

          Of course, he didn’t win the election, but he came too damn close.

          Most of the time those who win the election do so because the voters vote against the other candidate, not because he is wonderful.

          Can you honestly see any candidate in the last 30 or 40 years that isn’t true for? Even Nixon won because Humphrey was LBJ’s VP, not because the people loved Nixon. Carter won because Ford pardoned Nixon. Reagan won because the Iran hostage situation, not because he showed any competence, or even any dedication to the principles he espoused. You did know Reagan, as gov of California, got passed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state, didn’t you? A success he repeated as president.

          Clinton won because Bush bungled the economy, Bush II managed to steal the presidency because Gore was Clinton’s VP, event though Gore was much better qualified. And Obama won because Bush II was so obscenely bad.

          I bet you voted for Bush in 2004. Think about it, if Kerry had won he would probably not have been as bad as Bush, and we certainly would not have Obama now.

          IOW, it’s your fault.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

          1. longshotlouie

            You are simply arguing that nothing can change and we are victims to circumstance.
            That is the kind of thinking that landed us in the current mess.

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’ve never voted for a Bush.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            If Ron Paul were to magically win he would be a very weak president.

            First many “constitutionalists” by default think the presidency is the weakest branch of government to start with, and they may act that way.

            Second, the way Ron Paul acted in Congress. He votes against bills because they aren’t perfect enough for him, which would mean that he would veto everything coming across his desk (if he magically won presidency), which would send a signal to Congress to ignore and bypass the president. He would have no power in the process of compromise, just like he is now as a Congressman. How many bills has Ron Paul co-signed that was actually passed through Congress? How many Congressional processes has Ron Paul lead to success?

            You know, maybe I could vote for Ron Paul, hmmmm.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      2. Jake

        Bob, sit down and take a break. You are posting liberal crap that makes absolutely no sense. You are sounding more like a fool with every Liberal post.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. Bob From District 9

          Your inability to actually discuss an issue, as well as that of the other Paulites here, is more discouraging to me than anything else.

          You are a great disappointment. If your lot is typical or Ron Paul supporters he doesn’t have a chance.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  17. Libertarian777

    of course you do realise that the whole healthcare ‘reform’ bill requires the mandate to fund the other promises in it (i.e. unlimited access to everyone), so if this does get repealed one of two things will happen.

    1. HUGE future deficits (congress would approve this)
    2. the whole bill gets repealed (I’d prefer this)

    There was a good CATO institute podcast about how health insurance companies just drop coverage of ‘high cost’ procedures / coverage, when they have too many high use / low paying customers. Results in… rationing…

    Well at least I guess the government will say that THEY didn’t ration healthcare, but that the health insurance companies did.

    End of the day, if this bill is enforced as enacted, we’ll all have less healthCARE, and more health INSURANCE.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0

    1. Bob From District 9

      Notice how your “…health insurance companies just drop coverage of ‘high cost’ procedures / coverage, when they have too many high use / low paying customers. Results in… rationing…” is present tense?

      IOW, they are doing it now. At the worst that isn’t changing anything in the bill just passed. At best that will be prevented. My insurance says, “All necessary medical care.” Not, “All profitable medical care.”

      IOW, the private sector does not give a damn if you live or die.

      Corporations are inherently sociopathic. Deal with it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      1. longshotlouie

        The government cares whether we live or die? lol

        All we’ve done is shift burden. The fundamentals have not changed.
        The cost of insurance and care will continue to rise.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. Bob From District 9

          In the long run the government does what the governors require. In a Democracy, in the long run that means what the people require.

          We have shifted the burden, but also the authority is shifting from the corporations to the people.

          In the most expensive national health care system in the industrialized world, Switzerland, the cost is 12% of GDP. That covers the entire population. Our system costs 17.5% of GDP, heading for 20%, and leaving 45 million uninsured, and rising.

          That difference is not $1 trillion over 10 years, the cost even republicans cite, but a savings of $1 trillion per year.

          The problem there is not that it is done, but how it is done.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

          1. longshotlouie

            The U.S. is not a democracy in origin.

            The authority has shifted from corporations to the people?
            You are hallucinating.

            Why would we compare the U.S. to socialist nations?

            When was the last time that government intervention resulted in savings?

            Won’t matter how you do it. The result is loss of liberty.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            Back in the 1990′s when I was a Libertarian we use to make fun of people and call them socialists who used the word “corporation” with negative undertones. Back then “Corporation” was all that was good and holy with all the happy Capitalists.

            Look at today, what has changed? Now the Libertarians sound like socialists.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Lisa

    Thanks for fighting the good fight Dr. Paul! It’s good to know someone in Washington cares about my freedom.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2

    1. Bob From District 9

      What kind of doctor leaves people to die from lack of health care?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      1. longshotlouie

        We are not talking about healthcare. We are talking about insurance mandates.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. Bob From District 9

          If you don’t recognize the connection between them you are arguing from a lack of understanding.

          National health care is intended to guarantee health care. Insurance, mandated or not, is just a means to that end.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

          1. longshotlouie

            Insurance mandates are the same as healthcare?

            Understanding begins with honest logic.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          2. Bob From District 9

            “National health care is intended to guarantee health care.

            Insurance, mandated or not, is just a means to that end.”

            ” longshotlouie

            Insurance mandates are the same as healthcare?

            Understanding begins with honest logic.”

            An honest debate begins with honesty.

            I guess I had to separate those sentences above so you can see they are two separate but connected points.

            Unless you think the guarantee on your TV is your TV you were either confused about what I said, or dishonest in your response. If you still don’t understand, ask and I will explain it.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          3. longshotlouie

            Are you reading while ignoring punctuation?

            Are you telling us that an insurance mandate is the same as healthcare,
            but a guarantee on a TV is not a TV?

            Slow down and focus.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          4. longshotlouie

            Read the thread again, Bob.

            Who got confused?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. Git er done

        The kind of doctor who should be treating you Bob.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. Bob From District 9

          And that’s the best you can do? Ron Paul would be disappointed in you.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Mark

    This is EXACTLY the kind of leadership that we need from Republicans in Congress. Thanks, Congressman Paul, for leading the charge to undermine this monstrosity of a bill.

    P.S> Drudge reports Ron Paul tied with Barack Obama in a shocking(?) new presidential preference poll. Congressman Paul, your time is coming! It’s time for REAL change.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1

  20. Ryan

    I sure hope this passes.

    It will be interesting to see which of the politicians decides to reject such a straight forward bill designed to let people make their own decisions about health care. There’s no confusion about this legislation. It’s simple and focused.

    This is a brilliant way to expose the traitors in our government. Ron Paul should use this kind of “one page” legislation a lot more. It will simplify the positions that the politicians take, in the eyes of the voters. They won’t be able to hide behind thousands of pages of clutter. They won’t be able to say, “I didn’t like this part but I liked that part… But had to reject it because of this or that, etc.”. It will be crystal clear whether they want to control the people or not, deny their rights or not, etc.. There’s no place in the legislation for them to hide from the truth of their positions.

    Ron Paul, if you are reading this, I hope you consider the above suggestion. Don’t let them hide from the truth! The people will see it and vote them out!

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0

    1. Bob From District 9

      I think I will be impressed when that bill includes opting out of Medicare.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. longshotlouie

        Now you’re talking!!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. Bob From District 9

          It would give us a true debate on the subject, one that actually gets into the American people’s real views on the subject. Basic principles instead of details.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      2. Git er done.

        Whats this? A liberal in favor of allowing people the right to opt out of a government program? Bob, you surprise me with your Conservative thinking, even if only briefly.
        You da man Bob……….Well, not really, yer still a Liberal big government Moron Bob.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Bob From District 9

          That was not conservative thinking. That was my libertarian side showing.

          If you think those who disagree with you have no libertarian side just because they disagree on one point you are the moron.

          Oh, I’m sure there are many things we disagree on, but there is only one here.

          And Conservatives are only in favor of letting people opt out of govt programs they don’t like. Which is pretty much why I wasn’t allowed to opt out of military service.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4