Health Care

2243 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«

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

2,243 responses to “Health Care”

  1. Tami

    It would be really great if everyone could keep this civil. We are all here to figure this out. We have before us a dilemma that has multiple aspects to it. To grab one portion and run with it as a means to definitively make a decision and slam someone else because it makes you feel good is not helping anything or anyone. Let's work in consortium and find a solution. Our politicians have failed thus far. We are the people, all people are the people, and we should function as an amalgamation. The language and the harsh examples are offensive and counterproductive at best. I think it's great that everyone has something to bring to the table. It sheds light on various aspects that we may not have considered. I'm asking that we all speak to each other as if we were speaking at church in front of our parents, grandparents, community, and God (whatever that means to you). Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Tami

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Public Postings

      @Tami Agreed. I would love to get more information about the things I do not know much about from someone who knows more than me about it. I think people are more open-minded if they can state their thought without being insulted and called names like on a school playground.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tucci78

        @Public Postings@Tami - "I think people are more open-minded if they can state their thought without being insulted and called names like on a school playground."

        When there's honest intent behind an inquiry, I'm perfectly happy to oblige. This site, however, is much afflicted by "Liberal" fascist trolls (as well as neocon partisans of American imperialism), and there's no purpose at all to treating them as warranting courtesy instead of scorn.

        As regards health care - emphasis on the role of the federal government in the health care sector of our economy - the fundamental derangement is so perfectly simple and straightforward that only someone suffering a psychopathic delusions or an acute cerebral concussion could gainsay its elucidation.

        The problem comes, in every way, at every level, always and inevitably, as the result of government officers interfering in purposeful voluntary human action undertaken by people interested in getting their livings by providing such care to those who need it.

        It's really no different from any other service industry, and all the unspeakable crap aimed at vesting in health care some sort of quasi-religious quality is patently insane. Might as well do the same with the professions of civil engineering or meteorology.

        The truth of the matter, as I've stated in this forum repeatedly, is that politicians have found health care to be a beneficial service that they can commandeer to dispense or withhold in precisely the same way politicians curried favor with the mobs of Imperial Rome by way of "free" bread and bloody spectacles in the arena.

        I repeat Bastiat (1850): "Government is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else."

        Regarding government health care today, this is PRECISELY what the corrupt socialist politicians and their adherents are peddling.

        However, these socialists are now running out of other people's money - and other resources - to spend on themselves and their political malignancies.

        Like it or not, the laws of economics will not be gainsaid, and that's what's got the "universal healthcare" dorks screaming and hollering and flinging shit like monkeys in a cage at the zoo.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@Tami I like your sarcastic humor - I can appreciate that. I find myself on this site trying to find out about one of the presidential candidates that appears to be in the running and ending up posting here. I don't even have a preference for a candidate yet. But I am enjoying some of the comments. You are wordy and spend too much time trying to state things in a manner in which a "common" person would not understand (on purpose?) or be able to accurately interpret. Lawyers were once paid by the word. Here, no one will pay you so be a bit more succinct.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Tami - "Lawyers were once paid by the word. Here, no one will pay you so be a bit more succinct."

          I've never heard of lawyers being "paid by the word" (they charge by what's called "the billable hour," and that's a concept both bizarre and vastly less objectively mensurable).

          Writers, on the other hand, are commonly paid by the word for magazine publication, and have been for the past couple of centuries. It's one of the reasons why Charles Dickens' novels are so obviously padded out the kazoo. You've never picked up on that?

          I write in this forum as seems most appropriate to me. If it seems repetitive and wordy from one post to another, consider that a doctor's progress notes in a patient's chart tend to be written as self-contained observations, conclusions, and discussions of action (look up "SOAP notes" to understand better).

          It's a good practice, particularly useful in contexts where one can't be sure that someone reading at that point has also accessed precedent entries in the chart.

          As for what a "common" person will or will not understand, the best any writer can do is follow Jefferson's determination "...to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent." '

          By all means let's have some respect for the intelligence and application of the "common" person.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Tami

          @Tucci78@Public PostingsI'm common so it would be great if you made this simple for me. Just as, when I am trying to make a point I will keep it simple. The reality is that we are all incredibly knowledgeable about something, often times so much so that someone else cannot understand what we are saying. It doesn't matter how intelligent we are if we are ineffective largely because no one can understand us and they miss the application. It doesn't matter how smart I am if I can accomplish nothing because no one can understand me.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Public Postings

          I recall learning in a class a long time ago that lawyers were once paid by the word when preparing documents and that is why their documents were so long and wordy. Couldn't find a reference for it though.

          I can't stand Charles Dickens.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Tucci78

          @Tami@Public Postings - "The reality is that we are all incredibly knowledgeable about something, often times so much so that someone else cannot understand what we are saying."

          Not so.

          It'd be nice if that WERE so, and it's kindly to think it, but "knowledgeable" (much less "incredibly" or unbelievably "knowledgeable") in any aspect of reality is precisely what the greatest number of humankind are not. They've never been. They'll never be.

          There are acquisition and maintenance costs associated with becoming "knowledgeable" about anything. It takes conscious effort to learn, and the more one becomes genuinely, honestly, and deeply "knowledgeable" the more an honest man is apt to acknowledge the fact that there's a helluva lot more to be known than he's already gotten for himself.

          That's the way it always is among really educated people, and why those of us who ARE educated appreciate and value people who don't fool themselves by yammering that "we are all incredibly knowledgeable about something."

          When I discuss concepts in fora like this one, I refuse to "dumb it down" in a spirit of condescension when I'm writing something to be read by those honest people who refuse to fool themselves. I've known too many of them, and trust them both to look things up for themselves AND - when necessary - to ask for clarification and explanation.

          Ignorance without arrogance and pretense is nothing of which to be ashamed, and those who acknowledge that are more virtuous and sensible by far than the bloody idiots who weld themselves without skeptical consideration to fallacies and refuse even to consider that what they "know" simply may not be so.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. Tucci78

          @Public Postings - "I recall learning in a class a long time ago that lawyers were once paid by the word when preparing documents and that is why their documents were so long and wordy. Couldn't find a reference for it though.

          "I can't stand Charles Dickens."

          About lawyers charging "by the word" I've never before heard, though given the concept of "billable hours," I'll admit that it sure as hell SOUNDS credible.

          As for Charles Dickens, I'm with you. The only product of his that I've ever really liked was "A Christmas Carol," and Dickens kept that story brief only because he had to self-publish it, and the expense of getting it into print had to be paid out of whatever he could beg or borrow at a time when he was a breath away from bankruptcy.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. Tami

          @Tucci78@Tami@Public Postings Number one, I am educated. Number two I have expressed that I wanted to understand all of the inner-workings better. Number three, you have convinced me that you are not the person to speak to about this. Good luck to you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. Tucci78

          @Tami@Public Postings - "Number one, I am educated. Number two I have expressed that I wanted to understand all of the inner-workings better. Number three, you have convinced me that you are not the person to speak to about this. Good luck to you."

          Number one, you seem to THINK that you're educated. Doesn't show in your attitude, but what the hell.

          Number two, an online comments board isn't the place "to understand all the inner-workings better." You need to get stuck into some reading. If you really were "educated," you'd know that. Again, what the hell....

          Number three, your assumption that I'm "not the person to speak to about this" is probably correct, though not for any virtue on your own part.

          A teacher is never any better for a student than the student will allow, and you're not interested in anything but confirmation of your already existing prejudices.

          Third time, what the hell....

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. ffwweefa

    Ron Paul makes perfect sense. NO one should take responsibility of the health of that 500lb lazy potato couch who doesn't even want to put in an effort to exercise for once. People should begin to realize that they are responsible for their own health, and the medicare system makes us dependent and seems to prevent us from taking care of our health on our own.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. lucky85

      Wow, you want to get rid of Medicare?

      You guys are so far right, you've gone over the cliff.

      Good basic healthcare should be the right of all, not the priviledged few. We asb a country are consigning millions to death because they cannot get or afford ANY healthcare. All medical expenses are going thru the roof, including doctor, hosptial, PHarmaceutical and

      testing labs, Our healthcare system is in the process of meltdown, and the repugs fiddle while Rome burns.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tucci78

        @lucky85 - "Good basic healthcare should be the right of all, not the privileged few."

        This constant yammering bullshit about how anybody could have an uncontracted "right" to the goods and services of other people - in effect, innocent bystanders - is entirely too much like a rapist protesting that he has a "right" to use the bodies of his victims as he pleases.

        After all, he has NEEDS, doesn't he? It's not the rapist's fault that he's horny and can't persuade a woman (or child, or dog) to serve those needs of his.

        If the woman (or sheep, or warm slice of liver) won't surrender her body to the service of his needs, the government must ensure that the rapist gets the satisfaction he desires.

        How the hell many times do we have to deal with predatory sons of bitches like this dork, anyway?

        To the extent that "Our healthcare system is in the process of meltdown," it's because of this kind of idiotic noise and its manifestation in government policy by way of politicians using "health care" as the modern equivalent of Rome's bread and circuses.

        Nothing like burning down the house to cause a "meltdown."

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. lucky85

          Your arguments are nonsensical, and pure baloney. A sensible program for providing healthcare provides it for all, which greatly vuts down future costs of people who contract diseqase or conditions which are a much greater cost to society, because they couldn't get basic care. The repugs would rather keep the status quo of medical insurance companies, pharemaceutical companies, hospitals doctors etc of raking in the big cash in a mostly unregulated environment as far as setting prices goes.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tucci78

          @lucky85 - "A sensible program for providing healthcare provides it for all, which greatly cuts down future costs of people who contract disease or conditions which are a much greater cost to society, because they couldn't get basic care."

          That's a great premise for military medicine, and it's how we discharged our duties as medical officers in the armed services.

          It's also a number-one priority in veterinary medicine, where the objective is to get maximum productivity out of a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep.

          Doesn't QUITE pass the sniff test when it comes to dealing with a population made up of private citizens who are neither enlisted in any of the military services nor being farmed for their milk, meat, and/or wool.

          Or is it simply that you "Liberal" fascists view all your fellow human beings as grunts to command or cattle to be butchered for your purposes?

          Y'know, in medicine we use the word "progressive" specifically to describe a malignant disease that, instead of resolving when addressed by a proper oncological treatment protocol, continues to grow and invade, and is probably going to kill the poor patient.

          You're EVER so "progressive," aren't you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@lucky85 Rapists don't rape because they're horny. It's an act of having power and control over another person.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@lucky85 - "Rapists don't rape because they're horny. It's an act of having power and control over another person."

          I'd think that without some degree of "horny" the crime of the rapist might be listed as "assault with a dead weapon," but what the hell...

          But shall we assume the same "power and control" motivation among the "Liberal" fascists and similar thieving, murdering, megalomaniac political predators?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Tami

      @ffwweefa Not everyone with health problems is as you describe. In fact most are not. I really like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say but he's wrong on this one.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tucci78

        @Tami@ffwweefa - "I really like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say but he's wrong on this one."

        What would you propose as a more workable alternative?

        Dr. Paul's position on health care - or, more properly, on the federal government's role in health care - is based upon a coldly rational assessment of factual reality, and is lucidly articulated.

        Both his diagnoses and his treatment plan make sense. Certainly, by continuing down the line of approach imposed upon us by bureaucrats and politicians whose primary purposes are always first and foremost winning popularity contests, we're guaranteed nothing but continuing failure leading inevitably to the complete bankruptcy of our republic.

        If you've got another read on the situation and a better solution, I'd be just damned delighted to get a look at it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tami

          @Tucci78@Tami@ffwweefa I don't have another read, a solution, or the like. What I have is experience with sick people and seeing a broken system that increases disparities, as well as, a child with a disease that is chronic in nature. I have also been blessed with insurance that assists us in providing excellent health care. We pay well into the thousands to provide what he needs to stay healthy despite his disease. We're fortunate that we have the finances, are medically minded, and are able to create balance for our family where others truly struggle with the aforementioned. I am looking for an answer. I don't know all of the ins and outs of everything. What I know is that my sons equipment is superior to those on governmental health care, I don't want the government overseeing his health care, I don't want preexisting conditions to be considered for cost of health care or people like my son will be uninsured, I want my seniors taken care of, I do in fact feel everyone should have insurance so that they are able to obtain appropriate health care for themselves and for their families. I'm very concerned about this issue. I'm also concerned about the apathy I see coming out in people who have not been afflicted with a long term health problem. What we see on the news leads us to believe that everything can be cured with diet and exercise. How ridiculous is that? My sons body attacked itself and destroyed his beta cells. He didn't do anything to cause himself to have type 1 diabetes. He's compliant also. He doesn't deserve to be thrown under the bus after he turns 18. If there is one area among all of the issues where I would be willing to hand over my money it would be to those who need it the most. These families suffer, they struggle, their children sometimes die. I'm really not ok with that because I have a conscience. If we do not address these issues, and help our fellow man, we are increasing pain, affliction, disease, disparities, etc. This means that we have done harm.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tucci78

          @Tami@ffwweefa - "I don't know.... What I know... I don't want... I don't want... I want... I do in fact feel... I'm very concerned... I'm also concerned...."

          Not to belittle or deny your knowledge, your feelings, your wants and your concerns - all of which are valid - what we're discussing here is the subject of federal government intervention in the health care sector of our society's economy.

          Everybody has pressing personal and family health care concerns to one degree or another, and I'm no exception. The reason I don't bring up my own in this forum - or even broader concerns about the needs of the thousands of patients for whom I've provided medical care over the years - is that particular cases are of arguably little real relevance to the broad issue in large.

          To the extent that an analogy can be valid, it's a bit like the cruise line passenger in cabin 33-C who is slowly succumbing to Hodgkin's lymphoma and who may improve with appropriate treatment once the ship docks, but who will drown in the next few hours unless something is done to keep the liner from sinking as the result of the hole ripped in its hull below the waterline.

          The material means with which to address your wants and your concerns had to have been brought into existence, else you wouldn't know about them, and your son with Type I diabetes mellitus might well have died years ago as the result of that disease's well-known complications.

          In this forum, we're looking at the effects of political intervention - the effects of which tend to be adverse, commonly impairing the development and implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic measures in disease management - and the reasons why these interventions need to be withdrawn so that the effectiveness AND cost-efficiency of such medical modalities can improve, thereby making medical care better, more affordable, and therefore more readily available to the people who need it.

          Let's discover what can and should be done to keep the health care system in America from catastrophic failure, preserving and improving the ways in which that system can be made to serve your own needs and concerns as well as those of your neighbors.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Ron Paul Hates America

    Only country in the developed world without universal healthcare. Hey America, try IMPROVING for once. Try LEARNING a lesson from your peers. The arrogance and frivolity of this argument has got to stop. Notice who campaigns most for private health care: DOCTORS! Greedy bastards. A healthy population is a productive population. The benefits to society have been ECONOMICALLY PROVEN. Every day America falls farther and farther behind the rest of the world due to pure and simple greed and lack of compassion for their fellow americans. Its sickening. Stop, please.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @Ron Paul Hates America - "The benefits to society [of universal healthcare] have been ECONOMICALLY PROVEN."

      Okay, putzie. Put forth your proof. Insofar as I'm aware, the laws of economics (like the laws of physics and physiology) haven't yet been repealed, and all of them prove that there is no viability whatsoever in a government-run attack upon any aspect of voluntary human action.

      If you keep pointing guns at productive people to commandeer the values they produce, first they begin taking steps to escape your depredations, and eventually they give up and quit producing altogether.

      Are you perchance female, you pseudonymous "Liberal" fascist?

      'Cause I'd really like to use that Saturday Night Live line ending in "...you ignorant slut."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Public Postings

        @Tucci78@Ron Paul Hates America That is entirely unnecessary Tucci78. If you have something to say that you feel will benefit someone in helping to educate them about universal healthcare then help out - provide information that you have to support what you are stating. Insulting others' opinions (factual or not) is not productive and might serve to create further rifts between people with differing information or knowledge. Politicians pit themselves one against the other and impede progress in this nation. Cite your sources on your comments above so that we may become better informed.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Ron Paul Hates America - "Insulting others' opinions (factual or not) is not productive and might serve to create further rifts between people with differing information or knowledge."

          Nope. Diagnostic clarity and clear definition are absolutely necessary.

          The advocates of aggressive government thuggery in the peaceable affairs of non-violent human beings are not advancing any kind of benign purpose, and no benefit is to be gotten by treating these vicious enemies of society as if they were merely "people with differing information or knowledge."

          To the extent that we can speak of individual human rights as a non-religious standard of morality in thought and speech and conduct - and I'm so inclined - these people are fundamentally and inescapably immoral.

          Might as well say so without equivocation or compromise.

          Consider that we "educate them" best by letting them know that they're correctly perceived as vicious sons of bitches with criminal designs on the lives, the liberties, and the property of their fellow human beings, and will in all social discourse be treated as such.

          This may help them to moderate their speech and their behavior, and reduce the probability that they'll have to be dealt with by way of retaliatory lethal force.

          As for your desire that I "Cite [my] sources," are you familiar yet with such popular works as Milton and Rose Friedman's *Free to Choose* (1980)?

          It's not the sole source, or the most specialized, but it might serve you well as a starting point.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@Ron Paul Hates America I am having a difficult time understanding exactly what you are saying - I'm confused.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Ron Paul Hates America - "I am having a difficult time understanding exactly what you are saying - I'm confused."

          If I'm to make an effort to help you clear up your confusion, I'll need a bit more specificity from you first.

          In what specific ways do you find yourself to be "confused"?

          What is your present appreciation of the concept called "human nature"?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@Ron Paul Hates America I think a lot of the people posting on this forum have good intentions - they see the disparities and want to find a way to resolve them. A government run healthcare system cannot possibly be the answer. Can you explain how, once the government involvement is removed from the healthcare arena it will in the end help those who need healthcare and desire to have it or make it more viable for them to purchase it? That may help to clarify its benefits.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Ron Paul Hates America - "Can you explain how, once the government involvement is removed from the healthcare arena it will in the end help those who need healthcare and desire to have it or make it more viable for them to purchase it?"

          To put it simply - but not simplistically - one has to approach the adverse influences of a century (and more) of political meddling in the health care sector of the American economy in something analogous to the way a medical doctor approaches a patient who is heavily habituated to alcohol, Heroin, and/or other depressant psychoactive substances.

          Subjectively, the drug addict (alcohol's a drug, and we might as well consider it so) feels very good while under the influence of his desired substance-of-abuse, and is loathe to discontinue its use. The conditions induced by his intoxication are pleasurable to him, he's accustomed to them, and has found past conditions of withdrawal to be distressing.

          In much the same way, Americans have become habituated to political interferences in the structuring and delivery of health care. The difference between the average American health care consumer and our typical drug addict, however, is that the health care consumer has never, ever, been ALLOWED to withdraw from a condition of government interference with his medical care, and so cannot speak to anything other than to his extremely well-justified fears of being left in our present government-strangulated health care environment without access to what care is ALLOWED us by the politicians.

          Give some thought to that, if you would.

          As long as politicians are capable of denying access to medical skills and other resources - through occupational licensing, FDA "regulation" of pharmaceuticals and medical devices and other machinations - you are being denied any real alternative to potentially - no, ACTUALLY - better, more cost-efficient and therefore affordable options.

          Let me do a bit of digging and see what kinds of online links I can come up with for you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Public Postings

    I just wanted to start up a discussion on health as it relates to individual responsibility. There is enough research to show how obesity, smoking and inactivity are causes of major health problems to include heart disease and diabetes. How does this research influence your opinions about the provision of healthcare? In other words, does everyone have a "right" to be treated for doing things that are clearly documented to cause disease? And - furthermore do we as a society have the "right" to discriminate against those who make no effort to improve their health or increase the cost of their health insurance? Recall the old days when insurances were allowed to blatantly refuse to cover a person's health issue because it was "preexisting". Just adding more fuel to the fire - comments?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. lucky85

      There's nothing to stop people now from engaging in irresponsible life styles that raise insurance rates for everyoner. This really is a red herring, what we need is a single payor system that provides good "basic" healthcare for everyone. This would both cut insurance costs for everyone, and in general improve the health level for the entire society, also reducing health care expenses for all in the longer term. It's a no brainer really.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tami

        @lucky85 Who sets the criteria and what makes one worse than another. For example, I don't drink so would those who drink at all or alcoholics not be covered? Most often people with some form of mental illness diagnosed or undiagnosed smoke, drink, overeat, don't eat at all, hoard (which causes health issues due to living conditions), should we deny them and who determines who them is? Say someone has a chronic disease and has burnout from the care and occasionally just can't do it, and ends up with complications, do we deny them care? Or what about the family member that takes care of this person? Perhaps they become depressed because it's just really tough and indulge in one of the behaviors you mentioned as a coping mechanism, do we deny them care? People who work really hard but can't make ends meet, perhaps they live in an impoverished area that doesn't have a grocery store (like may poor areas) and/or crummy high calorie food is all that they can afford, despite the fact that they don't get enough to eat they are obese because they eat high calorie junk to stay alive, do we deny them care? There is more than meets the eye to this issue. For us we worry about our child having health care. He has type 1 diabetes, he is covered under our insurance for now, in a year and a half he goes to college, who covers him? He loses a job in the future, who covers him. I believe that as a society we are responsible to one another. It's easy to look at someone and say, "It's this simple." It's never that simple. There's something else going on. Any nurse will tell you that. Here's the person that I don't want to pay for......can afford insurance but refuses to pay for it. That's all. I don't need someone behind a desk playing God with our health care system. Obama's deal sucks. Mass was the test pilot and their costs went up by 10%. I don't want the joke of pretending health care will be competitive if we are allowed to cross state lines. My son will pay more or won't be insurable period. Having insurance so that we can receive health care is a basic right as far as I'm concerned. I advocate every year to ask my state to pay for transplants for people. They don't sit back and decide which people will be covered, they just have to cover them. I'm alright that my tax dollars go to pay for it. Let the doctors do their job and decide that part.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @Tami@lucky85 - "I don't need someone behind a desk playing God with our health care system."

          The key to improving people's ability to get the health care they need isn't to shift the costs to other folks.

          Back in 1850 or thereabouts, economist Frederic Bastiat wrote:

          "Government is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else."

          That about sums up the crap constantly peddled by the "Liberal" fascists about "universal healthcare."

          The key to helping people afford good health care is simply to let the provision of good health care get cheaper.

          Government action has (especially since the Flexner Report mentioned in the body of the article above) been concentrated on ensuring that such care always gets more expensive, protecting a number of market oligopolies like the American Medical Association.

          Take away those government cost-raising interferences, and the expenses associated even with the more sophisticated approaches to disease management will invariably diminish.

          That's in fact the tendency we've seen with the development of new medicines. When was the last time you'd heard about somebody undergoing ulcer surgery?

          When I was a resident, we scrubbed in on a TON of gastrectomies and suchlike, always to treat gastric and duodenal ulcer disease. Nowadays? Well since the H2 blockers and the proton pump inhibitors came available (and we figured out that these peptic ulcers were chiefly due to H. pylori infections), a Bilroth II procedure is one helluva rare bird, and everybody jams into the operating room to watch.

          Pills and such are always cheaper than opening up somebody's belly.

          Free the market, and let it work. Remove the government "regulations" (almost none of which actually do anything to ensure better quality than would otherwise be the case) and let the costs come down.

          And for pity's sake, forget about government running "universal healthcare." Government SUCKS at such jobs. Always has, always will.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tami

          @Tucci78@Tami@lucky85 I don't want government health care across the board either. They actually increase the health disparities as far as I'm concerned. Pills are cheaper and health care is dynamic as you mentioned, although I believe that studies are beginning to indicate that helicobactor pylori may not be the problem. Most of us carry it. That being said, we shall see. I think it's quite possible that other factors allow helicobactor pylori to do it's damage vs. it not affecting many of us who probably have it. Hard to say. In the future they may figure it out. I also believe they will find that interstitial cystitis is actually an autoimmune response. Anyway, I want affordable defined, what will that be based on, and preexisting conditions to not be an issue. I don't want to shift the cost to others but honestly you and I both know when people get sick, they get sick. They sacrifice their healthcare to put a roof over their families head, or stop their treatment because they can't afford to pay or are worried what will happen to their family when they are gone and the family has to pay the bill, or make the house payment instead of paying an insurance premium. It's a mess and we are responsible for one another. That's where what's best for the majority of "The People" come in. Not everyone has your income or even mine. Not even close to yours or even mine. Most people can barely make ends meet as it is. I don't have all of the answers but I can tell you that my son has type 1 diabetes, we have been lucky that we can afford that and have health care. What happens when he goes to college or can't work due to a complication, God forbid? What happens? What happens if we can't get him insured? What happens if we can't afford the I can only imagine premium? What happens? Who's responsible? To be continued below.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Tami

          @Tucci78@lucky85 We are acting like everyone has a choice. Not everyone has a choice. Many do not have a choice. I advocate for children with disabilities in the school setting. I will advocate in the hospitals for better care of our patients as well once I graduate from nursing school in March. If you cannot pay your bill I will not throw you under the bus, deny you care, and destroy your life because you become destitute due to health care costs or insurance premiums or because you couldn't afford your premiums. I want to support these people. I promise to first do no harm. Define what that actually means to you doctor and define local control to include the majority and apply it to health care. Give me a solution that is feasible. I'm looking for that in this broken system. Feasible and affordable for those who have an average income. Those who are not doctors, nurses, or the like.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. lucky85

          Hoping that doctors, nurses etc. will provide free healthcare for those who can't afford it is a pipe dream. The government MUST provide some kind of safety net for the millions who cannot get care for whatever reason. Other countries do this, we don't because we have nitwitted conservatives in the (G)et O(urs) P(arty) of corruption and deceit who block all attempts to do so.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Tucci78

          @Tami@lucky85 - "We are acting like everyone has a choice. Not everyone has a choice. Many do not have a choice."

          To begin with, for anyone to "have a choice," the physical means of providing health care have to exist.

          Then they have to be economically accessible.

          Finally, the people in need of such health care have to know of its existence and be aware of their need for it.

          The "children with disabilities in the school setting" of whom you speak - for the greatest part - simply don't know enough to perceive their need, and neither do their caregivers. The route to resolution there is EDUCATION. Sounds like you're working there. Good. Keep it up.

          The economics of health care ties in with the creation of those physical means I'd mentioned above.

          There has to be a considerable capital investment both to create the buildings, medicines, and equipment AND to train and pay for the people to deliver the care.

          How can we make that capital investment cheaper and more effective so that it can be made available to the needy at the lowest possible costs?

          Simple. Get government to hellangone out of health care altogether, and off the backs of the productive (private) sector of our society generally.

          As I've said here before, doing ANYTHING according to political prioritizations is invariably wasteful, poor in its effectiveness, and far more costly than it ever needs to be.

          Start by getting health care out from under the control of the politicians, and let the market do its job without meddling either by Republican Party mercantilists or Democrat Party "Liberal" fascists.

          Leave people alone and let them find solutions. Then people will "have a choice" rather than getting somebody else's choices rammed down their throats.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. Public Postings

          @Tami@Tucci78@lucky85 I believe having too much of the H. Pylori was supposed to be the reason it was though to be the cause of some ulcers. Just like an overgrowth of good bacteria can cause our body medical problems.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Tami@lucky85 - Little though I like referring to Wikipedia, the article on Helicobacter pylori (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori ) is a fair starting point for any non-scientist to begin reading up on this microorganism's role in the etiology of peptic ulcer disease and gastroesophageal malignancies, and I recommend it to your attention.

          While colonization - and infection - with this organism is widespread, I doubt that H. pylori could under any circumstances be characterized as a "good bacteria" in any way whatsoever.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@Tami@lucky85 I wouldn't characterize H. Pylori as a "good" bacteria. I simply stated that a greater amount of it was linked to ulcers. In other words, a bit of it doesn't hurt a person so much but a lot will cause more of a problem. Does that make sense?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@Tami@lucky85 What about a non-government single payor system? I don't even know how that would work but I'd like your input.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Tami@lucky85 - "I simply stated that a greater amount of it was linked to ulcers. In other words, a bit of it doesn't hurt a person so much but a lot will cause more of a problem. Does that make sense?"

          More than that, you have to note the fact that courses of drug therapy (chiefly with specific antibiotics and certain adjuvent medications calculated to change the chemical environment within the upper gastrointestinal tract), H. pylori infections can be - and have been - eradicated, and that such eradication has put paid to further recurrence of peptic ulcer disease in a broad range of cases, and seems reliably to be reducing the incidences and severity of upper G.I. malignancies associated with H. pylori infections.

          The theory that H. pylori infections - regardless of lesser or "greater amount" of innoculum - predispose to inflammatory and malignant diseases seems robust and VERY reliable.

          So, no, your interpretation doesn't "make sense."

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        11. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Tami@lucky85 - "What about a non-government single payor system? I don't even know how that would work but I'd like your input."

          In order to get a "single payor system," all other providers of such services must be suppressed by coercive action on somebody's part in order to deny customers access to more than that "single payor."

          What other agency in civil society could do that except for a government in its jurisdiction?

          The Mafia?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        12. Tami

          @Tucci78@Public Postings@lucky85 I don't use Wikipedia. It was addressed will in my pathogenic microbiology class. My father has Barretts Esophagus. I understand the process. I never stated that the bacteria was good. I said that it may not be the problem. What I mean is that something else allows it to do what it does, opens the gateway so to speak. Many carry it and are unaffected. They have yet to determine why. It's supporting that treatments are dynamic. It's amazing how things change so quickly.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Public Postings

    @ChasK Yes, for those that natural treatments help - I am all for it.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. lucky85

    THis article is absurd. Healthcare should be a right, not a priviiledge. It should NOT be tied having a job, this insures milllions will always be w/o healthcare. A single-payor system funded by the government is the only way we can get affordable healthcare to everyone, and get the corrupt healthinsurance comapnies, doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies out of the equation. "For profit", and good healthcare run counter to each other. Healthcare should be a public right, not a private monstroisity.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @lucky85 - "Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege."

      Oh? And those of us who've invested our lives and efforts in education and training and the material means to provide such care have no right to our own lives and liberties and property?

      There is a definite individual right to interact voluntarily with other people, to seek and to provide goods and services under conditions mutually agreed upon.

      But for a friggin' idiot like you to speak of a "right" to the time and thought and efforts of certain people - those of us in the health care sector, for example - is an explicit denial of OUR right to give or to withhold those efforts and other resources which we'd brought into existence.

      I'm supposed to be YOUR slave, you son of a bitch, simply because you conceive that "Healthcare should be a right, not privilege"?

      Damn. I thought it was an accepted understanding that it's never a good idea to piss off the cook who was preparing your food.

      How much more ill-considered is it for this asshole to think that he's going to get kind, thoughtful, Hippocratically responsible medical care from doctors he arrogantly asserts are to be denied the basic human rights he'd have to respect in his dealings with a clerk at the local convenience store?

      Seems that with every passing year I find myself more in disagreement with Dr. Paul's opposition to abortion.

      In this guy's case, there are definite grounds for making it retroactive.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. lucky85

        Again with your grade-schooliosh insults, and inane arguments.

        Healthcare as a right works well in many countries. In the U.S., the for-profit motvie has corrupted the whole system of healthcare, and our government , by big insurance and pharmacutical money paying politicians big-time for favorable

        legislation. Anyone who can't see this is either blind, or a repug, or both.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Ideil

          @lucky85

          Here are my short 1,2, 3 points:

          ISSUE # 1: AND THE MAIN THING THAT EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE ASKING...

          Why does the current system focus on sickness and treatment and not wellness and prevention?

          Issue# 2:

          Your health is under your control therefore it is not my responsibility to cover your medical cost.

          Issue# 3:

          "healthcare" insurance does not exist. Insurance companies do not insure your health. They insure their profits. What better way to do that than to insure they will be hooked up with billions of dollars a year by the tax payers all the while creating a self feeding system of telling people they can continue to keep living the unhealthy lifestyle they are living, getting people addicted to their pills and purposely not communicating that the pills they are giving them will never make them healthy so they can quit taking them.

          Suggested reading:

          The Wellness & Prevention Paradigm

          by: Dr. James L Chestnut

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Ideil

          @lucky85

          Every month I do a budget. Allocate every dollar on paper before I even get the money so that I can control the money vs the money controlling me. (Thank you Dave Ramsey)

          Health care is very much a factor in this budget. Your health care is your right. Your God given right that I will for simplicity sake place under the category of liberties. You should take care of your health. You should Eat right, exercise, think happy healthy thoughts etc. So back to the budget. In my budget I have to set money aside for heathly nutritionally dense food. Not prepacked, loaded with preservatives, high sodium cheap shit that is going to negatively affect my health. That is my choice, my right. Why do I do this? In my budget I also have another category for medical care. They are in fact 2 separate things. My health care monies are higher so that my medical care monies can stay lower.

          I'm insuring myself, because my health is my responsibility.

          With the government taking my hard earned money and directing it to big insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and corrupt doctors that are in those corporations pockets and getting kick backs pumping people full of pills that aren't making anyone any healthier. How many people do you know start taking a medication and then they are healed? Almost none. They are just creating life long drug addicts to allow people to keep doing the same unhealthy things they are doing. It is a self feeding cycle. And now you want me to pay the bill to support their unhealthy lifestyle and even worse.... for the rest of their lives. No thank you.

          Your health is your right and the answer is not in the current freaked up medical system. Get out and do something for your health.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. lucky85

          Uh, genius, you're already paying for other people's "bad lifestyles" thru skyrocketing insurance premiums. A well thought out single payor system would greatly reduce these kind of costs.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Public Postings

          @Ideil@lucky85 I agree with you lucky85. Maybe the question is how do we get people to start taking care of themselves to prevent health problems and avoid some of the most common and serious illnesses. We can't control the pharmaceutical companies who work for profits. Although some medicines are life-saving I agree that many just allow people to continue unhealthy habits. I think it is great that you are taking charge of your health! Any ideas on what we can do as a society to help others get to this point?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. lucky85

          Actually, the pharmaceutical companies could be controlled. Drugs in other countries are much cheaper than here, due to "backroom" deals, drugs that are patented increasing the cost considerably, and general corporate greed.. The goverment could have its own plan that competed with the drug companies, to reduce the cost considerably.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Ideil@lucky85 - "We can't control the pharmaceutical companies who work for profits."

          Have you any other incentives to offer either innovator or generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers so that they will make available for purchase the various medicines, dietary supplements, and other products desired and needed by people who perceive them to be beneficial?

          There is a certain perverse idiocy (and idiotic perversity) in those who consider "profits" a dirty word.

          How does a division of labor economy - indeed, human society of any kind - operate without profit in some form making known to both producers and consumers the relative worth of their purposeful actions, and therefore what they should do with their time and effort and material resources and ingenuity to best benefit themselves and their fellow human beings?

          I'm sure that your willful ignorance of the principles of economics would serve the human race just fine if we were members of a species of hive-dwelling insects, but (as I'm sure you regret), we're self-actuating individuals capable of rational thought.

          Trying to deal with your fellow human beings as if we're ants for you to steward and care for and command will earn you not only our hatred but the well-justified use of deadly force in retaliation against you.

          Speed the plough.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@Ideil@lucky85 I would suggest a concern and caring for human kind might be an incentive. A reasonable income by which to live ought to suffice. Apparently money is all that matters in your world?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. Public Postings

          @lucky85 That's what pharmaceutical benefit management is for. The government could acquire even better prices as a single payor system - I neither advocate for nor against a government run healthcare system as I do not have all the information to form an opinion about it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@Ideil@lucky85 - "I would suggest a concern and caring for human kind might be an incentive. A reasonable income by which to live ought to suffice. Apparently money is all that matters in your world?"

          Money - serving the "functions four" as a store of value over time, a medium of exchange, a standard of value in comparisons between one purposeful action and/or resource and another, and a means of communicating relative need - is simply the most reliable coordinating mechanism in a division-of-labor society.

          This "concern and caring for human kind" is not to be gainsaid, but it is hideously unreliable in any of the "functions four," and your suggestion is not only unworkable but hideously perverse.

          Let's say that someone with great resources decides that all of mankind's ills can be solved with the consumption of massive amounts of licorice. That someone causes huge amounts of licorice to be manufactured, distributes it, publicizes is virtues, and even goes so far as to force people - at gunpoint, even - to eat what this someone conceives to be the proper number of pounds of licorice every day.

          What sort of feedback is or "someone" working on? Why, nothing more than his "concern and caring for human kind."

          And that "concern and caring" might well lead him to violate the rights of his fellow human beings to REFUSE all the wonderful, lovely, health-giving licorice.

          People are neither unreasoning infants nor domesticated animals to be treated thus.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@lucky85 - "That's what pharmaceutical benefit management is for. The government could acquire even better prices as a single payor system - I neither advocate for nor against a government run healthcare system as I do not have all the information to form an opinion about it."

          The only "benefit" of any "pharmaceutical benefit management" scheme brings is the denial of permission for a client to implement his own perception of "benefit" from a particular therapeutic option, substituting the decisions of the "management" for the decisions of the person seeking medical care.

          We've seen how "pharmaceutical benefit management" has worked over the decades, and it's been with great reliability penny-wise and pound-foolish in its obstinate refusal to consider intellectually honest cost/benefit analysis when it comes to innovative pharmaceuticals which come to the market - necessarily - with higher dosing unit acquisition prices than existing therapeutic options.

          Ever looked into the discipline of pharmacoeconomics?

          Simply put, higher out-of-pocket expenses for certain pharmaceuticals can prove far more cost-effective than going with previously established standard-of-care if it reduces morbidity which reliably tends to necessitate extremely expensive therapeutic intervention later.

          A costly new drug that preserves myocardial function over the long haul doesn't have to prevent all that many heart transplants to prove itself not only ENORMOUSLY cost-effective in aggregate but also far preferable in the individual patient's subjective perception.

          And we've long since gotten the lesson taught about both acid-reducing medicine classes (the H2 blockers and the proton pump inhibitors) and the monetarily costly but demonstrably effective treatment regimens required to eradicate chronic gastrointestinal H. pylori infections.

          Believe me, back in the 1990s, we had to fight the "pharmaceutical benefit management" clowns like hell over that little matter.

          We won, and there are hundreds of thousands of people today who didn't have to have their stomachs cut out.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Warrior_Within1

        @Tucci78@lucky85 I never understand these damn socialist types that think they are entitled to everyone else's work and labor. These bastards demand everything for free and don't want to work for anything. I am a doctor and I went through more than 8 years of college and medical school to get to where I am. I am still training further in my field as a resident. I have a huge debt burden that I will have to repay and now these socialist assholes want me to work for free so they can live their goddamn hedonistic lifestyles. I worked my ass off to get to where I am and I deserve to be rewarded for my hardwork not punished. My question to you Tucci is will Paul's free market plan bring down my income ( which is already going to be severely cut by obamacare) as a cardiologist?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @Warrior_Within1@lucky85 "I have a huge debt burden that I will have to repay and now these socialist assholes want me to work for free so they can live their goddamn hedonistic lifestyles. I worked my ass off to get to where I am and I deserve to be rewarded for my hard work, not punished."

          I can't disagree. What I have to observe is that you (and millions of other Americans) have gotten screwed by government meddling in education.

          Universities and other institutions of higher learning have always done their best to charge just a bucket of blood more than whatever they think the traffic will bear. When I was in medical school forty years ago, I was told directly that I was expected to borrow, beg, steal, or sell myself down the river to pay what they were charging me. Tuition costs alone tripled between my first year and my fourth.

          So I sold myself to Uncle Sam and swapped three years in military service for the second, third, and fourth years in med school. Wasn't all that bad, really. Would you believe that I still fit in my old uniforms?

          Every time the federal government has made more funding available - in loan guarantees and in other forms of student financial aid - the colleges and universities and professional schools have jacked up their charges. Regular as clockwork.

          You haven't noticed that? Jeez, if you had any undergraduate economics courses, your instructors must've been Keynesians. Worthless bastids.

          The solution to cutting down the costs of education is - surprise! - getting government OUT of education altogether. No more student aid, no more easing of student loans, no more of anything. Let the medical schools learn how to get along with less velvet, and without paying their administrators three quarters of a million bucks per year, with "golden parachutes" twice that size.

          Dr. Paul understands the "price push" caused by government interference in the education market. So do I.

          You've been screwed by it, but at least you can learn how and why.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Warrior_Within1

        @Tucci78@lucky85

        Also what about licensing authorities? Will anyone be able to willy nillly become a doctor then without proper certification? Because if that is the case why did I bother going through all the hassle that I did? I don't want the medical profession to turn into the lawyer situation where you have an ambulance chasing attorney at every corner.

        Please explain how Paul's plan will affect doctors like me? I plan to become a cardiologist.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @Warrior_Within1@lucky85 - "Also what about licensing authorities? Will anyone be able to willy nillly become a doctor then without proper certification?"

          Forget about politically-run government "licensing authorities" and go to professionally administered "certification" boards.

          So you intend "to become a cardiologist," do you? Okay, either you're in an ACP-certified medical residency or an ACC-certified fellowship right now.

          Don't you think that both the American College of Physicians and the American College of Cardiology have incentive enough NOT to permit you to certify as having satisfactorily completed their requirements unless you meet or exceed their standards to become board-eligible?

          What's more, whose opinion of your professional competence to practice as a physician (much less as a cardiologist) is a better indication of your ability to provide satisfactory care to your patients? Your professional certification boards or some pack of political appointees - MOSTLY (these days) made up of non-physicians - in your state capitol?

          Without the false assurances provided by "licensing authorities," patients would perforce have to insist on a good look at your "I Love Me" wall, including your diplomas and certifications and suchlike, and with the Internet doing its job, you're likely going to see more and more medical doctors getting vetted more and more stringently by the patients themselves as time passes.

          You "bother going through all the hassle" in order to become competent in the practice of your profession, kid.

          If that's not the case, then I'm damned sure that your referral base is gonna be insufficient for you to get yourself a living once you set yourself up in practice, 'cause damned few of us primary care grunts are going to call you in on all that many consultations.

          I don't mean to harsh your mellow, but in the exam room, at the bedside, in the cath lab, your ability to do the job is really all you bring to the patient for whom you're caring. Your license to practice medicine is - and has always been - irrelevant.

          Have some confidence that your preceptors won't let you get away without making sure you're good enough to handle that, and you'll do fine.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Tami

      @lucky85 Agreed, but not under Obama plan.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. lucianrex

    Dear Ron Paulians,

    Help fight this bill supported by pharmaceutical lobbies to medicate new moms:

    H.R.20 - Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom's Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act

    Go to OpenCongress.org, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability.

    Women giving birth are already under the care of a doctor, who is more qualified to evaluate his/her patient's mental health than the government is. No simple test or body of tests will be as an effective an evaluation tool as the real human interaction that the doctor has with his/her patient throughout the course of her pregnancy. The idea that a breast feeding mother should be prescribed drugs for postpartum depression, and that the government would actually tax the public to support such an action, strikes me as driven wholly by pharmaceutical lobbies. The potential for abuse here is far greater than the chance that a doctor may not notice his/her patient is suffering from depression and act accordingly.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. williamwright

    If we had a better health care like Canada or England I would not gripe about taxes, this year our health insurance more than double from the year before I was paying 37 dollars and some change for and my premium was 1 grand out of pocket, to keep that 1 grand premium I am paying 80 and some change every 2 weeks, if I had stayed with the 37 dollars my out of pocket expenses would have went to 4 grand before insurance would have started paying the rest, as Americans we really need somebody who is not all talk. to much big business and pacs are behid the biggest crooks

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. emty44

      @williamwright in Canada your dog will get better care than you will, in England 65 to 70% of income goes to paying taxes so you can have healthcare. Socialized medicine does not work. It either costs to much due to inefficient government committee, or takes to long and poor care due to the same reason.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. kontiki

        @emty44@williamwright

        You can throw out all the percentages you wish to fuel your argument (anything for your beloved Ron Paul), but the real total tax wedge in United Kingdom is 29.7% for the average wage earner. The average rate for Denmark is 44.2%, France is 48.3% and the highest, Germany at 50.7%.

        The average U.S. family of four on Blue Cross Medical Insurance pays $2,300 monthly for a $100 annual deductible rate with an average 28% tax wedge.

        So tell meagain, who is it that has it so bad?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Eric Van Damme

    You may mail me,

    ericvandamme78@hotmail.com

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Eric Van Damme

    Do you know what heartsurgery costs in Europe ? Do you really know ?

    Well, it cost about 50 percent of what doctors ask in your country, maybe less. How is this possible ?

    The reason behind this is, that our government has made a deal with clinics, practitioners, doctors, pharmaceuticals. They have agreed for every aspect of healthcare what it will cost. So, the doctors AND the industry will earn a decent loan and compenstation but - in return - our society can give everybody the treatment what is needed. No greed is involved...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. emty44

      @Eric Van Damme The problem with that system? Where is the incentive for people to actually become doctors? The other issue? Nothing is free, somebody is paying for it, how much of your paycheck goes to taxes that pays for healthcare? This country does have issues with cost, but they are usually related to government interference. I'm a true freemarket prices go down, and quality goes up. With government control you have an artificial system based on debt and taxes

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Eric Van Damme

        I'm glad to pay taxes that way. Your private insurance will cost you probably a lot more.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. emty44

          @Eric Van Damme No my private healthcare costs about the same as what you would pay in taxes...I will say that our system of 3rd party insurance can get expensive. However I wen from initial diagnosis so surgery and recovery in 1 week for elective knee surgery. I can gaurantee that will not happen in your system of healthcare. Emergent heart surgery can take up to 3 weeks in socialized just to get the diagnosis, much less the operation to save the patient.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. lucky85

        You're right, all doctors should be overpaid millionaires like they are in the U.S.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Eric Van Damme

    Hi all,

    I live in Belgium, Europe and I was just wondering about the thoughts of Dr. Ron Paul about medical aid. Although I totally agree with Paul about his statements about money and the gold standard, and about war (!) I'm really disappointed about this. Especially because he is a doctor and must know about the situation in Europe. You must know in Amerika that in Europe everybody can rely on medical aid. If you are a poor postman or a rich banker , it doesn't matter... If you need heartsurgery, you get it, no matter what your background is. Everybody is equal here what concerns our body and the right to get medical aid whatever it is, no matter how high your income is... This is called solidarity and it surprises me again and again that, you Americans, and you are such a kind and generous people, I mean this, would not recognize the benefits of our social security system.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Motov

    I believe that should not change, since he is dealing with this issue on the federal level, and not on the State level, I am also disabled, with Parkinson's disease.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Bill2

    The chronology of any proposed revocation of current laws will drastically effect individuals' basic rights. Example: Paul opposes corporations as people, which essentially gives those members of a corporation more than one vote. Court rulings and laws shielding the corporate-person from liability, and non-enforcement of anti-trust laws that worked well for decades, are main factors of the amoral behavior of insurance and pharmaceutical gouging of the injured and ill. If company X can sell pill Y to country Z for $0.50, then they should be forced to sell it to US citizens for the same price. Enforcement of anti-trust laws would be a first step in healing our broken health care system. If individuals' (currently legitimate) "rights" to health care are removed before corporations' illegitimate "rights" to more than a fair vote are removed, then individuals will suffer greatly in the interim. I believe those who are dependent on government health care funding would like to see a chronology of Paul's plans to reform government. Would he eliminate illegitimate benefits for those with the greatest wealth before eliminating illegitimate benefits for those with the least? It is relevant to this argument that the authoritarian government currently in place is purchased and driven by corporations that are "too big to fail."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. john lockes ghost

      The notion of "too big to fail" is a hoax perpetrated by bush & company. Nonetheless, it was Obama that carried out that foolishness. So much for the major political parties. Time to dump them and move onward. @Bill2

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Tami

    I am interested in what you have to say about people with disabilities hidden or otherwise. For example type 1 diabetes. What happens when my child turns 18? I don't agree with Obama's plan but I do believe insurance is a right of every human. When you say subsidized what does that mean exactly? I want the plan exactly as written with intent please. This is an important issue for our family. A simple response will not be enough for me. Please provide me with an actual document via a link. Thank you in advance for your time.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. emty44

      @Tami so now we have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and insurance?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tami

        @emty44 For my son to live he needs insurance. So my answer would be yes.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. emty44

          @Tami no...for your son to live he needs health care not insurance. No matter the circumstance, you, I nor your son have a "right" to someone else's labor. But if you read the column you would have seen the Dr. Paul believes that all Doctors need to be able to provide medicine to those who cannot pay, or have little to pay out.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tami

          @emty44 The Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 Act were designed to offer the same liberties to my child and families like ours, as yours receive. If you are going to say that my child does not deserve that right then that is unconstitutional. I am asking for a written document with standards and a commentary on that document with intent. That is not to much to ask for. We are not low income, we have supported this country for years via our taxes, we pay our debts, we pay our portion for insurance so that we can receive health care. That is what insurance is. I do not wish to receive health care that will requires me to become low income or for my son to grow into an adult that can remain that way because we are not afforded the right to insurance so we have to be broke to receive health care or are as a result of it. Please explain to me why you feel that it is that we should have to be low income to receive the benefits of being provided health care. I would like for you to be more respectful of me. I am a citizen of the United States or America and your candidate if elected is responsible to me, not the other way around. If you are representing Ron Paul in any way you should realize that when you are rude it reflects poorly on him. I agree with many of his policies. I am asking about this one and deserve what I have requested. Thank you in advance for your time.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Tami

          @Tami@emty44 By the way, I did read the column. It's broad and vague. If you had read the column you would see that. Thank you for the insult though. It's always good to know that politics will never really change because when people ask a question they do not receive an answer other than one designed to make them feel stupid which results in them being afraid to ask or they are denied access to a real answer. Exactly how we ended up where we are today. Fortunately for me, I am not stupid, I believe in our constitution, FOR ALL PEOPLE, and have been blessed with the opportunity to advocate for people who are less fortunate than myself based on civil rights issues. I'm also in the health care industry and I am aware that the system is broken. I want to see change but it has to be brilliant change and it has to be for all people regardless of their plight. Show me the plan, how it will be implemented, and expected outcomes in writing please.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. diannerae

          @Tami@emty44 I agree Tami. I am disabled and my medical copay per month is higher than my income. Why can't they make medicine affordable like Canada did. I know it costs to research medicines but how much profit does a company need? The legislature passed so called Obama-care and he signed it in. If its broken why can't it be fixed?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Tami

          @diannerae@Tami@emty44 I don't know diannerea. My son has type 1 diabetes and our copays are really high. We are blessed to have a good income but it's still not easy to always make it work. They have Childrens Special Health Care Services for a fee, which would be great except that they don't cover his type of insulin pump, infusion sets, his continuous glucose monitoring system, or his sensors. All of which are quite costly. They do cover other insulin pumps but I could never ask him to change what he is comfortable with. I worry about when he gets older and will have to fend for himself. Actually, I worry that before I die I won't have enough money saved in case something happens and he's uninsurable. I don't have the answers. I guess I am looking for them, which is why I posted here. I'm sorry, this must be very difficult for you. I feel like we have people who make decisions about our health care who are clueless. It doesn't matter if you have credentials, and money. In fact I think it's worse sometimes. People who live it need to be heard.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. emty44

          Oooo@Tami @diannerae I am so sorry to hear of you and you childs issue, and being that we are separated by internet

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. emty44

          @Tami @diannerae tami, I am sorry to hear about you and your childs issue, all I can do is pray that you do not fall through the cracks. Under Dr. Paul's plan the control would returned to the states and local lvl. Insurance would be subject to true compitetion and freemarket forces of supply and demand

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. Tami

          @emty44@Tami@diannerae We are very blessed emty44. The problem is the future. Competition and freemarket does force supply and demand except that there is no cap. If they partner on some level the cost is still high. Even with gas stations across the street from one another they will only drop a penny to get our business. There's a great demand for gasoline and prices are still high. I guess that's my point. It's too open ended for people with chronic disease. It has to be defined much better and caps would need to be placed for this plan to work well if at all.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. emty44

          @Tami I understand the frustration, and the concern, however the problem with caps is who sets them who runs the government committee that controls that. If we have caps then we will eventually have the same system the the gas companies have now, OPEC is the reason that the stations are only able to drop the prices by a penny, with OPEC we have price setting and corpatist control, which has led at least in part to higher prices at the pump. I can almost gauruntee that if the freemarket is allowed work within a year prices would start dropping relative to incomes, those would be rising as demand increased. It works well in any market that it is allowed to work in. For example check the prices of blueray players...3 years ago they were running $500.00 for a basic unit. Now you can pick up a fully featured one for around $100.00 at Walmart.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. Public Postings

          @diannerae@Tami@emty44 I really think there are too many strong relationships between government and members of the largest insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Public Postings

        @emty44@Tami insurance would sure help us achieve the right to life and pursuit of happiness!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. john lockes ghost

      If you would page downward in this blog, I have provided information regarding HSAs and catastrophic health insurance. These things provide a superior method of providing for one's health than the current, dependency system.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Maria Moore

    What about those of us that are truly Disabled, are not able to wok and depend on Medicaid to pay our medicines as I am.. I have Multiple Sclerosis whose cause is really unknown and my daily injection costs over one thousand a month.i would love to gat out of this rut. i always worked before I became disabled, paid Taxes, and paid into Social Security. I never had insurance because I was always working with Elderly, Homeless, or Disabled and the poor in some way. Once a Social Worker, is a Social Worker, and here inTexas, my Food Stamps just were reduced even though Food costs keep going up.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. john lockes ghost

      The disabled belong to one health care class and the able-bodied to another. Below, I discuss the use of HSAs for growing families and Medicare for the elderly. HSAs and catastrophic health insurance still applies, but the disabled and impoverished should be subsidized. The difference would be that those subsidized are not allowed to roll over their accounts. @Maria Moore

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. ImAnyelina

      @Maria Moore He is not going to eliminate medicaid right after he is in office! please understand, that right now, SS, medicaid, medicare has no solvency and that his plan in ending wars and occupying other countries, ending foreign aid, cutting federal departments so states can manage them more efficiently, etc.. will help to give more solvency to SS, medicare and medicaid. His proposal is to phase it out in the LONG term! not now! this takes many years in transition.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. kenwcreative

        @ImAnyelina@Maria Moore Maria, ImAnyelina is correct,

        and this is important. If we stop funding other countries and stop our useless wars of aggression then the billions of dollars spent for that can and will be used to take care of Americans who need help.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Dumbunny

    If we reallocated a fraction of the money we spend on killing people outside our country, we could afford to keep everyone inside our country alive and well. Without raising taxes.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. ChasK

    Sorry Dr. Paul, homeopathy is based on pre-scientific magical thinking. It's based on the idea that water some sort of a memory of what it has contained and the sympathetic magic concept of like-treats-like. At best it's useless and worst it's outright fraud.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @ChasK - Dr. Paul (like most American physicians) subscribes to the allopathic philosophy of medicine.

      He recognizes, however, that people have a perfect right to seek resolution of their medical problems (and preservation of their health) according to other approaches whether or not those alternative philosophies have objective grounding in scientific investigation.

      It's much the same as regards religious beliefs, and if viewed in that light - personal preferences expressed as a matter of individual rights - Dr. Paul's mention of homeopathy is both understandable and praiseworthy.

      There are plenty of goods and services which are sought and delivered on no basis supported by "scientific" thinking. Are you saying that all such transactions should be investigated by the criminal authorities as manifestations of "outright fraud"?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Public Postings

      @ChasK That's a very narrow view of homeopathy. Many pharmaceuticals are based on naturally occurring substances (Digoxin, for example, is made from the Foxglove plant). Here's a link for more info about naturally occurring substances and pharmaceuticals.

      http://www.helium.com/items/1614154-the-use-of-naturally-occurring-ingredients-in-modern-pharmaceuticals

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. ChasK

        @Public Postings@ChasK Of course natural substances are origins for the active ingredients in many medicines. But when made "properly" a true homeopathic remedy has been diluted so much that very little, if any of the active ingredient remains. And they believe the greater the dilution (the less active ingredient remaining) the stronger it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions The way that homeopaths determine if a substance is good for something is by "provings" -getting volunteers to take samples of the mixture. The provers record in a journal everything they experience, "whether physical, emotional, mental, or even spiritual", but with none of the blind tests or controls recognized as vital in standard science experiments, not even any blood samples or other physical measurements of the volunteers' health. http://www.smeddum.net/content/provings.htmThe most extreme homeopaths actually think they might be able to make medicine from the light reflected from other planets. Here's a website describing testing a remedy "made by exposing powdered milk sugar to a powerful telescope in Boston, Massachusetts while it was focused on the planet Saturn": http://www.interhomeopathy.org/trituration_proving_of_the_light_of_saturnThis practitioner even uses astrological charts to help determine what a substance might be used for in a homeopathic remedy. http://www.smeddum.net/provings/roineabhal/chart.htmYou can't get much more magical than that.If Dr. Paul thinks that homeopathy did not deserve to be discarded by evidence based medicine (as his speech implies) he needs a refresher course.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. AZSun

    Anyone who is making a decision about who to vote for based on his views on healthcare alone should do their research. I found this interesting. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @AZSun - Well, there's another exercise in pointless "Liberal" fascist stupidity.

      If this AZSun clown has any argument to make OF HIS OWN instead of recycling these dried-up lumps of standard statist bullshit, you'd think he might've done something more than this pitiful hit-and-run, wouldn'tcha?

      Let's sum up the referenced dickwad's "objections."

      (1) Dr. Paul supports restriction of federal government activities to those which are specifically detailed in the U.S. Constitution. He's got no objection to state and local government taking actions as long as those actions don't breach individual citizens' rights as specifically protected in that charter.

      (2) Dr. Paul holds - quite correctly - that membership in minority groups confers upon people no special rights superior to those of any other person.

      ...and that's about it. All of the noise in that linked spew derives from Dr. Paul's consistent principled refusal to violate the U.S. Constitution, which is - if it's anything at all - the law of the land.

      Those who want "minority group rights" are free to propose formal amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Same for destructive, wasteful federal government meddling in "our already sad educational system," the freedom of religious idiots to believe any sort of creation myth they damned well please, the inalienable human right to self-defense, and the much-overdue disengagement of these United States from the corrupt, raping, thieving, and generally human-rights-violating United Nations.

      Just what the hell is this "AZSun" dork doing posting this vacant bile on the Health Care page, anyway?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Public Postings

        @Tucci78@AZSun Interesting. I agree with #2 above - it is high time to get rid of these statutes, laws, etc. - however there should at least be investigation into discrimination cases still. People discriminate against all kind of things - always will - and sometime that may be you or me.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. ImAnyelina

      @AZSun addictinginfo? LOL LOL... that website only post baseless and stupid arguments that have been refuted over and over. Just see the comments of that post and see how many have refuted those stupid statements.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. emty44

      @AZSun That is the stupidest thing anyone could have put in a comment on this website. I guess AZSun doesn't realize that there are probably 50% of the readers that are on the fence about Paul and he just pushed them over with that link...every one of those "reasons" not to vote for Dr. Paul, are exactly what is needed to restore sanity to government to begin with.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Public Postings

        @emty44@AZSun Remove insults and other harsh words from your arguments - it makes you and those who share your beliefs look bad - just state your thoughts and rationales and that is enough to get your point across. Everyone deserves the chance to discuss ideas and opinions and perhaps may learn something new - the whole point of discussions like these, right?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    4. Public Postings

      @AZSun Excellent reference. I think a politician's historical activity tells it all.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Motov

    I have Parkinson's Disease. My way to get medical attention is to volunteer myself as a guinea pig for research into finding a cure.

    Just making a point there are other avenues to get treatment without the massive costs.

    I am disabled and collect SSD

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. john lockes ghost

    I may not disagree with your analysis, but the courts certainly would. @Tucci78 @ImAnyelina @Topher

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Tucci78

    @ImAnyelina@Topher - Not only a violation of personal privacy (you don't value yours?) but also a violation of personal privacy rights.

    Most Americans have a really strange idea of what "civil rights" actually are. I'll bet that describes you.

    Y'see, "civil rights" pertain to the individual private citizen's interactions with the officers of the civil government. As a private citizen, you CAN'T violate some other citizen's civil rights. Only a government employee can do that.

    If you refuse to hire somebody to work on your home's plumbing because you don't like the fact that he's an Irishman or he speaks with a German accent, you're not violating his human rights. You're expressing your own personal, individual preference. You're exercising your own rights as a human being.

    Same thing with someone who owns and runs a lunch counter in Mississippi. If he doesn't want Black people in his little restaurant, he's perfectly free to keep them out. He's going to lose business, and white customers might boycott him because of it, but it's HIS business.

    No "civil rights" involved.

    Now, if he gets the local government to pass a LAW requiring other businesses to do the same thing - so that his competition can't advertise "open to all" - THAT is a violation of civil rights.

    Not those of the Black people, but the civil rights of the other businessmen, whose own property rights are being violated by the local government.

    See how that works, and why these "civil rights" laws are wrong?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. john lockes ghost

    Some things are best performed by government and some things aren't. Equipping a fire department is logically the role of government, but health care is the responsibility of the individual and not government, not insurance companies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. kontiki

    Roland33,

    I agree with your comments, as of recent we are witnessing the destruction of the US Postal Service, which frankly has been the best Postal service in the World at the lowest prices. The Republican Congress's required funding of 75 years’ worth of pensions and benefits for future retires all within the span of only 10 years is ludicrous. No private business could squirrel away that kind of money in such short order. They have essentially taken a well-run government entity that use to run their budget in the "Black" and forced them into the "Red", all of this was done with NO taxpayer monies, additionally looking at our Social Security, if it were not for the continual robbing of its funds for other uses over the many decades since Eisenhower's Administration (the last one to pay it back), it would have had a very large reserve. It’s not the programs that don't work it’s the politicians that have been able to do the illegal, legally.

    It is sad, that we have become a society that has budgeted itself to death, to the point of ineptness, causing people to turn against each other in petty comparisons, using false examples for vindication of ruthless judgment of others that is followed by a complete lack of sympathy. The Ayn Randism philosophy has returned and has been left to run rampant for individual interpretation, giving those a sense of freedom to develop a spiraling disdain for anyone they see as less-productive, all the while assuming they, themselves, to be free of the very same judgment of worth by someone else that feels to be of even a greater self-worth. Those that choose to take this altered individualist path to a dreamt liberty need to be mindful of what exactly the devil is in the details.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Tucci78

    Well, Canadian, not only do you "PAY FOR IT," but you're not being given a choice as to whether or not you WANT to pay for it.

    Which is one of the many, many things a majority of Americans object to about Obamacare, and why so many millions of it want it repealed.

    Immediately.

    It's that little matter of consent that's lacking from both your situation in Canada and ours under our Fraudulence-in-Chief's signature violation of our civil rights.

    You know; that little matter which gives us the distinction between a mutually agreeable sexual experience and forcible rape.

    Dunno about you, but letting our National Socialist Democratic American Party (NSDAP) goons get away with this gives me the feeling that they ought to at least have passed out a few jars of Vaseline before they started ramming it up our collective cloaca.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Tucci78

    More lamestream legacy "Liberal" fascist media horsecrap, this time CNN drawing upon Dr. Paul's 1987 campaign book (*Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years*).

    See http://tinyurl.com/7nw4s2o for this latest screed by political hitman Peter Hamby quoting the following 1987 - remember, 1987 - assertion of Dr. Paul's:

    "The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim -- frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care."

    Which is pretty much a completely accurate reflection of best information available - in 1987 - on what we had earlier been calling "GRID."

    As in "gay-related immunodeficiency" syndrome.

    I remember how it began to appear among two identifiable population groups: men who had been having sex with men (the acronym still is "MSM," and ain't that a horrible slur on gay men?), and Haitian immigrants.

    One of my AIDS patients back then had told me a joke currently running among the gay community.

    "When you've been 'in the closet' all your life, one of the hardest things about this disease is having to tell your parents that you're Haitian."

    Hamby made all the expected "Liberal" fascist noise about that pull from a book written in 1987 - remember that year? I do - when we were eight (8) years away from getting combination antiretroviral (ARV) drug therapy capable of knocking down HIV-1 replication and restoring the immune function that makes AIDS the immune deficiency syndrome that's the cause of fatal outcome in almost all cases, and government regulation of the health insurance industry was pretty much as characterized by Dr. Paul.

    Gotta love lamestream media clowns. Like the fascist politicians they suckle unto, they're professional liars. Not simply stupid, but evil as well.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. ImAnyelina

    Unfortunately, in this country the government is CORRUPT and just want to benefit the big pharma, the big corporations and not the people. Also, your country is NOT BANKRUPT like we are, you probably have a stable economy in order to afford that kind of universal health care. We are NOT in that condition. We need to restore the economy first, do high spending cuts so we can save the money and have solvency in programs like medicare, medicare, SS in the meantime! people are worrying now about healthcare, well.. if we don't restore this economy first, if we don't restore the value of our currency first, then people won't have any money even for a shelter and for food! health won't be the biggest of their problems! wake up americans!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. AyrunBohler

      @ImAnyelina The idea of socialized healthcare is something that shouldn't be dealt with by the Federal Government in the first place. Health care is not a responsibility of the Federal Government, as it is not listed to be one in our Constitution. If the states individually want to provide their own version of socialized health care, they are free to do so. But the Federal Governments responsibilities are only as listed in the Constitution.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Topher

    No one has a right to medical care? Do handicapped/physically challenged people have a right to work in your office building? Do you have to put in ramps? In a pure free market economy fitting your office for handicapped workers doesn't make good business sense... How is healthcare more pure free 'marketable'? Go watch Gattica braniacs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. ImAnyelina

      @Topher Wait, what has to do discrimination with free-market? free-market doesn't mean businesses and employers are allowed to discriminate because of religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. There are still laws! free market doesn't mean the abolition of laws at all! Come on!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. ImAnyelina

    But that's what the insurance companies do, they try to avoid paying for medical treatments, they hire people to do this! to find any excuse to deny coverage! people have paid for years for insurance and when they need it, they just deny it! a lot of people still dying or getting sicker because this greedy insurance companies just care about the profit while they rip off doctors and patients! that's why we need to get rid of them! they are just the middle man that are taking all the money like parasites! that's why the costs are extremely high! and the malpractice doctors have to pay! so, the poor are not getting covered? a lot of people from middle class and high class don't get covered either!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Topher

    I think it's a bit naive to use 100 years ago realities to make points for today. Churches many years ago could help with medical situations or expenses but that was before the new high-tech high-cost medical expenses used in every day medical care. And, while I agree, there is huge opportunity to reduce healthcare costs – nothing is going to bring down the price of life saving radiation therapy equipment. Really? - the doctor will see me for free? WHO cares, will he pay the radiation machine costs?

    No one has a right to medical care… just those that can afford it? Sorry, uh who can afford it? Who of any of you can afford the hundreds of thousands (millions) of dollars required for current medical technology for just one patient? People with insurance? No. Not if insurance doesn’t want to pay (not a good business decision).

    Politicians deciding health care - not a good idea. Money (free market) deciding health care – not a good idea either.

    I exercise, eat right, don’t smoke, but I got cancer (rare, nobody knows how one gets it –cancer). Who cares if doctors will donate their time, that's not the costliest part-DER, churches can’t afford radiation machine costs , insurance companies see me as a bad “investment.” I’m a college educated professional capable of paying my own way, but since I don’t have a right to medical care, I’ll just tell my children to “hang in there.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. kenwcreative

      @Topher I am sorry for you and your children, but I see you posted a lot of the problems but nothing in the way of an answer. Ron Paul is trying to fix the problems we as Americans are facing. With his solutions these costs would go down, for everybody.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Topher

        @kenwcreative I like that Ron Paul is addressing (the only candidate to address) the COSTS of healthcare. I don't like that he is treating an ethical issue with pure free market. I will never be a good investment to an insurance company (nor will you once they screen your DNA...). The costs for an MRI, Radiation photon beam therapy, Robot guided surgery will NEVER go down to where I can afford it (even after I sell my house etc.). My church cannot afford it either nor is the doctor going to cover the cost of radiation therapy out of his/her pocket. It's naive to think individuals, churches, doctors can afford today's high-tech health-care. AND we should work at getting costs down.

        When we all buy insurance, we know that my money goes towards the sick people and that is fine (someday I may be the sick person). If enough well people cover the sick people it works... AND we should work at getting costs down - agreed.

        Honestly, I liked Ron Paul. Government should protect my stuff and do it with as small a government as possible. Healthcare, however, has an ethical component to it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. ImAnyelina

      @Topher How much do you think it costs chemotherapy treatments in south america? treatments that are EXACTLY WITH THE SAME QUALITY as here? for sure 1/3 price of the US! or even less! so you tell me, why it's so RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE here in US? just look at the medicines, you know how much you can pay for an antibiotic in Colombia from a good lab? $25 to $35 a box. Here in US, the same box you have to pay 4 TIMES OF THAT! If I need to do a surgery (that I need to do soon), it will cost me there around US$3500 includes everything: surgery, a great hospital, anesthesia, post-surgery treatment. Here? that would be like not less than $25000! I remember once I had an emergency with a terrible earache, that was 8 years ago, I went to a hospital and paid $1000 just to get examined and injection! are you kidding me? why is so f.. expensive healthcare here? because insurance companies and the government monopolizes it! we have to take out the control of them, the control of big pharma, and start having direct relationships with doctors, paying them directly, they will be very happy in offering lower prices by getting rid of the bureaucracy of insurance companies, we can pay directly monthly payments for example, to local clinics or hospitals in case of surgeries and costly treatments. There are many options, and competition is a very good thing, because not only brings prices down, but also help to improve the quality of services and the healthcare from health care providers and clinics! we will have the control!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Topher

        @ImAnyelina@Topher Who said chemotherapy. I'm talking the room sized radiation machines, or MRI machines or robot assisted surgery. Oh, is medicine cheaper in another country? I don't remember arguing that. Healthcare in other countries is not the same as the U.S. I like that Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing the costs of healthcare, but to make it pure free market makes me (cancer) a bad investment - I'd never get help (even in south america if that were pure free market). Why would insurance companies not run YOUR DNA first and see if you are a bad investment EVEN if you currently are healthy??? I believe Dr. Paul said "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..." Go watch Gattica dude.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. ImAnyelina

          @Topher Oh, so you think that only US has room sized radiation machines and MRI machines? haha! seriously, what kind of medicine do you think it has south america? you think they don't have MRI machines? hahahaha! they have it cheaper but that doesn't mean the quality is lower! they have GREAT medicine, great doctors, great MACHINES and technology, so please don't come here and say that the medicine in US is the only one is good, OK? the medicine cost in US is ridiculously expensive because has been monopolized by insurance companies, big pharma and government!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tucci78

          Josh, new prescription drugs are so expensive in these United States because FDA regulations *require* pharmaceuticals innovators to spend billions of dollars meeting FDA marketing approval standards.

          That approval breaks down into (a) safety testing, and (b) efficacy testing.

          Now, there's no question about safety testing. Anybody with any knowledge of the history of the FDA knows that pharmaceuticals manufacturers have to be held to strict standards of safety assurance in their formulations.

          But EFFICACY testing? What the hell?

          Why are government agents interested in determining the effectiveness of a marketed product? They can set standards about sticking with advertised ingredients and manufacturing methods, but do they have reason or authority to force a producer to prove the EFFICACY of something they sell?

          This is not only totally nuts but ineffective. Government efficacy standards have so much wiggle room that it's almost impossible for a prescribing doctor to know whether what satisfies the FDA about a drug's "efficacy" means that it's going to be effective for that doctor's particular patient in these pertaining circumstances.

          Can't happen. Doesn't happen. And yet efficacy testing is THE most expensive part of prescription drug development, adding boatloads of monetary costs along with years (and years, and years) of even more expensive development time.

          So you want to have less expensive medicines? Okay, do away with the EFFICACY testing. Keep the safety testing standards high, but impose no regulations on the pharma manufacturers to test for efficacy.

          Development costs - and prices - will go down, and people will suffer no more in the way of adverse outcomes than they do at present.

          That's one quick, easy step that can be taken, and the only people who will suffer are those in the enormous (and very lucrative) industry of drug testing.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. john lockes ghost

          Keep in mind, Josh, that the United States is not the only developer of medications. Pharmaceutical companies operate internationally and have manufacturing facilities around the world. There are medications that were developed in Europe, for example, that when bought in the United States, cost 4 to 6 times as much money as if bought at the original European manufacturer. So, your argument which echos that of pharmaceutical companies as to the reason for the high cost of prescription medication is not entirely true, but rather, used to convince everyone that their getting a bargain.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. emty44

          @Topher Why would you with cancer be a bad investment? In a freemarket system the cost of building and running those room sized machines goes down, and reliability goes up, just look at the rest of the unregulated electronics industry for proof of that. right now you and I are not directly involved in the cost of paying for anything, third party insurance pays for it all and we pay a monthly premium, that is why you pay for one tablet of Tylenol in the hospital what you can and do pay for a whole bottle at the corner drugstore... If we had at least an 80/20 plan like my parents used to have we would have skin in the game, and shop around for cheaper prices. HMO's have ruined the healthcare industry. Think about it. If the Doctor is only going to get 50 to 75% of the fee he charges the patient from the HMO he just raises his rates, the patient isn't affected directly so he doesn't care. But then the HMO has to raise it's premiums and reduce what it covers to cover it's own costs or go out of business. And that results in what we have now.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Bill Hawkings

    Want to bring drug cost down. Make it a law that you can only hold a drug off of the generic market for two years. Oh they will loose money if we did that. Who gives a crap. Lets try it and see. Here is another one we can try. No politician can hold stocks and do not allow him to hold any five years after he is thrown out of office. If a politician is caught dealing in a crooked enterprise then if convicted he gets a mandatory life sentence. Oh I could stop this so fact it would make your heads swim.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Bill Hawkings

    I did not say within state lines. I said across state lines. Within state lines is the problem. Why not let me purchase insurance outside my state. Will that not add competition and drive down my cost? @w1945

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Bill Hawkings

    Why can't we let the states handle that? Why does the government have to collect the taxes. Have we not proven that the government is not capable of handling your tax money? The government is the problem. They waste more than a drunk on Saturday night. When you say "without government investment" you lost me. See right there is your problem. When you let the government get their hands on it then you have fluffed the pooch. Just consider S/S. At one time it was in wonder land while holding a ton of money. Today it is broke. Why? Because Johnson put it into the general fund and the government invested in rockets which they shot at other countries. Countries which we should have stayed out of from the beginning. You need to get the government off of you mind. We can do a lot of what you want and should but we do not need the government when it comes to doing it. This is exactly what Paul is saying.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. ImAnyelina

    Actually it has happened to me the opposite. The more I listen to Ron Paul DIRECTLY and read his books, the more I like him. There are lots of great long interviews of him and speeches, what he says makes a lot of sense. I see that the first impression of his proposals shocks a lot of people like: eliminating 5 departments, income tax, medicare, etc. But if you REALLY try to be objective and analyze everything deeper, you will understand this makes a LOT of sense. But you won't understand it by just reading what it says in this page about healthcare, taxes, Fed, etc. You have to study every topic a lot in order to understand everything and this is very time consuming that people are not willing to do. There are great documentaries about the Fed, the central banking, about the history of wars, about conspiracies, a lot to read about education (how was before the dept. of education) and so on. So people prefer everything that is simplistic, easy to understand even though it doesn't work and won't help this country. What a shame.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Bill Hawkings

      My friend you are exactly correct in what you just said. But there is one way people can cut through all this and get right to the meat of the subject. Ask your self this one question. What can you find that the government has done right? I asked my self that question and I could not come up with one. I took the EPA, FDA, FEMA, IRS, Federal Reserve and even the Post office and not one thing could I find where it was doing good. I watched as the EPA screwed everything up in Louisiana, they would have been a lot better off if they had let that state handle that mess. I saw FEMA let thousands of modular homes rot in a field which were located in Mississippi. Why? Because the EPA said the paint was wrong on the inside. But yet the government finally sold them for a fraction of the cost to individuals. I guess the EPA was tired of messing with the pain deal at that point. Bottom line the government can not run anything and the sooner we get the government our of our lives the better off we will be. Never think that Ron Paul is crazy, he is anything but crazy. @ImAnyelina

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. ImAnyelina

        @Bill Hawkings Exactly! good point. People want health care but what about PREVENTING getting sick? what is the FDA doing for example? you just can watch Food,Inc documentary to know that all the people in control of the FDA has been working in pro of big food industry corporations, they don't care about the health of people! it's just another private company to benefit a few food corporations! the same as the Fed only benefit private bankers! but they suppose to be "government". And this is what people want: more of this corrupted/private "government" just to blindly feel they are getting protected and taken care of the government! when people going to wake up?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. john lockes ghost

        There are some things that the federal government should do and they belong to a class of things that a single state is unable or unwilling to do . For example, in the United States, the prevailing wind moves from west to east. If an industry is operating to your west that produces ill smelling and toxic pollutants that are injurious to your health, you'd want something done to clean up the air and make your life and your neighbors lives to be healthier, wouldn't you? Now, supposing that the state where this industry is located receives little to none of the pollutants, but, instead, are all blown your way, then the federal government would have to step in, because their duty to the general public is to protect them. The same duty applies to all of the states, but there are instances when states are at odds about what needs to be done. Having said all that however, doesn't mean that the federal government should interfere with the lives of our citizens unless warranted. I believe in starving the government in terms of the laws that they think should be passed until they prove that they are absolutely necessary for the general welfare. @Bill Hawkings @ImAnyelina

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. john lockes ghost

        BTW, the federal government performs some health care services for the general public that are necessary. These services are performed by the FDA, the EPA and the Center For Disease Control. State governments are not up to the task of performing these services. However, when government starts interfering with the patient/doctor relationship via insurance, or insurance like activities, they have gone to far, just as is done by insurance companies, which I also oppose. There are, of course, some exceptions. Those exceptions include, but may not be limited to, medical fraud protection and the acquisition of catastrophic health insurance. @Bill Hawkings @ImAnyelina

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. john lockes ghost

      I like Ron Paul for the very reason that he presents a philosophy of government more closely associated with the foundation of our government than his competitors do. In fact, we are a nation, in crisis. Our economy has tanked and the net worth disparity between members of congress (net worth of $ 725,000) and the general public (net worth $ 20, 500) is an outrage. Who is to blame? Both political parties and all of their party adherents, with minor exception. With their embracing the concept of globalization, congress waged war against the middle class. Instead of providing for the general welfare, they shipped middle class employment overseas. As a consequence, our industries have also tanked and our skill set has been injured to the extent that some skills may become extinct. The members of congress do not have the slightest inkling of how Americans live, what we need, and what we do @ImAnyelina

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. john lockes ghost

    So? Do you think that a dependency type of health care system will prevent that from happening? Dream on!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. john lockes ghost

    Wow, you really are a socialist even to the extent that you paraphrase the communist mantra-"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Karl Marx would be so proud!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Bill Hawkings

      I don't know that much about communism. But when you pile all of the money into one pile and then let the government hand it out I think that would come very close to communism. But thee is one thing I do know and that is competition will bring down prices. I have never seen that fail.@john lockes ghost

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. john lockes ghost

        You're absolutely right. Try getting your medications thru Canada and you'll see the difference, not in quality, but in price. @Bill Hawkings

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. kontiki

        @john lockes ghost That's the fault of a "free market" with no restrictions on pharmaceutical companies that have been allowed to set their prices for whatever the market will bear. When you treat industries of medicine like the industries of gasoline price fixing goes on due to legal monopolization.

        All the more reason to have governmental control over most medical care, with the option to go above and outside to private medical care.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. john lockes ghost

        Actually, the controls established by congress (in their infinite wisdom) as regards to the medicare prescription plan stifles free market competition. The consequence is higher costs for everyone. While congress opened the door to globalization for most industries, they slammed it shut for medications. @kontiki @john lockes ghost

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

1 25 26 27 28 29 31

Leave a Reply