Health Care

2244 Responses



In these United States of America, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.

But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.

Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.

The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want to regain both our health and our freedom.

But Obamacare is the worst possible answer. All it does is perpetuate a flawed system by forcing everyone to become a client of insurance companies, even those who don’t want to or need to participate.

Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others? Very few individuals would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a compulsory health insurance system?

There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.

Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.

As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his bookThe Revolution: A Manifesto“:

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.

Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?

Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.

Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.

As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.

The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the federal government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives.

Transcript:

Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.

Points to consider:

  1. No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.
  2. If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
  3. Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
  4. More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
  5. Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
  6. First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
  7. The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
  8. Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
  9. The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.
    Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
  10. Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
  11. Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
  12. The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.
  13. The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
    Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.
  14. Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.
  15. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
  16. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.


»crosslinked«

2,244 responses to “Health Care”

  1. Katie

    Yet another politician with more idealism than real ideas. We should think more about what Germany did and see if we can’t make that a viable solution here. Relying on the kindness of physicians indeed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13

  2. Loretta Feldnerlfel

    A healthcare system based upon the charity of physicians? With all due respect, MDs today are slaves to insurance and govm’t forms. I am an MS pt who is disabled very much against my will. I worked for 40 yrs and paid taxes. For the 5 yrs I’ve been disabled, I have suffered incredible abuse from “outsiders” who all seem to think being disabled=freeloading. I have disability insurance, I had savings, I worked in the benefits field for 25 yrs and made sure if I got sick I had a plan in place so that I would NOT be a burden. I was forced into disability. I make 20% of what I did while working. My medical bills are high, but I am responsible and unlike my Republican friends, I didn’t count on charity since Mr. Pails pipe dream of charitable care is nonsense. Maybe he ought to get seriously ill and try to get an MRI for free… What fantasyland is he living in? We require Americans to insure their cars – yet they balk at health insurance? I clip coupons to pay for my healthcare, and yes, it angers me to see my working, voluntarily uninsured friends who could have cheap affordable coverage buy big screen TV’s instead of choosing health insurance. Then, disaster strikes, they go to the ER and it is my premiums that go up. Free market? I don’t think so. It’s time Americans put their big boy pants on, bite the bullet, and adopt universal care. Any other solution is ludicrious. Congress has it already. Why should we be forced to accept pre Depression era charity models? Does Mr. Paul also realize the cost if medical care in 1927 was considerably less? I have never heard a less logical argument. Ron Paul attended medical school when it cost 800.00 a year -he needs a SEVERE reality check. Charity my ass!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

    1. Greg

      I agree that relying on the good will and charity of MD’s is unlikely…mainly because the hospital that employs them would not think to fondly of giving away care. However, you sound foolish when you mention car insurance….the insurance that is required is to cover damage that your car could cause, not the damage to your car. Also, give the man the respect he deserves, it’s Dr. Paul, not Mr. Paul. Universal Health Care….you mean the system that makes me (a healthy individual, eating right, exercising, and not take potentially dangerous risks) to pay for individuals that easily burn through hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in medical costs? That should be the incentive for people to work hard and make wise financial decisions, so they can afford the latest and greatest medical break through.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Patrick Sehirmer

    X

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  4. Jason mott (like the applesauce)

    8=======>——— ( . )( . ) ———-<=====8

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  5. Bob

    The more who voice, the louder the voice in unsion. Those who must hear will hear. Or it may become deafening to the Congresse’s ears. We must unite!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. Brent

      When Obama Care passed, 49 percent of physicians polled said they would consider leaving the trade. It is really amazing that people think that in this seemingly masochistic country there will ever be enough physicians for this dream.

      Canada bickers over the expense of updating a few fighter jets in their puny military (who needs a military when you are north of the US?) while 1/7 of their people cannot get a family physician and long waits are common. Even though the Canadian dollar recently overtook the American dollar in value, I can imagine how much of a national health care system they could afford if we decided to cut military like they did and they had to actually spend any significant amount of money to protect themselves.

      Lately the defense here seems to be “if a little is good, a lot is great”. I have noticed a tendency with the left to try to upsurp the mainstream thought and supplant it with the minority thought. Statements like, “following that logic” are illogical without a sense of perspective. It is also unfair as it puts words in others’ mouths. While I certainly agree our system needs a pill or two at times, I do not feel that’s evidence that what it really needs is half the bottle to end our problems completely.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Bob

    When all pay for a marketable item.The more available it is. the lesser the cost .

    Unless it is regulated.

    Regulation always is unfair. In true competition. Also In health care.

    The only ones. Who benifit from regulations. Are those dicktating the regulations.

    The Congress Of the United States must be held accountable, By the Citizens of this country. At the polls and in every form that will unite and keep this Nation united without any violent upheaval. Or division of the several states. It is by the voice of the American Citizen that we shall all prevail.

    Undoing the prostitution that exsists in government today.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  7. darrell

    i dont know about this one. if he takes away ss and med. that will hurt alot of men and women and kids. there is alot out there that cant work that are handicap, and with out help. they would have to beg for food and some where to sleep. this is not righ it will hurt in the long run.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  8. Andrew Bathgate

    First – Well done for laying out your issues – most politicians avoid that. Ron Paul is my favorite Republican.

    Q1. In your issues page you say “government-enforced monopolies of HMOs”. Aren’t there many different HMOs? Can’t any company with with sufficient funding set up a HMO/medical insurance company? How is it a monopoly?

    Q2. You say “Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others?”. We are all subsidized, by God’s divine plan we are born helpless and if we don’t have someone to care for us we die. We grow in to a society, dependent on each other for mutual defense, infrastructure and these days even for food. I did not build the roads I drive on, I didn’t build the hospital I was born in and I didn’t start paying for them until I was old enough to earn my way in life… in the mean time I was subsidized. Now my taxes are paying for the next generation and for those less fortunate than myself – I am happy to pay these taxes and consider it fair. If, perhaps when I grow old or sick or injured, I am no longer capable of paying my way I hope there is a society that cares enough not to leave me in pain, dying under a bridge, freezing to the sidewalk. You ask “Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others?” – Because it is right.

    Q3. “Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?” Because then the sick play a lottery of finding a Doctor who is in a charitable mood with time on their hands and then begging for help. Because people will live in pain waiting for the day the free clinic has time for them. Communism didn’t work because people were not motivated enough just to help each other for the sake of it…. they needed money as motive – good health care needs money as a motive. The British health care system allows anyone to register with any Doctor they chose and that Doctor is rewarded not just by how many procedures they do but by the health of their registered patients – the healthier their clients are the higher their reward. They spend much less per person and have much better outcomes. I know no system is perfect and some disingenuous politicians will find incidents where free foreign health-care has screwed up – but overall it is much better than our system.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4

    1. Brent

      Nothing with scarce resources is a right because nobody can guarantee scarce resources. Rights are things that have guarantees that enough will be available. There is enough freedom of speech available. There is enough liberty and pursuit of happiness available. These can be guaranteed by a military and court system. Health care is not a right-it has no guarantee and nobody qualified to promise it.

      The recurring theme-never addressed among people that feel we have rights to the money, property and services of others is the premise-never addressed by them, that enough resources are available and it is just hidden somewhere perhaps in the pockets of some hypothetical rich people. It is almost useless to bring this point up because it is never answered satisfactorily. Best just give up trying to get an answer to it and just vote this crap out at the polls. They are not going to listen anyway.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      1. Jerry DeCaire

        Actually, it was anwered satisfactorily in the post just above yours-you just refuse to listen (or in this case-read).

        To posit the “we don’t have guarantees” argument doesn’t detract from our moral obligations to each other no less than the moral actions committed by others on your behalf. You had no guarantee a mother would be there when you were born but by all acceptable ethical and social expectations, she was. If you attended university it was not guaranteed that anyone should have subsidized a public educational institution to accomodate your future. When you drive on a road or read in a library, none of those social constructs are guaranteed you, but aren’t they nice? And given your obvious conservative penchant, would it be fair for me to assume you believe we should have a strong military? That’s a social construct. Of course, to be consistent in your argument you may want to forego any and all national defense funded by a social body and invest in a rifle of your own and march upon North Korea by yourself. I can’t help but notice that so many conservatives pick and choose the socialisms that benefit themselves. My step mother always referred to the Republican party as the “I’ve got mine party”. You may not be Republican but I’m betting you’ve got yours-in regards to health care.

        The real solution here is to eliminate programs that really are not necessary and to invest those funds into programs that are necessary-like life or death programs like universal health care. I am an artist and I say eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I’m betting you can eliminate 50% of government (Is that conservative enough for you?) and have plenty left over for things that matter. Our problem here is that if you see a wasteful program you will find some contractor or politician lapping up the life blood derived from that program so too many parties with an agenda will strive to protect those in the name of self interest.

        Nixt virtually every government program and retain those things that matter:
        A strong Military
        Public Education
        Universal Health Care
        Law Enforcement…

        It’s really so simple. What’s the problem? And in the end, we retain our humanity to boot. If that’s still too social for you, may I recommend you relocate to a cave and create your own city.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Brent

          The question is not one of whether or not we help each other. The question is of whether or not we actually buy the argument that we are actually helping someone by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nobody is suggesting anyone stops anyone from helping Paul with their own money.
          In order to morally rob Peter, we have to assume we are somehow christened with the power to discern that all the Peters of the world will not be hurt more that the Pauls are helped. Then we have to establish that Peters are generally bad and have mostly ill gotten gains and Pauls are generally good-being deprived by things due to situations beyond their control.
          Liberalism is counterfeit, shallow ethics in my opinion. I believe it is a science of a lazy mind-a mind that cannot see people as individuals. A mind that honestly believes that a government can be more moral and altruistic than the people that make up that very government. A mind that does not want to understand what Mao said so aptly: “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. A mind that feels a beautiful mansion of social government can be built right on top of a fault line of force against its people-and that such a government will stand longer than the next earthquake.
          Capitalism is like the iron component of steel. Other government types might be represented by other elements: carbon, zinc, nickle, etc. When small amounts of carbon are added to iron, it becomes much stronger. SMALL amounts. When you increase carbon and other elements into double digit amounts the product begins to become brittle and eventually weak and useless at still higher amounts. It does not take much more to ruin the steel. I would not suggest in a realistic world we have pure capitalism as we must be as strong as possible as a country to survive. However our government is already past the point of diminishing returns. Nothing I say suggests we eliminate entirely those systems in government that saw us through the most progress ever known in the history of the world. Only those systems which have been presented to us since our generally accepted decadence-particularly our financial downturn.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. JD

            1. You argue that health care is not a guarantee and yet that is exactly what it is in other industrialized countries. I have traveled the world extensively including Japan, Korea, and even Saudi Arabia, have you? Health care in these countries, that are not even as developed as others, is more available than here in the great US of A. As for quality, they possess the very same state of the art diagnostics and especially the diagnostics available to the average American citizen-and so much cheaper!!! You see, you are still thinking like a Barbarian. Haven’t we moved past that? It is true that in the jungle we had no guarantees. I don’t know about you, but in this modern age I am under the sneaking suspicion that we can do a little better than our furry ancestors if we could somehow find a way to unload our disposition towards greed. As is typical of the Republican mindset, you keep arguing we don’t have the money. Did you read my post? There’s plenty to go around if we only stopped these ridiculous wars (socially supported wars-much more money spent on those). Why are you so quick to nixt universal health care which would save lives (44,000 annually), and not be as quick to decry a war that is sucking the US dry? If you only argued as vehemently for life as you do for money. And that’s the rub, isn’t it? It’s all really a matter of priorities. You see, I actually value life and even a stranger’s life. I am developed enough as a soul to pull my head out of my @# long enough to actually consider someone other than myself.
            2.
            3. I’ll address your “points” one by one:
            4.
            5. “The question is not one of whether or not we help each other”.
            6.
            7. Why isn’t that the question? The BIG question??? It’s a big question for those who care. It’s not a question for those who don’t.
            8.
            9. “The question is of whether or not we actually buy the argument that we are actually helping someone by robbing Peter to pay Paul”.
            10.
            11. Who’s Peter and who’s Paul? I’m guessing Peter is the American tax payers including yourself-someone who’s bottom line is his pocketbook. Paul is the Universal Health Care recipient, right? Well, Paul is also corporate welfare and our military. Of course, you’re willing to be robbed to pay Paul so long as Paul covers your behind with a strong military, right? Now remember what you said, nobody guarantees you anything, so why should you expect a guaranteed defense? You expect it because you paid for it with your taxes that were robbed by Peter. I am only saying let’s pay for health care too-and fully expect that as well.
            12.
            13. “ Nobody is suggesting anyone stops anyone from helping Paul with their own money”.
            14.
            15. And neither am I. If you’re a student of history you ought to know what men do to capitalize on the suffering of people before we became more morally conscious and enacted laws to prohibit the greedy from exploiting the disadvantaged. Remember that time period when 12 year old girls worked for $.25 cents for a 16 hour day in dangerous coal mine shafts and all they had to come home to was a potato eaten at candlelight? Nothing romantic here. So if you actually expect people to be taken care of by the good graces of others, then why did this health care bill get started in the first place? Why do we have welfare? I’ll tell you why, because people DON’T help others. You simply make that robbing Peter to pay Paul argument to protect your own pockets. If you don’t want the government to force you to help others, may I suggest you start helping others and get everyone else who thinks like you to join along. I’m sure the government would be happy to step aside at that point and leave you to your own whiles because the need would no longer be there. Otherwise, this mantle of responsibility has fallen upon everyone’s shoulders (Peter(s)) to insure we don’t have dead people (Paul(s)) lining the streets. Governments know that sort of system cannot last for long. People will endure much but if things get too tough, King’s heads roll and so do those heads that support them. Do you support that sort of King? I hope not.
            16.
            17. “In order to morally rob Peter, we have to assume we are somehow christened with the power to discern that all the Peters of the world will not be hurt more that the Pauls are helped”.
            18.
            19. Amazing!!! We’re talking about saving lives here. This is Universal Health Care we’re talking about, not Dunkin’ Doughnuts. I mean, how can any of your non-medical grievances trump those of someone who say, has MS or ALS, or Non-Small Lung Cancer?” You don’t need to be “christened” to be able to discern that much.
            20.
            21. “Then we have to establish that Peters are generally bad and have mostly ill gotten gains and Pauls are generally good-being deprived by things due to situations beyond their control”.
            22.
            23. Holy crud!!! Talk about bureaucracy!!! Are you actually saying that only bad people should pay taxes and good people should be exempt? Let me take a stab at this, good people are working and have plenty, and bad people are unemployed and have little, right? You can’t camouflage juvenile thinking with convoluted words. What you really mean is that you just don’t want anyone taking your hard earned cash to help the larger community-the very community you depend upon for your own survival as a social species. You’re as transparent as a polished window. Not sure if you’re a Christian, but maybe you should have listened to that part that says, “Love thine enemies”. So even if they were bad people how does that give you license to be bad??? How does that give you a reason to not care? I mean, why not? You’ve been looking for virtually any other angle to not give a rip or to not have anyone dip into that piggy bank of yours. “Well, why should I have to give anything from my piggy bank”, I can hear you say, “It’s my hard earned money”. Because you are the beneficiary of many social constructs. You want all the benefits of a social system but none of the costs. It’s called selfishness. Don’t think you’re a social animal? Go live in a cave and see how far you get. In fact, even if we had true universal health care, you still wouldn’t move to a cave because the benefits of society and its comforts are far too great. You want to take a million from your community and frown when it asks for a dollar back. Typical. Have I demonized you? Actually, I hope so. I hope you’re actually better than that.
            24.
            25. “Liberalism is counterfeit, shallow ethics in my opinion. I believe it is a science of a lazy mind-a mind that cannot see people as individuals. A mind that honestly believes that a government can be more moral and altruistic than the people that make up that very government. A mind that does not want to understand what Mao said so aptly: “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. A mind that feels a beautiful mansion of social government can be built right on top of a fault line of force against its people-and that such a government will stand longer than the next earthquake”.
            26.
            27. Talk about a lazy mind. You’ve demonized everything about liberalism and socialism as much as Michael Moore has demonized capitalism. Things are much more complex than that and making straw men of whole groups of people doesn’t help on either side. If you have a problem with Liberalism then you have a problem with freedom, as in “Liberal”. I never claimed that government was this ivory tower of unscrupulous ethics. Again, your cartoon straw man come to life once more. But if not government to provide health care for everyone, then who? Certainly not you and not the people who think like you. Not the people who abused our children in a time when they could. You can find that here: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5571/
            28.
            “Capitalism is like the iron component of steel. Other government types might be represented by other elements: carbon, zinc, nickle, etc. When small amounts of carbon are added to iron, it becomes much stronger. SMALL amounts. When you increase carbon and other elements into double digit amounts the product begins to become brittle and eventually weak and useless at still higher amounts. It does not take much more to ruin the steel. I would not suggest in a realistic world we have pure capitalism as we must be as strong as possible as a country to survive”.
            29.
            30. My God, we actually agree on something. Yes, SMALL amounts otherwise you get General Electric not paying any federal taxes and CEO’s taking more than their fair share to the deficit of many, including small business.
            31.
            32. “However our government is already past the point of diminishing returns”
            33.
            34. Yes, but only because of the terrible irresponsibility of government (Read Robert Ringer’s “Winning through Intimidation”-a very conservative outlook) by spending money freely that they never worked hard for. They are also growing exponentially due to growing bureaucracies and needless programs-and Universal Health Care hardly falls into the camp of “needless”.
            35.
            36. “Nothing I say suggests we eliminate entirely those systems in government that saw us through the most progress ever known in the history of the world. Only those systems which have been presented to us since our generally accepted decadence-particularly our financial downturn”.
            37.
            2. I may be more conservative than you here. I say nixt it all except where life and death matters are vital to our future. Nixt everything except:
            3. Law Enforcement/Health Care/Reasonable Welfare (can’t have children starving)/ Military/ Education—-PERIOD! All other ventures can be provided by private industry, even roads. I have said my peace and grow weary of this diatribe. I will not change your mind and you will unlikely change mine. Each argument is reasonable depending upon the juxtaposition of the argument and what the priorities are. For me, human life is # 1. If you were to claim human life was #1 and yet will not support universal health care, then you are fooling yourself. If you value money and a strong economy above all other considerations, then your argument is sound. In fact, why stop there? I say bake any unproductive members of society in ovens and weed out the chaff. Why should we have to bear the burden of their grief? Why should we have to pay their bills? “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Of course, I’m kidding, but the sad part is is that people from your position are essentially saying just that. I know this to be true because if the disenfranchised were not protected by law and given considerations for their welfare, we would have the same atrocities seen in the exploitation of people in the past. And trust me when I say, those people would lay awake in bed at night wishing they were dead-father’s who couldn’t feed their families and mothers so ill that they couldn’t afford the health insurance that might remedy their situations so that they can better care for their children. None of us are supermen-we are all vulnerable and for those who cannot feel for others, your kryptonite is coming. Life has a way of working out like that.
            2.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. WAB

      I have a similar concern as you, Andrew, with regard to question 2. Isn’t depending on the generosity of physicians to care for the elderly and poor kind of the same as depending on the generosity of our neighbors? Perhaps the major difference between voluntary generosity and forced generosity is that the forced generosity is (poorly) managed by the government whereas voluntary generosity is handled between the individuals involved and usually provides the right amount of care at the time it is needed.

      Personally I like the optimism that people will take care of each other. At one time health care used to be handled exclusively by the various faiths. Jewish, Catholic etc. hospitals still dominate health care delivery in this country. Why is that? Well… because at one time health care for the poor was considered a charitable act provided by the community. Back then there weren’t health insurance companies. Back then there weren’t medical malpractice law suits. No HMOs, deductibles etc.. The insurance that was available merely covered you for catastrophic illness… not nose jobs or erection aides.

      Anyway, my point being… to return to a system of charitable care that is voluntarily provided by communities, we would have to break the strangle hold that the insurance, pharmaceutical and private care industries have and then hand it all back to charitable organizations that now act more like corporations. We would basically have to destroy private health insurance as we know it, which is a hundred billion dollar business annually. We would also have to outlaw excessive liability claims against the charitable organizations with whom we endow our trust. A daunting task that will likely drum up some pretty intense opposition.

      Personally, I think that the Federal Government has no business meddling in Healthcare. Its a state and local issue… and Massachusetts seams to be dealing with it pretty well on their own (Thank you Mitt). The people who don’t like it…. well, they can always move elsewhere.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. Tori Alexander

        I’m uninsured. I’m middle class and self-employed. The gov’t sponsored insurance that’s available for me costs about as much as I spend on food. I’m very healthy and work very hard to stay healthy. I would gladly subsidize the health care of the old and disabled, but not those who smoke, drink, overeat and don’t exercise. I don’t want a gov’t run health insurance. It may work in other countries, but the US is broken. It will be a disaster here, just like our public education system.

        Can anyone tell me why insurance for catastrophic illness is not readily available today? or why small local mutual health insure companies are said to be “inefficient” compare to the big guys? With mutual insurance the policy holders “own” the company. Would a free-er market give me these kinds of insurance choices?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. John

      YOU are RIGHT!! YOU are on the MONEY!! You Hit the nail on the head!!

      Thank YOU, not all that other B S!!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. John

        Andrew Bathgate, YOU are RIGHT ON!!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  9. Michelle

    I think we should all have the same quality of healthcare as government employees and members of congress receive.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    1. William Fleishman

      Oh, that would be horrible. We commoners being treated like the Washington nobility?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  10. Jayme1234

    Wow, Dr. Paul, I love the part about providing healthcare to the poor. As a nurse, married to a Physician, you hit the nail on the head. We have never turned away anyone in need of healthcare because they could not pay. I am aware we may not be the norm, but then… maybe we are? I have often advocated that we do away with Medicaid & just allow us to see those too poor to pay & allow us to take a tax deduction in the amount Medicaid would have paid us.

    As it is, we must file a claim electronically via our 5,000.00 computer program (with a 900.00 yearly program maintenence fee), pay an employee to enter the claim, file the claim & then enter the payment. By the time they finally pay us, anywhere from 3-6 weeks (maybe longer), & we pay for all the employees that appropriately took care of this claim, we are paid 27.06 for a 15min. physician visit which actually was more like 20-30min visit. Seems hardly worth it. We’d rather receive the tax deduction. We’d like to save time & all the effort we spent to get paid that 27.06. Let’s not forget all the expensive computer programs, computers & employees of the state needed to process this same claim. Seems truly ridiculous to us.

    Just allow us to receive a tax deduction for seeing that Medicaid patient for free. I believe it would save not only us but the state. As I am sure you understand, we write off at least 10,000.00 worth of uncollectable debt from people unable to pay for services they were given, every year. Many times some of this will be a patient’s Medicare deductible. Because of the nature of Healthcare, we are not able to write this off as a loss on our taxes. Does this seem fair? I think not. They tie our hands, then treat us like the enemy. Is it any wonder that, according to the AMA, we will be experiencing a servere Physician shortage in the next 10 years?

    If you do the math, we could have seen approx. 370 patients x Medicaids 27.06 = that 10,000.00 we write off each year. That’s more than 1 patient a day per year. I assure you, we see many, many more than that each year for little or no charge. Do we receive anything other than a good feeling for doing the right thing? Nope. Many times we do not even receive a thank you. What do we get? ObamaCare. Oh geez, no thanks!

    And for those of you who think that all Physicians are over paid. Think again. Imagine spending at least 11 years in college, having to tell your children &/or your spouse that you can’t be there when they need you because someone else needs your assistance more. Don’t forget you must be available 24 hours a day 7 days a week to others. I could go on & on, but if you don’t understand it by now, you never will. I remember one time we took all the hours we put in in one week & divided it by the amount of money we actually took in. To our amazement, it came out to around 7.50/hour. Do you still think Physicians make too much for their services? It’s a darn shame, it truly is. They have made us out to be overpaid & greedy. We are neither. HELP!

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  11. justin

    look 5 or 7 cent tax hike for almost free medical then change the insurance companys as investers with the people to medical equipment to keep the medical srtandard up yes insurance co. make lot less money but hey they are still makeing money and staying alive and the people have nearly free medical

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. Bob

      Taxes do not provide free any thing. It is paid for by who pays the tax. Of course those on welfare don’t pay taxes and don’t work. Maybe it is time that the welfare is cut to the point that only the extreemly needy and disabled ever get food stamps or any form of welfare. If you do not work you won’t have anything. So the rest don’t have to pay the tax. To support your so called free health care.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Liz

        It’s not such a simple issue as “people on welfare are lazy,” to paraphrase. If you can even *find* a steady job in this economy where even a college degree means very little (extra points if you’re a minority especially in a prejudiced area, single mom, LGBT, have no prior work experience, or were born into destitution), often you have to find more than one in order to even feed yourself while paying rent and bills, not to mention to support a family. Personally, I’d LOVE to have a job. Then I could get off of food stamps! (Though I say this more to make a point, since being a student means I’m no longer eligible for food stamps, as I discovered after reapplying; the [flawed] logic here is that, as a student, I can get a loan and spend the rest of my life paying it off once I finish school, assuming that because of college I’m guaranteed a job in the end. Not to mention the fact that, because the schools have barely any funding from the gub’ment anymore, they’ve practically made a game of screwing students out of their credits–happened to me and many others, but that’s a whole separate can of worms.)

        Frankly, if slightly higher taxes meant that I would get free healthcare, I’d be all for it. Or, even better, how about putting a tax or two on corporations and the very rich? I’m not talking about Billyjoe Well-To-Do with a big house and a yacht who lives in the “rich” neighborhood next to yours; I’m talking about the corporate and oil bastards who eat small countries for breakfast and make 4 figures annually by screwing YOU.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8

      2. Brent

        Liz, I don’t understand. You say you are on food stamps but wish to pay more tax to get free health care. I pretty much thought if you qualify for food stamps, you usually qualify for free health-and even dental! Also most anyone that qualifies for food stamps does not pay a nickle in tax to begin with-most likely they get refunds ranging from 1-4 thousand dollars even if they had no money withheld.
        It’s not hard to see why people like you could take this position. The only question is why you would want to pay anything for health care at all if you are now getting it for free.
        You might not like hearing this but the MAJORITY of the poor are poor because of poor values. The poor buy the most lottery tickets, smoke the most, buy drugs and liquor they can’t afford and make many short-term poor financial decisions (eg paycheck advances). That is not to say some better off don’t do these things-they do, but stupid as they may be, they are critically stupid if you cannot afford them! Poor often do not understand money and often it with the very greed they accuse of the rich-but fact is you CANNOT ever escape being poor unless you can control greed! You-here for instance, show you think a corporation is a big rich man when in fact it is composed of stock holders many if not most who can be retirees living off their lives work.
        An unsustainable nanny state was created by Liberals who point to the relatively few that need it as an excuse. Death and taxes proved too objective an obstacle for the perfect world they thought they could create so they tackled the more subjective (but equally formidable) “hunger and health” mirage.
        Growing up poor and with no help or even teachings from parents I learned one thing that kept me alive-”a man has to know his limitations” (Dirty Harry). I did not have children, not because I did not want them but because I could not afford them. I did not take on bad habits because I could not afford them. I could not afford to be a fool so I got out of the mess and today manage to live decently if not rich. I have two siblings on SSI that *can* work (in fact they do-under the table and make more money than me-after hidden activities). My dad actually tried to talk me into pretending to be crazy too to get SSI once and the idea repulsed me.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

        1. Michelle

          Brent—just so you are an informed commentator,
          Some people qualify for food stamps (at least in Michigan) and not Free Healthcare. My husband works, I am a full time student and we have 4 children. The construction/demolition company my husband works for is small with 10 employees so it does not offer health insurance. Because of this, our whole family gets food stamps (only $219/mo so it’s just a supplement), and my kids qualify for Medicaid but my husband and I do not because he makes too much money.
          Hopefully when I’m done with school in 1 year, we won’t need any assistance because I’ll be able to get a great job…:)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          1. Brent

            That is too bad. Let’s see if I can guess the reason why: it is either because there is not enough money in Michigan for free health care for the poor or else people in this blue union state do not want to provide it for the poor. Or is it a third possible reason?
            It is extremely strange that affordability is considered an ancillary point when Americans want things now days! The best the left can do is convince its constituents that somewhere there are rich people hiding untold wealth. Can’t they understand they are being played as “useful idiots”?
            I have no doubt that people get caught up in the system. In a sense I cannot blame them for trying to get help-even if it means destroying the system. Desperate people do desperate things. I also criticize noone for using welfare so long as it is law. Let me ask you then, if you cannot get health care, how does it make you feel when we can afford to provide it to prisoners, illegal aliens, people with tiny fractions of Native American blood, lazy people and people who are reckless with their health? If we give it to them and not to you, is this a matter of having enough money or is it politicians using your health as a political tool?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          2. Greg

            4 children……is that our fault that you and your husband decided to have children when you obviously can’t afford them. If I had it my way, any individual that was receiving aid from the government would be chemically or surgically prevented from having children until they prove they can support those children.

            I’m choosing not the have children until I am certain I can be a responsible parent and provide for them myself.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Nat

          I get foodstamps and my kids qualify for medicaid, but my husband and I do not. I used to have a job. I have Lupus and with my flares sometimes getting out of hand I can’t keep missing work and keep a job. I am managing better at home now though. It would be nice to see a doctor and get this under control. It would be nice to be able to get the meds I need because eventually I would like to go back to work. I do the best to take care of myself by staying away from as much stress as I can, and by exercising when I can. I live with the pain. My husband works hard to support our family. He has numerous health issues too. Diabetes, RA, Highblood pressure. We wait year to year to get health care because that when income tax time rolls around.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Jerry DeCaire

          Gee, talk about creating a “straw man”.

          I am published all over the world as an illustrator for popular publications

          I gave a GPA of 3.77 magna cum laude.

          Studied hard science, art, and education.

          Accrued many honors while at university and honors from school visitations.

          Featured in many media for my accomplishments: TV, Radio, Newspaper.

          Have an IQ 0f 140.

          Never smoke or drink or take recreational drugs.

          Exercise vigorously with a slim muscular body.

          Eat the most nutrient dense, low glycemic index organic foods available.

          I search 24/7 for months on end for that next “gig” or a regular paycheck and fight to find regular work as a lowly paid substitute teacher.

          And, and here’s the “rub”, I’m DIRT POOR and get food “stamps”(it’s an EBT Card today).

          Many of the people now living in tents in the USA were once arrogant upper middle class people who used to say that only the shiftless with no values are poor. Perhaps that is why the US is undergoing so many travails of late; the Biblical God never much liked arrogance and the unwillingness of others to share with those who are destitute. I have seen both sides: comfort with health care and struggling without-talk about a difference in the way people treat you. It doesn’t matter how someone gets the money to people like you, just so long as they got it. There were many times I could have swindled people to get ahead, but my moral conscience wouldn’t allow it. I am always accused of being too fair in my price quotes. A business man once told me you never charge what something is worth, you charge what the market will bear. And therein lies the inflationary problem; it’s called “scalping”, “opportunism”, and “exploitation”, not to mention “greed”. Hey, there’s the solution to my dilemma, I’ll charge what the market will bear and find myself riding my Jaguar and chinking champagne glasses with you at the country club while talking about all those low class dirty poor people we have to suffer in our dignity. Then I’ll be a real hero by your measure and the world will be that much worse off.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Bob

    Health care includes hygiene. The United States of America and several developed countries throught out the world have the modren facilities to practice healthy habits of hygiene on a national scale. Including the majority of the pouplation who desire to. This is a choice and an indipendent responsibility in doing so.
    It is a blessing that we have made for ourselves these conveniences in health care.
    That we can pratice on a daily bases. To guardd against diseases and illness. Such as washing regularly in clean water.
    Unfortionatly, not every one in the world has this availble to them. Many live in pitiful conditions. Without clean water or sanitary conditions.
    There are people in our country who have grown up and never seen a farm. Or ever experienced how hard and how much of a struggle life is for some people. These people live in a self made delussion. Imagining all sorts of reasons for people’s behavior in true poverty.
    This is why the majority of people are comming to the developed countries. Illegally or not. The problem is there enviorment is getting worse not better. Because there leaders are self interested and corrupt. As long as they have what they want the rest can go to hell. It is also away of controlling there population. To keep them in complete sqaulor and poverty.
    The modren indutrial world has not lived by natural law sence it adopted the time pease or clock as a means to live by. This was a European discovery and or invention. Out of Switzerland and has been commorated by the clock in England “Big Ben”.
    It is quite possible that there woud never have been an industry at all with out the means of artificial time. All of our present forms of communications would not exsist. With out artificial time. Including the computor. Many of our laws would not have been legislated and adopted without artificial time. Many medicines would not exsist today. With out artificial time. One of the first machines manufactured by the colonests of our country was the time pease.
    To live by natural time, sun up to sun down for its light and the singes of the moon and constellations would be by choice today in our modren world. Very few choose to do so compltetely in a modren country, as so called.
    Many in the impoverished countries of the world. Eather by choice or ignorance refuse to live by a artificial time.
    It is quite possible that artifical time is the beast. We are all ensalved to. In the industrial world. But where would we be without it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  13. Brent

    The problems with Americas illegal aliens are unique. Considering the population of the United States is 3.5% of the population of the world (who on earth would use the land size of a nation to compare ability to support immigrants and provide them medical care?) and that it takes in more immigrants in both the legal and illegal status than the rest of the world combined is just the start of it. Mexican immigrants are VERY POOR, are not leaving a country that already has socialized medicine and many are inclined to criminal behavior (Today’s Yahoo headlines for instance: “The U.S. State Department on Friday broadened its travel warning on Mexico to include parts of five additional states, including a highway where suspected drug gangs shot two U.S. customs officials in February.”)
    Do people go from England to Sweden on a raft seeking free health care, welfare and jobs?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  14. Bob

    The day is comming when all congressmen and women will comply with the demands of the citezenry of this great Nation in health care. and the oath they took as a promise to us all.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. Dan Burnett

    Why does the government continue to try to ram the health care bill down our throats when they are unwilling to get off of their plan and get onto the health care plan that they want to give top everyone else? If it is so great, then everyone should be on it, including the congress and the white house and all of the federal government. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me why they will not enroll along with the rest of the nation. The federal government employees , congress (both houses) and the white house dwellers should all be on the same social security plan also.
    I have never heard anyone address these two issues and was just wondering why what is good for the goose is not also good for the gander!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. Bob

      It is not the government we as Citizens are the government in this country. It is the executive branch our congress. Who is cheating the people out of the standard of living we have all earned that work. It is time we hold the accountable for what they are doing

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Brent

    Does a country’s health care system promote better health or does better health promote (or enable) a country’s health care system?

    Some Europeans, Northern Europeans and in particular, Japanese have highly homogeneous cultures. These people not only have diets and habits that contribute to longevity and good health but they also have the genes for it. Sadly, African Americans among others suffer cancers and other health problems more. These factors have been in play much longer than socialized medicine.

    America has diverse culture. Mississippi for example is over a third black while Hispanics outnumber whites in California.

    The term, “marginal income” can be used in economics. Likewise in a budget, one seeks to obtain “discretionary income”. Both of these concepts are highly desirable as they are both evidence of finances well run and potential for progress for the business or the individual instead of penalties inherent when a business or individual is behind.

    One may wonder why, if nationalized health care is so good for an economy and as Obama says about Obama Care, “we cannot afford *not* to have it”, the poorest countries in the world do not adopt it as part of an overall strategy to improve their wealth.

    Taking one culture in which life expectancies are 80 and comparing it to another culture where life expectancies are 65 (or as low as the 30′s in other countries particularly Africa) reveals that between age 20 and an age in which one must stop working can vary approximately 15 years. Assuming people retire 10 years before life expectancy (put any number you choose here) the citizens of the former culture, have a “marginal revenue” or “discretionary extra” of the results of working 15 more years than the citizens of the later culture. Percentagewise the former workers’ lives contains 54% productive years while the later workers’ lives contain 62.5% productive years.

    Absent the effect of illegal aliens, one can still see that the country with the longest lived workers will tend to be the one with the best economy. Adding in the aliens and the effects of overloading a health care system you will see that the penalties for being behind and overloading the system by quantity can kick in. Indeed even the physicians in such a culture might have shorter lives and thus shorter careers and thus be able to treat fewer patients overall per physician.

    I see no reason to attribute nationalized health care to a country’s well being when, as I said before, those longevity factors existed before those countries even had a health care system. The style of health care used in Europe is more a luxury afforded by an already fortunate people and it would be ridiculous to try to improve the economy-eg of an African country with lifespans in the 30′s by nationalizing their health care. It is a quality of the people, not the nature of the health care system that makes a country healthy. Rush Limbaugh puts it differently, “Liberals measure compassion by how many people they help, Conservatives measure compassion by how many people need help.” I am stating here that government is irrelevant to help; it can only restrict freedoms while its constituents try to take credit for anything good about their society.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

    1. Ralph

      Brent, your comment is very interesting. I certainly agree that many things are easier and work better in a homogeneous society. But we in the U.S. live in an extremely heterogeneous society, and there is no way to change that. We have to work with the situation that exists.

      On another point: you mention particular problems with health in the black population. Is there evidence to support the idea that susceptibility of certain groups to certain illnesses constitutes a significant factor in medical costs or quality? As above, we have to live with the population we have.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  17. Lisa

    While I agree with most of what he is saying, my question is, how does he plan to make this happen? How can he get rid of the monopolies, the greed, the unethical practices? What exactly is the plan? As I understand it, for capitalism to work in a manner that benefits the people, the nation and the economy, excess profits are supposed to go back to the people in the form of higher salaries, more jobs, better benefits etc. But to me it seems that more and more, excess profits are going into the pockets of the people at the top while the salaries of those at the bottom remain the same and the jobs of many are sent to other countries who’s people will work for pennies.
    I would love to do away with insurance companies altogether and just pay a good, reasonably priced doctor out of pocket. But if salaries don’t increase, and costs don’t go down, I don’t see how this is possible.
    So once again, how does he plan for this to happen?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    1. Bob

      First is the lobby, A corporation is not an inity by itself. It dose not breath. Nor should it have the same rights to lobby as a CITIZEN.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    2. Elly

      Yeah, I was thinking that as I read it too. I do agree with his point of view, I’m just not confident that doctors will actually feel charitable enough towards their poorest patients to provide them with free care. For one thing, if they work in a hospital or as part of a group practice, they might lose their jobs for that. Perhaps making health care a free market will result in doctors with more independence, but 1) that transition will take some time, and 2) you’re still relying on the goodwill of other individuals. I would really like to think that it would work, but realistically, I’m not sure that it would.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Ralph Dratman

    Rep. Paul’s objection to the health care laws — that redistribution amounts to stealing — is almost the same as opposing all government services funded by taxation. I assume there are some minimal government functions that Rep. Paul supports. But here is my question: who is supposed to decide what is a legitimate function of government? It seems to me we might all have opinions on that question, but I don’t see how anyone can claim to have authority.

    More simply, the question of what constitutes a legitimate function of government is up to the governed. If a person has a strong point of view on that question, as Rep. Paul does, it seems to me that advocacy is quite logical, but that there is room for differences of opinion. In particular, the assertion that redistribution is theft is contingent on such redistribution being done without the consent of the governed. If a properly informed electorate decides that redistribution is the choice of the majority, why should that group decision be judged wrong? After all, the electorate (by way of its representatives) is considered competent to make other laws, such as criminal law, with which everyone must comply under penalty of judicial reprisal. The government makes a law that says, for example, we may not steal from our neighbors. Even if a particular person disagrees with that law, he or she is compelled, if necessary under duress, to obey. I fail to see why redistribution of wealth — regardless of one’s opinion thereof — falls into a fundamentally different category. Both laws are legitimate subjects of discourse and perhaps of legislation.

    If anyone from Rep. Paul’s organization would reply to this, I would be grateful. Thank you.

    Ralph Dratman

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    1. Brent

      I won’t represent myself as from Ron’s organization-I am not. But from the beginning of man’s existence, people formed governments for the purpose of protecting themselves the *hostile actions of other people*. These could be people from within the group or from other groups (tribes).
      It has always been the function of one’s family to take care of internal health matters-particularly those of the young, old and sick.
      People did not originally form governments to place liability of others involuntarily on those that did them no wrong and those that do not even know them.
      A socialized system of medicine is a morph of this mindset-a so-called modern improvement in this basic philosophy which we have seen in both man and nature. It is an experiment at best. In any hierarchy, the person best assigned to supervise a job will always be the one LOWEST in the command structure-closest to the actual work being done. Likewise in any government hierarchy, the one that is best assigned to take care of the poor and unfortunate will be the one closest to the actual patient. What this means in health care is that even if someone lacks family to help, the FAMILY, CITY, COUNTY OR STATE (in that order) is much better suited to determine the action to take. This is why we have the Tenth Amendment.
      We should not just assume that *everybody* lacks family or insurance to help though. Neither should we assume that a government that is on the verge of insolvency is an adequate source of reliable health care or is able to eliminate poverty utterly and make it a perfect world. And we should not count illegal aliens in the numbers. Should the people vote for such health care, by what funds are they promising it? Show me the money please, as we are on the verge of national insolvency. Also, should we not properly repeal the Tenth Amendment to our Bill of Rights rather than merely ignore it if we wish to continue do this kind of thing?
      Incidentally, most polls showed the representatives were not representing the people with Obama Care. In fact the mandatory insurance requirement has suffered massive defeats in several states by public vote.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      1. Bob

        Delussional fools and educated idots. Make assumptions about the past future behavior of men in what and why they have and will orginize and do things.
        Fear is not the only reason they orginize. Sometimes it is because they get fed up with idots. Making ignorant assumptions and calling it fact.Communists

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. Brent

      Incidentally I apologize I did not hit too much on your original question. My definition of theft is taking money or things of value from others without their permission (sometimes without their knowledge). All this generation’s money has long been spent and there is no chance of paying back our own debt in this generation. Therefor, we are CLEARLY STEALING (by my definition) from those not even born yet with every additional dollar we spend. They are not here to give voice to what is to be done with the fruits of their years of toil on this earth. We should never have had the nerve to even go *this* far. This is not a stretch or exaggeration, it is a clear and practical truth which comes to fruition each time a minor turns voting age and sees what we left for them.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  19. Tricia Johnson

    Thank you Mr. Paul!!!! I quit using regular doctors and I will not use pharmaceuticals. I now use a holistic physician and I feel better that I have felt in years. The phamaceutical companies are now setting the curriculum at our medical schools and they teach that the only way to treat a condition is to prescribe pharaceuticals. On the news yesterday, I heard someone saying that vitamins do not help keep you healthy. They can not be pattented by the phamaceutical companies. We need to go back to real medicine and we would not need as much health care. Watch the movie “The Beautiful Truth” about the Gerson therapy for cancer. They are curing cancer everyday. EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE WHEN THEY NEED IT!!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  20. Charles

    Reading some of the comment on here I just have to wonder if there is any knowledge of the world outside the US. All other industrialized nations in the world have universal health care financed by taxation, which covers ALL citizens. Most of these nations have better health outcomes than we do. Please people, research how Holland, Canada, Japan, Norway, Australia, Germany, etc. all address health care. Are these countries backward, disease ridden cesspools full of sick people? Of course not, they are all highly successful, free societies. THIS country is the exception when it comes to health care for all its citizens. Just do a little bit of research – you’ll find that single-payer, universal health care is the ONLY way to supply decent health care to ALL citizens of a society, not just those who can afford it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    1. Brent

      I have no first hand knowledge that the health care they get is so great. My objections to your point is complex:

      1. As I have said, I have no firsthand knowledge that the health care is great. Citizens of those countries could have various reasons to claim their health care is good ranging from empty bragging to victims of the system not being around any more to explain their side.

      2. A society takes care of its poor, in my opinion, based on the quality of its people-not the actions of its government. If one country has good health care and another has poor health care, I do not automatically create a relationship between their governments and the peoples’ health care like you do. Governments are merely vehicles of force-not healers of citizens.

      3. The United states takes in more legal and illegal aliens than the rest of the world combined (more in both categories). They are very poor immigrants and the US tries to send them to doctors and dentists on the taxpayers dime. Just how good of a health care system can we have when we overload it with foreigners? This is hardly an issue with countries like Sweden and Canada that are bordered by arctic cold and impassible seas.

      4. Since I live fairly close to Canada, I do hear of complaints there that make it to the radio. I hear from time to time of people there being turned down by Canada’s medical system as too expensive or expected to wait too long and left for dead. The wealthier ones come here to live. As for the rest of the world, no I admit I am not spending my whole life examining each country’s medical care so I can decide whether or not I want the government to use force on me.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      1. Charles

        I would recommend you watch the Frontline special called “Sick Around the World”. Just Google exactly that: Frontline, sick around the world. It’s streaming on Netflix as well. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s worth at least looking at how other countries deal with health care?
        I would take issue with your #2 statement, where you say a society takes care of its poor based on the quality of its people, not the actions of its government. I realize you said it’s your opinion. The governments of Canada, Japan, Australia, and all of the governments of Western Europe are democracies. Hence the people of these countries elect their leaders to do what they want them to do. The people of these countries have demonstrated over and over, through their votes for their elected representatives, that they want their governments to provide health care for all citizens of their respective countries. They are willing to pay for it through taxation, in some cases so that the government is the agent that distributes the health care (as in the UK), and in some cases by requiring that all citizens be insured by highly regulated insurance companies that are not allowed to make profit (as in Germany). Regardless of how each individual country does it, ALL citizens are entitled to health care. This approach has been shown to provide health care at a much lower cost per capita, and often with much better outcomes, than we have here. That’s the facts, if you take some time to research it you’ll see it’s true. We can learn something from other countries, we are not the only people in the world.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        1. Brent

          I don’t have confidence in their health care systems as being as virtuous as you say for the same reason I don’t have confidence in our own Social Security/Medicare system. Despite your pointing to countries that are centuries old, you focus is on a relatively small window of time. You say that small window of time is representative of success.

          America instigated Social Security in 1935 and Medicare/Medicaid in 1965. People did not start drawing off of it til considerably later. These programs are currently scheduled to go bankrupt. I have never seen a government program ever shrink in size or become less needed. Supporting tax rates continually go UP in percentage, not merely amount. What makes you think that socialized medicine will do anything different over the scope of a hundred or less years?

          I maintain it is quality of people. Although I could continue with the silly argument that quality people vote for quality programs, that would make your point, not mine and the issue of the morality of the people would be subjective. I would rather say that many Americans possess some of the most unhealthy habits in the world. The countries you refer to do not have American obesity, drug abuse, diet, or lazy lifestyle.

          Socialized medicine is an attempt to de-individualize responsibility for one’s habits. It is an attempt to place some people who make foolish choices in the same pool as others that don’t and to disguise the redistribution of responsibility through massive and confusing tax redistribution programs. If that kind of thing ever happened in the US, we would STILL have all the same problems, not because the health program failed but because until we can get the people to stop defeating their own health, we will rank where we are regardless.

          My particular risk group holds me at very low rates for insurance because I am strictly not allowed to be overweight, not allowed to not exercise, not allowed to take drugs and not consistently trained against and monitored for many bad risk actions. I pay just over 52 dollars a month for some very fine insurance as a result of being insured among QUALITY people. If you were to add in those who are not able or willing to meet the standards demanded of me, you would have your socialized medicine and I would pay ridiculous rates for actions of others I am not responsible for. I can see Swedes and Japanese, the two longest lived people in the world as being able to maintain low risk, but not the United States at this time. It just can’t work here.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        2. Bob

          There are no entitlements supported by the United States Constitution For Citizens and that includes health care.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

          1. Brent

            When someone says they have a right to health care they are saying they have a right to force their neighbor to pay for their health care bill or force their doctor to eat the cost.

            Rights are given to us either by nature or God-as we see. The Declaration of Independence specifically states that rights come from “Nature’s God”. The point here is that RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM PEOPLE. Since when did nature attribute health care as a right to any creature it created???

            An argument many atheists make is that rights do not come from God. Who, then do *their* rights come from? Popular vote? That is the only other possible alternative. So if America votes for representatives that repeal any kind of nationalized health care system, ON WHAT LOGICAL BASIS WILL THEY ARGUE THAT HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      2. Kay

        The point you made about the US taking in more aliens than the rest of the world holds no water when you consider the size and population of the US. When you factor in pound for pound numbers, then countries like England, Sweden, Holland et al, take in more aliens (and yes, legal and illegal) than the US. Take for example, Holland – it’s a country of 20 Million people and has over 1 Million Muslims (all immigrants) and this amounts to 5% of the whole country. Mind you, I haven’t even factored in the non-Muslim immigrants so this number could be as high as 15%.

        So hypothetically speaking, if there were no immigrants to the US, the health care system would still be abhorrent.

        Canada is not perfect but it is on a different playing field when compared to these United States so from time to time when you hear complains, those are normal complains and can also be found in the best countries.

        Finally, you might not want to spend your time looking at other countries’ health care system and that makes you one individual, however, our politicians constantly remind us that we are the greatest country in the world with the best health care system, or military, or schools or government and they throw countries names to make a point, well, as a diligent citizen, I have to look around and see if it is true what my politician is saying and guess what, 9 out 10 times they are all LYING and you know it.

        So it is in your best interest to look into say Sweden (whom our politicians have labeled as a Socialist state) and see if it is true what you are being told. I assure you, it is not. We Americans are blindly patriotic which is not wrong if your patriotism is based on the love of your country but when it is based on nonsense spewed by politicians then yes, it is very blind.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    2. Bob

      It is simple, this is the United States of America. It is not some other country. Health care is a choice. According to the United States Constitution.
      If you like some other countries health care. Go to that country for health care. Experieance it for yourself see how you like it.
      It is interesting though? It realy comes down to world health care. That we a as citizens are being lead to believe. Forced fed now, by the speaker of the house. This Is the way it is going to be.
      All this universal thinking started to be applied to the American way of life a little more than 40 years a go.
      It started with the metric system vs. American standard inch. We American Citizens had to comply. Not Europe. Even though we supported them and have forgiven there debts to us. Why? We did not need anything from them? and still don’t. We do not need there health care eather or there socialist belief system. Or the support of a royal family for some misguided philisophical reasoning. and insane purpose.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  21. Brent

    Why does anyone seriously think that the government is a vehicle to make the world a more perfect place? What is the philosophy behind the premise that governments can cure the sick and feed the hungry?
    My observation is that there is only one difference between a government and individuals. Governments are collective, individuals are not. There are no moral differences, no intellect differences to speak of, and no other differences that could lead me to believe that governments can take care of the poor.
    How does the fact that people assemble in groups make them more desirous of helping others? If individuals do not want to help the poor obtain health care, why will they when they are assembled?
    Obviously this philosophy permeates all areas of attempts at collective altruism. All progress made in any society-be it morality, prosperity or health/longevity is progress based on the quality of individuals and is oblivious to the degree of their assembly. A moral society takes care of its poor and unfortunate regardless of government. An immoral society treats its poor and unfortunate badly regardless of laws and mandates. You can’t create a law that mandates that the poor or unhealthy will get better treatment as laws cannot make people decide to be moral-they can only change the face of immorality.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    1. Charles

      I would fundamentally disagree with your premise. You ask what is the premise that governments can make the world a more perfect place? You can see the answer to that question by simply looking at measurable levels of happiness in various countries around the world. For example, look at the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland. They are all ranked near the top of any measurable index of what makes a society happy (just Google it – “world’s happiest countries” – you’ll find a common theme among all the results). They don’t have to worry about what happens if they or someone they love gets sick, even if they are relatively poor. Their health care is covered by the government. They don’t have to worry about how their children will be educated, or whether they will get a quality education – their government will make sure they do. If they are capable, they will be able to pursue higher education all the way to a doctoral degree with little out-of-pocket expense. When they begin their working lives they can be assured that they will have enough leisure time to enjoy life, since their laws mandate that they will typically get a month of vacation per year. When a couple is expecting a child they can be assured that both mom and dad will get several weeks off (without fear of losing their jobs) to take care of their newborn. They can rest assured that when they are ready to retire, they won’t have to worry about how they will be able to survive, since they will have either a pension from their job or their equivalent of social security. Need I go on? These countries are all Democratic-Socialist countries. As societies, they have realized that they are all in it together, and as such have decided that everyone has to pay their fair share so that everyone else has a decent chance to find their own happiness. This is how human societies operated in prehistoric times – as a social unit. Countries that have realized this and have returned to this way of living, are the most successful. You say you can’t understand how people can think this way – I say I can’t understand how people cannot think this way.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      1. Bob

        Utopia. Have you heard of it?
        The delusional love to wallow in it. even though it is a fantasy.
        I guess some people miss there parents taking care of them so much. They have to find a government to take there place and do every thing for them. The sad thing is they think every one around them should be just as insecure.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  22. Jared

    I think Ron Paul has some great ideas on health care. This is without a doubt the most corrupt form of our government or society. Democrats and mainstream republicans both have horrible ideas if you ask me. I really believe the key is deregulation. All of these government organizations cause more problems than good. There are so many ways to stay healthy that should be encouraged other than all of the pharmaceuticals that are pushed on us. My dad used to be a pharmaceutical salesman early in his career and many years ago when pharmaceuticals were first getting corrupt. Boy has he had some horror stories for me. Unfortunately I could never afford health care right now without insurance if something were to happen. I eat healthy, get routine check ups ever year or so, and exercise. This really should only cost me about $100 a year and I never get sick. That’s the key. God forbid something happen though, I’d be screwed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  23. Kate

    (Sorry, computer locked before I could edit my last comment, so just finishing)
    … did not go to medical school with the idea that they would be filthy rich. A decent living in the area where they wanted to live was enough.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Angela Flynn

    Can someone shed more light on the issue of the poor being served with free medical care in the past? My understanding was that the only free services they received was from city run and tax payer financed general hospitals. Were there really doctors who would take in poor people with no financial compensation? And I don’t mean a rare exception here, but that this occurred on the scale that Ron Paul claims that it did. Perhaps slaves received some minimal health care just to keep them healthy enough to work, but really, does anyone believe that poor people will be served by volunteer doctors? Give me a break.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    1. Kate

      Actually, speaking as an RN, I see several doctors offer free or greatly discounted care to uninsured patients in our community, and it is not compulsory. I live in a typical suburban area in NY. So yes, there is a history of doctors providing free health care in the past (or would even accept barters if the family could offer them ie. Veggies from garden, knitted blankets, etc.) And believe it or not, there ARE doctors now practicing that believe in treating all patients regardless of financial status. Unfortunately not all doctors follow these principles, with reasons being varied from pure greed, malpractice insurance costs, operating costs (again, going back to the problems stemming from phamaceutical companies and the like), the trend of doctors joining group practices (where they have to conform with their business partners), etc…

      Many nurses volunteer time in many communities as well, but in all honesty, we sometimes feel very limited in what we can do due to fear of malpractice suits, and rather limiting laws which dictate what nurses can do without doctor’s orders. (In many instances, we can’t even give Tylenol or change a Band-Aid without a doctor’s order now!) Luckily, there are slow changes being made to some of these laws wich will broaden a nurse’s scope of practice.

      Another problem which has surfaced as of late is a change in law that will require Nurse Practitioners to obtain a Doctorate of Nursing in order to be able to sit for the licensing exam. NP’s usually only make around $80k-$100k a year, and act in much of the same capacity as a doctor (with the additional advantage of having been an RN first). NPs have been a big saving grace (pun intended) for the healthcare community because they provide high-quality medical care for costs much lower than an MD. The problem is that at a time when we desperately need NPs, they are making it harder to attain the title. Also, once one becomes a Doctor of Nursing Science or the like, you can get jobs as a Director of Nursing in hospitals or other institutions, research fellow, etc… for double the salary an NP makes. There is very little incentive for anyone to go to school to become an NP now, especially when adding the costs of malpractice insurance that is a necessity for NPs, but not necessarily DoNs (simply due to the nature of the type of service provided; one is clinical, one is managerial with little patient contact).

      I wish I could fish up where the info was sourced from, but we DID learn about doctors providing care to the needy in the earlier days of our country in my nursing ethics class. They also made home visits to those who couldn’t make it to their office (which at that time was sometimes in their home!). Also, doctors weren’t paid nearly what they are now, and didn’t go to scool to become

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    2. Bob

      There are those in power today. If they have there way with this country.A great many citizens of this country will be in poverty in the near future and you could be among there ranks. Being treated with a minimal of health care.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Logic

      I have always been highly critical of Healthcare myself, especially when Insurance is involved. It made me even more critical after I worked for Medicare for a couple years. But from what I have learned, there are actually quite a few Doctors willing to do things for free or at least for a very low price.

      A personal example of this (And another reason why I cannot stand Health Insurance most of the time, and that is mostly because of our corrupt system with the Government forcing it down our throats) is a few years ago I got a very severe virus. I rarely ever get sick. First time I went to a doctor in ages.. Well past a decade at the least. Anyways, I went, gave my insurance card, etc. I receive a statement saying the Insurance Denied it because it was not a provider that was in their Network. Now, I knew better because I asked both the Provider if they accepted the Insurance and the Insurance to see if the Provider was on their list. Both agreed. So, I waited and the Provider re-filed. This time they accepted the Claim. And paid $11.09. Leaving me with a Bill of $35.00. Now, I knew before hand this would happen because I knew how insurance worked but I never expected the bill to be so low. So, I asked the Provider about why it was so cheap and they explained that their group (Several Doctors, Registered Nurses, and a variety of other staff) all worked together to provide cheap and/or free service to their surrounding community.

      I asked a few things about the program such as how much I would have had to pay if I would have had no insurance. They told me it would be based on my income. So, I asked a few different people I knew that had went there what they paid. One paid $25 for a visit. Another paid $20. Another paid $25 for three visits total.

      So, of course the first thing you would think about a group (Not just one but four actual Doctors and several Nurses as well) like this is that the service is horrible. But it was not. I had very little wait and was seen within a short period of time. The staff was courteous and polite. The Provider did not try to rush me out of the office and actually seemed to listen to what I said. They were very good and even gave me a follow up call to make sure I was recovering properly. That was a total shock considering at best most places send a letter.

      Some other people I questioned such as Senior Citizens and Single Parents received free Healthcare and even free or very cheap consultations for pregnancy. All-in-All the experience was incredible and to think it is only a few miles from my home. And as it turns out there are quite a few places like this I have heard of that are actually wanting to do nothing more than take care of their patients and make a living doing so.

      Honestly, I have no problems at all with Doctors getting paid very well. Their job can be very difficult. It is expensive to become one. The Malpractice Insurance is outrageous. The Claim Filing is incredibly annoying, especially with the way most insurance companies are. So, to me, when Providers are this willing to help people, it says a lot. And I can easily believe that if we did not have this corrupt system in place that this would be a lot more commonplace.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. Brent

        I agree that the insurance has caused a lot of trouble. In the past I had enormous financial difficulties based on figuring out policies and what they cover. Several times when I was younger I dealt with hundreds and even thousands of dollars of debt that I incurred under the impression that health insurance would pay it. Usually the result was wrecked credit which resulted in higher interest paid on other loans and auto insurance and a loss of some peace of mind dealing with collection agencies. Here are typical problem I had:

        I wondered if wellness procedures or certain dependent care were covered. I called the insurance company to ask and they said these procedures were. I contacted the doctor to ask them to check and had them agree I would not do business with them unless they assured me they checked insurance and would not come after me for any amount more than what insurance agreed to pay them. Later I am billed under claims insurance would not pay. Who has time to fight insurance companies? Should have got it in writing they later tell me. It is getting to the point that almost everything you do has to be in writing; its ridiculous.

        Some time ago I felt a mysterious severe chest pains and became concerned. I went to the emergency room repeatedly. They did many checks on me and found me to be perfectly OK. I racked up many bills and insurance would not pay claiming I had no emergency, I was perfectly OK all along and I had no business even going to the doctor let alone the emergency room.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Brent

          One point here is that in many cases I would never have incurred the debt in the first place had I not had insurance. It can be better to not have something to support you than to lean on something that appears to be a support only to find it is not.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. Logic

            Absolutely.
            Considering that most Health Insurance is garbage. They accept your premiums and then when you need their coverage they pay nothing. They are pathetic.

            The idea of forcing people to take it is what is so offensive. That is why Car Insurance can charge so much is because in most places you have to have it so they can charge whatever they want.

            Just wait till Health Insurance is required and see where the prices go.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    4. Chris

      how dare you!!! the truth of the matter is that doctors take an oath, they have a moral obligation to heal the sick no matter what the circumstances are, that in turn also should if not already refer to the inmoral actions of the big three… Insurance (who is ripping off everybody) Pharmacuetical (who isnt trying to heal anyone) and Health equipment manufactorers (who see how much money they can make and have set the bar to GREED) oh wait theres one more who acts as the instigator to all this, the Medical Colleges who’s tuition is unrealistic, you would think that they out of everyone should take the high road and keep not just medical programs but all programs the same flat rate as the next…. AFFORDABLE. Knowledge is power, holding the key to knowing how to fix ones ailments is alot of knowledge, with great power comes great responsibility!!! Why the hell cant people see this and shout it out at the top of their lungs.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  25. Kate

    My husband was medically discharged from the Army after being shot in action as a combat medic in Afghanistan, and is the recipiant of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. I am a civillian RN. Please believe me when I tell you from both a personal and professional perspective, the VA system is VERY flawed. My husband has had to use our private insurance for some of his care because of ridiculously long waits for ‘approval of treatment’ from the VA, and the paperwork and fights for basic services is appaling. Also, the treatment that IS received is often sub-par compared to treatment received in civillian facilities. Unfortunately, from talking with other Vets, I know this is not an abnormal scenario.

    Although I DO believe it is disgusting how our Vets are treated, my point is to debunk the myth that the VA system is ‘good overall’. Unless you are looking for run-of-the-mill checkups, the system is terrible (exception being Walter Reed, but of course the big hospital by D.C. will always be well funded and staffed due to location…). Whether the care is for follow-up related to injuries received in combat, or for new ailments, many Vets find better and quicker treatment outside of the VA system.

    Again, I am only trying to illustrate the reality of the VA system from the view of a wife of a combat Vet, and a Registered Nurse. Other people, I’m sure, have had better experiences, but from talking with many, many other Vet’s and their families, unfortunately the norm for the VA is usually the butt of a lot of jokes.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  26. Bob

    Nothing is free in the market. It really is Not a good choice for a word. It all takes work to accomplish a task. either by a person, animal or machine.
    Health is not free to anyone some one. Some one has to pay for it. Who?
    Do we allow the Government to micromanage health care. Knowing that that the cost will go up.The quality of care will go down. Because there will be more and more people hired by the government deciding what is best for the patient, and what a doctor can do.
    On some premise that it is free health care.
    The VA health care started out free to all Veterans and there family. The first cut back closing all the large hospitals. Then the co-pay. Then payment for prescriptions. Then the means test. The allowing of the IRS on collection of past due amounts by reporting it to the IRS. The list goes on.
    No one in the Congress fills out a means test for medical care.
    In my opinion the best form of medical care. Is Every one pays individually. No one needs some self appointed individual or group telling people what they can purchase.
    The Market works best when people realize it just dose not come free. We have a choice do we allow some one to make those choices for us or do we make them and take control of our own lives and pay our own way. The poor will always be with us. Charity works better when we as individuales have control where we spend it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  27. Bob

    I am going to leave you all with a couple of things to think about.
    There has never been a sitting president voted out of office durring a war.
    We may be in a world war. But like a deprression It will never be declared as such.
    The way our military is being run today. The way the veteran is treated in health care and other benifits. If the Congress and President start a major push in infantry(ground troops). In the mid east. The draft will probably be started back up. Because fewer an fewer are going in.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  28. Bob

    I am going to leave you all with a couple of things to think about.
    There has never been a sitting president voted out of office durring a war.
    We may be in a world war. But like a deprression It will never be declared as such.
    The way our military is being run today. The way the veteran is treated in health cae and other benifits. If the Congress and President start a major push in infantry(ground troops). In the mid east. The draft will probably be started back up. Because fewer an fewer are going in.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  29. Bob

    When did the physician. Begin to beleive that they had the right to dictate how there patients behave. Or what there choices are? When did a Doctor decide to have the right to make finacial descsions for there patients under the name of so called managed health care. “The H.M.O.”.As if the patient is there child and have complete responsibility for them.
    This is a phenomenon that has occurred no dobt partially because of the malpractice law suits. The Court, it is a way for the Physician to protect them selves from the cost of the law suit and staying in business. By assuming the role of a provider.
    No business should have the protection to stay in business at any cost. If it is proven that a in a court of law that a Doctor During a C-Section being slightly intoxicated. While performing a operation.the physician nicks the bowel of the patient with a scalpel. Then sews or staples up the pateint and the pateint dies. The Doctor should pay. It would be Involintary manslaughter in any other case. But Physcian’s want protetion in the name of health care and just keep on practicing medicine. No other Professoin has such protection and neather should the Physcian. If You do the crime. You do the time.If convicted.
    The solution is Simple. It is none of the physcian’s business. What choice the patient makes.
    This Idea that the physician is a provider. Is beyond a sane approach to any business adventure. In a Country that gaurantees freedom of choice and liberty. This is a delussion and counter diction of the truth. In Other words, you cannot have it both ways. If you want liberty. Than the Doctor better draw a line where he or she can go .Beyond that of the diagnosis and prognosis and treatment. In the name of health care management. Other wise there is no liberty and freedom of choice. When the law reads that a physician has the right to make choices for there patients.In order to dictate short or long to term health care. Because a patient is not obeident to the perscription. There is no liberty or freedom of choice.It then becomes the obligation of the Physician.
    The cost of the service is up to the physician. If the patient cannot pay then of course then they cannot receive the service and if the prognosis is terminal than they will die. Maybe If this was communicated in a diffrent manner and people relized that if you don’t pay you don’t get well. They will change there attude and do what is best for them.
    This was so 35 years ago. If a person could not prove payment( except in an emergency event). Through proof of insurence or cash. They did not get treated. To tell a pateint that if you do not quit smoking cigaretts one day you will eather sufficate or be die of cancer. The cost could be beyond your means. if you cannot afford it you will die.
    Every one has a choice to live a healthy productive life In our Country. It is th’s individual’s responsibility,there Choice.
    I like to refere to pepole who think they no better. At making decisions and have better judgment for all and want to take control of the people around them. ” As” those who knows whats best for the rest.
    These people must have some kind of mental ilness. Having delusional thoughts about there felow man. They have some kind of deep seeded sence of insecurity. Wanting to take control the aspect of every ones life.
    Once we are born it is up to God almighty and our own decisions (Individual responsibility) on how long we can prolong the inevitable death. The only one I no. Who escaped death was Jesus Christ our lord and savior.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  30. Bob

    When did the physician. Begin to beleive that they had the right to dictate how there patients behave. Or what there choices are? When did a Doctor decide to have the right to make finacial descsions for there patients under the name of so called managed health care. “The H.M.O.”.As if the patient is there child and have complete responsibility for them.
    This is a phenomenon that has occurred no dobt partially because of the malpractice law suits. The Court, it is a way for the Physician to protect them selves from the cost of the law suit and staying in business. By assuming the role of a provider.
    No business should have the protection to stay in business at any cost. If it is proven that a in a court of law that a Doctor During a C-Section being slightly intoxicated. While performing the operation. Nicks the bowel of the patient with a scalpel. Then sews or staples up the pateint and the pateint dies. The Doctor should pay. It would be Involintary manslaughter in any other case. But Physcian’s want protetion in the name of health care and just keep on practicing medicine. No other Professoin has such protection and neather should the Physcian. If You do the crime. You do the time.If convicted.
    The solution is Simple. It is none of the physcian’s business. What choce the patient makes.
    This Idea that the physician is a provider. Is beyond a sane approach to any business adventure. In a Country that gaurantees freedom of choice and liberty this is a delussion and counter diction of the truth. In Other words, you cannot have it both ways. If you want liberty. Than the Doctor better draw a line where he or she can go .Beyond that of the diagnosis and prognosis and treatment. In the name of health care management. Other wise there is no liberty and freedom of choice. When the law reads that a physician has the right to make choices for there patients.In order to dictate short or long to term care. Because a patient is not obeident to the perscription. There is no liberty or freedom of choice.It then becomes the obligation of the Physician.
    The cost of the service is up to the physician. If the patient cannot pay then of course then they cnnot receive the service and if the prognosis is terminal than they will die. Maybe If this was communicated in a diffrent manner and people relized that if you don’t pay you don’t get well. They will change there attude and do what is best for them.
    This was so 35 years ago. If a person could not prove payment( except in an emergency event). Through proof of insurence or cash. They did not get treated. To tell a pateint that if you do not quit smoking cigaretts one day you will eather sufficate or be die of cancer. The cost could be beyond your means. if you cannot afford it you will die.
    Every one has a choice to live a healthy productive life In our Country. It is th’s individual’s responsibility,there Choice.
    I like to refere to pepole who think they no better. At making decisions and have better judgment for all and want to take control of the people around them. ” As” those who knows whats best for the rest.
    These people must have some kind of mental ilness. Having delusional thoughts about there felow man. They have some kind of deep seeded sence of insecurity. Wanting to take control the aspect of every ones life.
    Once we are born it is up to God almighty and our own decisions (Individual responsibility) on how long we can prolong the inevitable death. The only one I no. Who escaped death was Jesus Christ our lord and savior.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Bob

    When did the physician. Begin to beleive that they had the right to dictate how there patients behave. Or what there choices are? When did a Doctor decide to have the right to make finacial descsions for there patients under the name of so called managed health care. “The H.M.O.”.As if the patient is there child and have complete responsibility for them.
    This is a phenomenon that has occurred no dobt partially because of the malpractice law suits. The Court, it is a way for the Physician to protect them selves from the cost of the law suit and staying in business. By assuming the role of a provider.
    No business should have the protection to stay in business at any cost. If it is proven that a in a court of law that a Doctor During a C-Section being slightly intoxicated while performing the operation. Nicks the bowel of the patient withva scalpel sews or staples up the pateint and the patien dies. The Doctor should pay. It would be Involintary manslaughter in any other case. But Physcian’s want protetion in the name of health care and just keep on practicing medicine. No other Professoin has such protection and neather should the Physcian. If You do the crime. You do the time.If convicted.
    The solution is Simple. It is none of the physcian’s business. What choce the patient makes.
    This Idea that the physician is a provider. Is beyond a sane approach to any business adventure. In a Country that gaurantees freedom of choice and liberty this is a delussion and counter diction of the truth. In Other words, you cannot have it both ways. If you want liberty. Than the Doctor better draw a line where he or she can go .Beyond that of the diagnosis and prognosis and treatment. In the name of health care management. Other wise there is no liberty and freedom of choice. When the law reads that a physician has the right to make choices for there patients.In order to dictate short or long to term care. Because a patient is not obeident to the perscription. There is no liberty or freedom of choice.It then becomes the obligation of the Physician.
    The cost of the service is up to the physician. If the patient cannot pay then of course then they cnnot receive the service and if the prognosis is terminal than they will die. Maybe If this was communicated in a diffrent manner and people relized that if you don’t pay you don’t get well. They will change there attude and do what is best for them.
    This was so 35 years ago. If a person could not prove payment( except in an emergency event). Through proof of insurence or cash. They did not get treated. To tell a pateint that if you do not quit smoking cigaretts one day you will eather sufficate or be die of cancer. The cost could be beyond your means. if you cannot afford it you will die.
    Every one has a choice to live a healthy productive life In our Country. It is th’s individual’s responsibility,there Choice.
    I like to refere to pepole who think they no better. At making decisions and have better judgment for all and want to take control of the people around them. ” As” those who knows whats best for the rest.
    These people must have some kind of mental ilness. Having delusional thoughts about there felow man. They have some kind of deep seeded sence of insecurity. Wanting to take control the aspect of every ones life.
    Once we are born it is up to God almighty and our own decisions (Individual responsibility) on how long we can prolong the inevitable death. The only one I no. Who escaped death was Jesus Christ our lord and savior.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. John

    Sorry for the repost…

    As a solo physician, I take care of patients for free or at a markedly reduced cost on a daily basis. In my area, approximately 10% of my patients are uninsured. I have no problem doing this, however, I do have a problem when patients choose not to have insurance. I see many patients that have the latest iPhone, smoke daily, and have full cable/internet yet argue about the cost of health care. I have joked that maybe cell phone carriers and cable companies should verify health insurance coverage before providing these services. I won’t touch the smoking issue as I could go on and on about this. I have no sympathy when patients complain about a $50 office charge when they are spending $200/month on cigarettes.

    I sympathize with those patients that legitimately cannot afford insurance and I go above and beyond to help these patients. The majority of uninsured patients in my area COULD afford health insurance but choose to spend money on items that are non-essential and also worsen their own health.

    Yes, healthcare is expensive and I do believe changes need to be made with our insurance system. I also believe individual health responsibility is lacking and we need some system/laws that mandate patients be more responsible for their own health.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    1. Chris

      I am saddend by your discourse of opinion towards the matter. Government mandated perssonal health responsiblity programs? That is what you suggest eh? You make me sick!! YOU ARE A DOCTOR WHY DID YOU BECOME ONE>>> TO HELP PEOPLE OR TO GET WEALTHY? Sickness is a natural occurence which can be spread, it also can and usually come unexpectedly, that said why would you think any average human would choice a chance of something happening rather than enjoying what they might be able to afford such as IPODs. There are people who have been responsible their entire lives, kept their family insured with having to sacrifice wants over a possible need, his kids never get sick and dispearse off the insurance he and his wife have impectable health and never need even the simplest of meds… this man lives to be 85… he just spent a whole shit load of money, money that could have been saved and used for other more imprtant things, but unfortunately people like you.. pardon me … scum like you who give yourself excuses to act the way you do towards the less unfortunate people who are just trying to live life the way the want, your duty as a physician is not to place judgement on any persons persona behavior but to fix them no matter what… BECAUSE ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!! please help start the revolution towards a FREE HEALTH SYSTEM – then you can say you truly saved a life!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  33. John

    As a solo physician, I take care of patients for free or at a markedly reduced cost on a daily basis. In my area, approximately 10% of my patients are uninsured. I have no problem doing this, however, I do have a problem when patients choose not to have insurance. I see many patients that have the latest iPhone, smoke daily, and have full cable/internet yet argue about the cost of health care. I have joked that maybe cell phone carriers and cable companies should verify health insurance coverage before providing these services. I won’t touch the smoking issue as I could go on and on about this. I have no sympathy when patients complain about a $50 office charge when they are spending $200/month on cigarettes.

    I sympathize with those patients that legitimately cannot afford insurance and I go above and beyond to help these patients. The majority of uninsured patients in my area COULD afford health insurance but choose to spend money on items that are non-essential and also worsen their own health.

    Yes, healthcare is expensive and I do believe changes need to be made with our insurance system. I also believe individual health responsibility is lacking and we need some system/laws that mandate patients be more esponsible for their own health.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  34. John

    As a solo physician, I take care of patients for free or at a markedly reduced cost on a daily basis. In my area, approximately 10% of my patients are not insured. I have no problem doing this, however, I do have a problem when patients choose not to have insurance. It is one thing not to be able to afford insurance versus choose not to have insurance. I see many patients that have the latest iPhone, smoke daily, and have full cable/internet yet argue about the cost of health care. I have joked that maybe cell phone carriers and cable companies should verify health insurance coverage before providing these services. I won’t touch the smoking issue as I could go on and on about this.

    I sympathize with those patients that legitimately cannot afford insurance and go above and beyond to help these patients. The majority of uninsured patients in my area COULD afford health insurance but choose to spend money on items that are non-essential and also worsen their own health.

    Yes, healthcare is expensive and I do believe changes need to be made with our insurance system. I also believe individual health responsibility is lacking and we need some system/laws making patients responsible for their own health.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  35. Bob

    The Oklahoma legislators and Govenor decided over the weekend. To ingnore there oath to office and ignore the will of the people. They began implementing the universal health care plan even after the majority of Citizens at the polls voted no in the State of Oklahoma. Using money not appropriated for the task.
    There reasoning that the fed will make them do it any way? This is the so called new republicans. They should all step down and resigne from office.
    The Citizens need to keep a close eye on the States that have voted against this so called universal health care. To see If any more legislators will begin to cave in to the fed. Out of there so called fear. It is a message to the Citizen voter.That once in office There is no acountability for there irrisponsible action and they will do as they like. There is acountability before the next election in most States. A petition to recall.
    This was accomplished with the Govenor of Arizona.In the nineteen Eighties.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

1 18 19 20 21 22 31

Leave a Reply