Ron Paul .com

C. Jodon says:

How about each person pays their own way, personal responsibility. NO single payer.

Republic_in_name says:

It’s extremely unfortunate that those who believe themselves to be morally and intellectually superior must constantly try to pose ignorant lies as fact.

First off, you are leaving out an important part of the health care picture, either intentionally or out of ignorance, either of which would nullify anything you’ve said (not to mention the fact that you spout slavery rhetoric that has no direct correlation with the at-hand argument). The important part you left out are HMOs and set pricing by the government. But I’m sure your rhetoric of “wiki-ho” will work just as well for a mindless retort.

If there is no competition, then there can be no price drop. When you manage health-care with the government (to pretend that we have free market health insurance is laughable), it cuts out price competition, which leads to new technology becoming more affordable much faster (computers, cell phones – oh, but just because Ron Paul has said it makes it a crazy idea, I’m sure!). And just as cell phones have plans that are going down in price and up in practicality; such as unlimited minutes/texts/internet service for cheaper and cheaper, we would start to see new health insurance policies with competition. Some I would like to see are life-long health insurance policies with no increase in premiums when you get hurt, and let’s get rid of this “pre-existing condition” crap. Let’s make our health insurance more like our life insurance.

Currently, the biggest argument you hear for universal health care is that our health care is failing because we don’t have socialized medicine. And no, I’m not using the term loosely to tie it to your argument as ad hominem; you mention taking from the rich to give to the poor – that’s socialism, and while the Robin Hood logic plays well to the masses and sounds great when vocalized, the government cannot successfully control every part of the economy and country. More controls begat more controls, and we didn’t start having these horrible price inflations until government got involved with our legal tender, and the government started trying to socialize health care “for the greater good”. The point I’m making is the argument and feeling of intellectual/moral superiority is a good-intentioned and quite easy platform to campaign from, but that doesn’t make you correct.

When ~1/3 of our nation’s income is being taxed and at every corner the government is printing money to saturate the market with dollars so that our actual amount of debt becomes distorted, it seems foolish to say they need more money from us so they can…and this part is rich: help us! As ~$18 in debt in 1913 (in relation to the dollar price per gold, which was virtually unchanged for 100 years before we started printing money) was like having $1100 in debt nowadays because of inflation, they are inflating the currency to reduce the meaning of our nation’s debt ( while the citizens pay the price in goods inflation). Could it be because we’ve almost printed enough money to double the monetary supply in the past two years? And it’s not like it’s just Ben Bernanke – he has a whole staff and VP of the Federal Reserve waiting in line with the same principles of economy waiting in line to take his place should he actually not be confirmed by the Congress, which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. But they do have their contingency plans – primed with the story that they advised against supporting AIG, although they support in the outlandish and crazy monetary policies in place completely.

The fact that most economists tend to believe the best can beat the system, the rest of us see mere men struggling with the load of an entire century’s worth of rules and regulations put on our economy, all in the name of good intentions and the belief that we can attain Utopia. However, it is not one group of men with a majority, or their cronies spinning the moral high ground rhetoric, that will achieve the best we humans have to offer. When people have no chance to fail, there is much less incentive for effort. Apathy is one of the most prevalent diseases on our society. The common rhetoric to throw at a comment like that is “sometimes people can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, or something of the like. I’m not talking about bootstraps, though, I’m talking about less government interference which allows the market to produce more jobs. Companies are being run off by our government. Although they may have rich CEOs (which are often depicted as the evil, vile corporate greedy monsters), that only ensures they’ll want to compete with other companies. When the government picks the winners and losers and prevents the largest of businesses from failing because they’re “too large to fail”, that really distorts the field, wouldn’t you say? Nah, you wouldn’t. But it’s pretty obvious the government is picking winners and losers, enforcing more and more regulations, and as someone tripping over their feet on the sidewalk, but they just keep running faster and faster to get their feet in front of their falling body, our government is heading straight for a face-plant. No business is too big to go bankrupt; it only opens up the market for more competition to step in and buy up the good assets and improve their own business in a marketplace ripe for the taking. This competition and self-interest is what keeps an economy thriving, and is a large part of the “American dream”.
In our current system with government interference, these government CEOs tend to look and be even more corrupt than they otherwise would be if left alone. They will pay out millions of dollars to keep in office those politicians that support the policies of keeping their businesses afloat through rough times by printing (and ultimately devaluing) the only practical legal tender in our nation, which has the added bonus of distorting our debt in favor of the government (12 trillion will be chump change by 2020, they promise!) and passing along the price of devaluing a currency onto the general public through goods inflation. The politicians and CEOs don’t even see the effects. They don’t know the price of milk because it fluctuates with their “elastic money” as they love to call it, and is constantly changing. Do you really think the amount of cows producing milk is changing that much, or the demand for it? Are there numerous cow-milk-loving groups sprouting up from sea to shining sea? No, the dollar is being manipulated and decimated, and it can only take so much. Voltaire was right when he said that “paper money always returns to its intrinsic value: zero”. Paper money is a popular theory because it provides all of the money for these Utopian, good-intentioned projects that are failing to provide a Utopia and are simply wrecking our economy and society.
Politicians and CEOs should not be dictating what happens with our money; only the citizens can make the overall best decisions with their own money, and the offering of wealth towards a public project should largely be voluntary, aside from local-level taxes. Why should the government tax people in Oregon for a highway in Florida that was lobbied for by a senator from Florida because of the lack of state funds for said highway since the federal income taxes are so high. I mean only the states are required to balance their budget – what Obama proposed as a government freeze in spending literally is just a way of saying “we have to balance our budget….except for our military, homeland security, Medicaid, and social security”. And no, I don’t think our country should be left open to attack – that’s why we should bring our troops home, reduce our military budget, and have an even BETTER national defense. But without getting off track, this “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” idea of a “utopian, socialistic government” has already gone further than it should have ever been allowed to in America. Leave the money in the hands of the citizens and local communities so they can get what they need. Having a lot of rich people in our nation is a good thing, no matter how much you think otherwise. A rich country without a social or political hierarchy, and acceptance and compassion of every single individual of the society are the makings of a Utopian society – not a bureaucratic, expensive government. The founding fathers would be absolutely ashamed that strong-principled men and women haven’t stood up for the constitution or their own civil liberties by now. Quite frankly, I’m livid with anger that only one side of the argument is even considered logical. You can’t win an intellectual debate without the intellectual debate part!

Yet the “wisest” of our great leaders insist we’re out of the woods because of more regulations and that they were able to successfully devalue our money even more to save our national debt. The Federal Reserve, the majority of senators, the media, and many others involved in politics are corrupt and part of the same “scratch my back” type of government policy that has infested our great nation. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, and that of the constitution, the law that governs all in this nation. Everything is being disregarded by the simple but incorrect argument of being on the moral high ground. It’s an insult to actual intellectual debate, and it’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

C. Jodon says:

How about each person pays their own way, personal responsibility. NO single payer.

Republic_in_name says:

It’s extremely unfortunate that those who believe themselves to be morally and intellectually superior must constantly try to pose ignorant lies as fact.

First off, you are leaving out an important part of the health care picture, either intentionally or out of ignorance, either of which would nullify anything you’ve said (not to mention the fact that you spout slavery rhetoric that has no direct correlation with the at-hand argument). The important part you left out are HMOs and set pricing by the government. But I’m sure your rhetoric of “wiki-ho” will work just as well for a mindless retort.

If there is no competition, then there can be no price drop. When you manage health-care with the government (to pretend that we have free market health insurance is laughable), it cuts out price competition, which leads to new technology becoming more affordable much faster (computers, cell phones – oh, but just because Ron Paul has said it makes it a crazy idea, I’m sure!). And just as cell phones have plans that are going down in price and up in practicality; such as unlimited minutes/texts/internet service for cheaper and cheaper, we would start to see new health insurance policies with competition. Some I would like to see are life-long health insurance policies with no increase in premiums when you get hurt, and let’s get rid of this “pre-existing condition” crap. Let’s make our health insurance more like our life insurance.

Currently, the biggest argument you hear for universal health care is that our health care is failing because we don’t have socialized medicine. And no, I’m not using the term loosely to tie it to your argument as ad hominem; you mention taking from the rich to give to the poor – that’s socialism, and while the Robin Hood logic plays well to the masses and sounds great when vocalized, the government cannot successfully control every part of the economy and country. More controls begat more controls, and we didn’t start having these horrible price inflations until government got involved with our legal tender, and the government started trying to socialize health care “for the greater good”. The point I’m making is the argument and feeling of intellectual/moral superiority is a good-intentioned and quite easy platform to campaign from, but that doesn’t make you correct.

When ~1/3 of our nation’s income is being taxed and at every corner the government is printing money to saturate the market with dollars so that our actual amount of debt becomes distorted, it seems foolish to say they need more money from us so they can…and this part is rich: help us! As ~$18 in debt in 1913 (in relation to the dollar price per gold, which was virtually unchanged for 100 years before we started printing money) was like having $1100 in debt nowadays because of inflation, they are inflating the currency to reduce the meaning of our nation’s debt ( while the citizens pay the price in goods inflation). Could it be because we’ve almost printed enough money to double the monetary supply in the past two years? And it’s not like it’s just Ben Bernanke – he has a whole staff and VP of the Federal Reserve waiting in line with the same principles of economy waiting in line to take his place should he actually not be confirmed by the Congress, which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. But they do have their contingency plans – primed with the story that they advised against supporting AIG, although they support in the outlandish and crazy monetary policies in place completely.

The fact that most economists tend to believe the best can beat the system, the rest of us see mere men struggling with the load of an entire century’s worth of rules and regulations put on our economy, all in the name of good intentions and the belief that we can attain Utopia. However, it is not one group of men with a majority, or their cronies spinning the moral high ground rhetoric, that will achieve the best we humans have to offer. When people have no chance to fail, there is much less incentive for effort. Apathy is one of the most prevalent diseases on our society. The common rhetoric to throw at a comment like that is “sometimes people can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, or something of the like. I’m not talking about bootstraps, though, I’m talking about less government interference which allows the market to produce more jobs. Companies are being run off by our government. Although they may have rich CEOs (which are often depicted as the evil, vile corporate greedy monsters), that only ensures they’ll want to compete with other companies. When the government picks the winners and losers and prevents the largest of businesses from failing because they’re “too large to fail”, that really distorts the field, wouldn’t you say? Nah, you wouldn’t. But it’s pretty obvious the government is picking winners and losers, enforcing more and more regulations, and as someone tripping over their feet on the sidewalk, but they just keep running faster and faster to get their feet in front of their falling body, our government is heading straight for a face-plant. No business is too big to go bankrupt; it only opens up the market for more competition to step in and buy up the good assets and improve their own business in a marketplace ripe for the taking. This competition and self-interest is what keeps an economy thriving, and is a large part of the “American dream”.
In our current system with government interference, these government CEOs tend to look and be even more corrupt than they otherwise would be if left alone. They will pay out millions of dollars to keep in office those politicians that support the policies of keeping their businesses afloat through rough times by printing (and ultimately devaluing) the only practical legal tender in our nation, which has the added bonus of distorting our debt in favor of the government (12 trillion will be chump change by 2020, they promise!) and passing along the price of devaluing a currency onto the general public through goods inflation. The politicians and CEOs don’t even see the effects. They don’t know the price of milk because it fluctuates with their “elastic money” as they love to call it, and is constantly changing. Do you really think the amount of cows producing milk is changing that much, or the demand for it? Are there numerous cow-milk-loving groups sprouting up from sea to shining sea? No, the dollar is being manipulated and decimated, and it can only take so much. Voltaire was right when he said that “paper money always returns to its intrinsic value: zero”. Paper money is a popular theory because it provides all of the money for these Utopian, good-intentioned projects that are failing to provide a Utopia and are simply wrecking our economy and society.
Politicians and CEOs should not be dictating what happens with our money; only the citizens can make the overall best decisions with their own money, and the offering of wealth towards a public project should largely be voluntary, aside from local-level taxes. Why should the government tax people in Oregon for a highway in Florida that was lobbied for by a senator from Florida because of the lack of state funds for said highway since the federal income taxes are so high. I mean only the states are required to balance their budget – what Obama proposed as a government freeze in spending literally is just a way of saying “we have to balance our budget….except for our military, homeland security, Medicaid, and social security”. And no, I don’t think our country should be left open to attack – that’s why we should bring our troops home, reduce our military budget, and have an even BETTER national defense. But without getting off track, this “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” idea of a “utopian, socialistic government” has already gone further than it should have ever been allowed to in America. Leave the money in the hands of the citizens and local communities so they can get what they need. Having a lot of rich people in our nation is a good thing, no matter how much you think otherwise. A rich country without a social or political hierarchy, and acceptance and compassion of every single individual of the society are the makings of a Utopian society – not a bureaucratic, expensive government. The founding fathers would be absolutely ashamed that strong-principled men and women haven’t stood up for the constitution or their own civil liberties by now. Quite frankly, I’m livid with anger that only one side of the argument is even considered logical. You can’t win an intellectual debate without the intellectual debate part!

Yet the “wisest” of our great leaders insist we’re out of the woods because of more regulations and that they were able to successfully devalue our money even more to save our national debt. The Federal Reserve, the majority of senators, the media, and many others involved in politics are corrupt and part of the same “scratch my back” type of government policy that has infested our great nation. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, and that of the constitution, the law that governs all in this nation. Everything is being disregarded by the simple but incorrect argument of being on the moral high ground. It’s an insult to actual intellectual debate, and it’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people.