Yet more shady stuff happening to Ron Paul

[Vltava]

What most libertarians don't realize is that as your individual rights increase, so do those of corporations, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment. Corporate power is the least democratic because corporations, once granted limitless charters (thanks to the Ron Paul's would-be abolition of antitrust laws), wouldn't give a rat's ass about our opinion.

Some things like him wanting to get rid of antitrust laws would just never make it through.  You have to realize that there is a huge moderating effect to our government that will keep a lot of things from happening.

Quite true, but I do not want someone who holds such ideals to inherit the strongest executive branch in US history.

[Aquarius]

Even if the media didn't bash Ron Paul, his ideals are way too extreme to be practical. The majority of the population, non-hipsters, wouldn't buy his lies. Another Jefferson in office won't help us in this century.

You are silly. Why giving away 50-80% (depends on country) of your money (even if you don't want to) in different taxes is less "extreme" than deciding by yourself how to spend your money on your needs? Peasants in early Middle Ages had more economical freedom than we have today... but "democracy is the road to socialism" as Karl Marx, so what can you expect?

[Vltava]

Even if the media didn't bash Ron Paul, his ideals are way too extreme to be practical. The majority of the population, non-hipsters, wouldn't buy his lies. Another Jefferson in office won't help us in this century.

You are silly. Why giving away 50-80% (depends on country) of your money (even if you don't want to) in different taxes is less "extreme" than deciding by yourself how to spend your money on your needs? Peasants in early Middle Ages had more economical freedom than we have today... but "democracy is the road to socialism" as Karl Marx, so what can you expect?

If you had read the rest of my post, you'd understand how personal liberties actually give corporations more power than they should have, effectively increasing the gap between rich and poor.

With almost 80 percent of the population saying they support higher taxes for a government-sponsored healthcare program, Paul's view is way out of the mainstream.

In a time when we should be thinking about healthcare as a human right, Paul's policies would leave millions without the care they need.

Paul's views would be very damaging to the poorest and most needy in society. This was most recently shown in his vote against sending federal aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and by blaming the victims his views are frighteningly uncompassionate.

Ron Paul might reverse Bush's failed foreign policy, but his domestic policy would go ever further than Bush, and do more damage to the people that need the most help.

Paul's views are great for big corporations and the extremely wealthy, but for the rest of us his policies would completely eliminate the possibility for upward social mobility and further increase the divide between the rich and the poor by making basic services like healthcare completely out of the reach.

Source.

[frogboy]

i've got mine, i don't care about some lower-middle class peasant who probably can't even afford two lexus SUVs

also aquarius i know your country's still butthurt over the soviets, but theoretically marxism does away with the government; everyone works for free, and goods can be consumed by anyone who needs it, so that quote is pretty stupid

[BondJamesBond]

If we pulled out of the UN and NATO, we'd just be making ourselves look more irresponsible than before.

So after we're finished PMSing over the Middle East, we'll just toss our bloody towel to the floor and b*tch at the world to leave us alone.

[a-4-year-old]

With almost 80 percent of the population saying they support higher taxes for a government-sponsored healthcare program, Paul's view is way out of the mainstream.

In a time when we should be thinking about healthcare as a human right, Paul's policies would leave millions without the care they need.

Paul's views would be very damaging to the poorest and most needy in society. This was most recently shown in his vote against sending federal aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and by blaming the victims his views are frighteningly uncompassionate.

Ron Paul might reverse Bush's failed foreign policy, but his domestic policy would go ever further than Bush, and do more damage to the people that need the most help.

Paul's views are great for big corporations and the extremely wealthy, but for the rest of us his policies would completely eliminate the possibility for upward social mobility and further increase the divide between the rich and the poor by making basic services like healthcare completely out of the reach.

Source.

Why do you need a source? Someone shares your opinion, great. You are both wrong.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

    * Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
    * Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
    * Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
    * Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
    * Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

The idiot you quoted says that Paul is doing the opposite of what he is actually stands for.

[Vltava]

How the feck am I wrong? Are you familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment? If what you stand for is strong corporate influence and a poorer middle class, fly your Paul flag high. But if you want a stronger middle class, limiting corporations' power is key. Monopolies ≠ free trade.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

    * Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
    * Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
    * Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
    * Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
    * Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

The idiot you quoted says that Paul is doing the opposite of what he is actually stands for.

Where the feck does it say that in the article I linked? Maybe reading the article would knock some sense into you.

[chrisgbk]

How the feck am I wrong? Are you familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment? If what you stand for is strong corporate influence and a poorer middle class, fly your Paul flag high. But if you want a stronger middle class, limiting corporations' power is key. Monopolies ≠ free trade.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

 * Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
 * Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
 * Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
 * Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
 * Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

The idiot you quoted says that Paul is doing the opposite of what he is actually stands for.

Where the feck does it say that in the article I linked? Maybe reading the article would knock some sense into you.

That wasn't from your article, it was from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/

He's saying the article you provided is incorrect, in that it does not accurately reflect Ron Pauls position on health care.

[frogboy]

How the feck am I wrong? Are you familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment? If what you stand for is strong corporate influence and a poorer middle class, fly your Paul flag high. But if you want a stronger middle class, limiting corporations' power is key. Monopolies ≠ free trade.

no but you see, under the FREE MARKET, people are going to actively seek out smaller companies which can provide a more efficient and therefore better value service. it's not like those with deeper pockets are going to destroy any viable competition and be able to undercut new competition because they already have infrastructure.

[a-4-year-old]

How the feck am I wrong? Are you familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment? If what you stand for is strong corporate influence and a poorer middle class, fly your Paul flag high. But if you want a stronger middle class, limiting corporations' power is key. Monopolies ≠ free trade.

Fourteenth? Want to check that again?

Also how is
 "* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care."
going to mess up the free market, because if it works it would actually promote competition.

[Vltava]

How the feck am I wrong? Are you familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment? If what you stand for is strong corporate influence and a poorer middle class, fly your Paul flag high. But if you want a stronger middle class, limiting corporations' power is key. Monopolies ≠ free trade.

Fourteenth? Want to check that again?

Also how is
 "* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care."
going to mess up the free market, because if it works it would actually promote competition.

You are fecking retarded. The Fourteenth Amendment was created to protect the rights of former slaves. However, sly lawyers took a few cases to the Supreme Court and it ruled that it also applied to companies (I don't know the exact statistic, but an overwhelming minority of the cases in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment that made it to the Supreme Court were actually by the former slaves the amendment was created to protect). When you incorporate a company, you are essentially creating an individual with all the rights granted to real humans in the Fourteenth Amendment. Corporations are allowed to buy, sell, sue, and be sued. However, they have none of the moral restraints of a human being. They only exists to make as much profit as possible. That means if they break laws without care, as long as the profit outweighs the fine. What that means is the more personal liberties you get, the more corporations get. It's fecking simple.

Doctors don't have a say in how much coverage you get. Private health care companies are corporations, after all, and only care to get as much money out of you (or deny you as much coverage) as possible. If that doesn't makes sense to you, get your head out of your ass.

How the feck am I wrong? Are you familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment? If what you stand for is strong corporate influence and a poorer middle class, fly your Paul flag high. But if you want a stronger middle class, limiting corporations' power is key. Monopolies ≠ free trade.

no but you see, under the FREE MARKET, people are going to actively seek out smaller companies which can provide a more efficient and therefore better value service. it's not like those with deeper pockets are going to destroy any viable competition and be able to undercut new competition because they already have infrastructure.

Unfortunately the Paul-bots aren't going to see the satire in that.

[a-4-year-old]

Too bad your entire argument is flawed/irrelevant. Doctors don't need to control the insurance companies, they will be able to promote competition when given the ability to collectively influence rates.

[frogboy]

yeah sure, but doctors get paid regardless of whether it's from an insurance company or a patient. i don't think many of them are going to bother arguing with money-making machines on coverage.

[a-4-year-old]

Doctors pledge to help their patients, and even the least ethical doctor would not have a problem with expanding the amount of possible patients. Making healthcare more affordable would mean more people get healthcare meaning more people can afford to see their family doctor.

Hardly the corporate takeover he is making out to be.

[The Geologist]

It's spelled patients.

Fake edit: While I'm in favor of more people being able to get in touch with a doctor when they need one, I'm not  completely in favor of setting up something like a welfare state (at least as far as health is concerned).  I prefer to look at the situation in terms of how many more people get access without creating that scenario.

[frogboy]

huh? you mean people go without seeing the doctor because they can't afford it? wow. only in america. nevertheless i think your point is rubbish and incredibly naive

edit:

Fake edit: While I'm in favor of more people being able to get in touch with a doctor when they need one, I'm not  completely in favor of setting up something like a welfare state (at least as far as health is concerned).  I prefer to look at the situation in terms of how many more people get access without creating that scenario.

I don't see what is necessarily wrong about having a welfare state in terms of health. There's supposedly a rise in taxes, however I don't think that's entirely true - Australia has some of the lowest income taxes in the world, and the United States government already spends the highest amount per capita in the OECD. Additionally, Australian individuals spend the second-highest amount per capita on healthcare in the world - $1017 in 2004. Behind the United States, which spent $3371 per capita in 2004.

[Vltava]

huh? you mean people go without seeing the doctor because they can't afford it? wow. only in america. nevertheless i think your point is rubbish and incredibly naive

Aside from cost, HMOs will always try to deny you insurance based on previous conditions you may have had. So if you're too fat/thin and not particularly wealthy, you won't get insurance. If you're wealthy and too fat/thin, you're fine 'cause you'll just pay much more. America's the only developed nation with this problem.

[FliesLikeABrick]

People who can't afford to go to the doctor just go to the ER instead, since the ER legally has to treat them.  Pretty much everyone has access to medical services, just not in the best of ways.

[Vltava]

People who can't afford to go to the doctor just go to the ER instead, since the ER legally has to treat them.  Pretty much everyone has access to medical services, just not in the best of ways.

Too bad they're financially screwed afterwards.

[FliesLikeABrick]

People who can't afford to go to the doctor just go to the ER instead, since the ER legally has to treat them.  Pretty much everyone has access to medical services, just not in the best of ways.

Too bad they're financially screwed afterwards.

Generally speaking, these people are financially screwed anyway.  My point is that they don't pay and there's nothing the hospitals can do about it