'NEW "Ron Paul 2012" DVD now available for a dollar or two.
The OneDollarDVDProject (dotcom) needs activist patriots to distribute the message with the "Ron Paul 2012" DVD. Preview all the short Ron Paul videos on the Project site. The 90 minute DVD is a powerful wake up call.
Please, 'thumbs up" to keep this DVD source at the top of "All Comments."
Can CNN assure that without health insurance companies would ao doctor charge a patient 220$ a 10 min visit. In a free market any dotor would not charge so high....insurance is a means to suck blood
People dont get the point of the question. I have great health insurance with my job. I am very grateful for it. Lets say someone else there chose to not have health insurance. We both get sick and need health care. i paid my amount out paycheck, he didnt cause he opted out and chose not to have health insurance even tho he can afford it. Should he be let to die? NO! but he needs to be taught a strict lesson... Im sorry but no he needs to pay for his ignorance.
We cant afford it cause the cost has been so ran up !
Insurance companies that dont care for the parient, but schuffle papers, get a Huge piece of the pie first from the insured & then from the DR. so they get paid twice & they arnt even there....
Might be able to afford a DR if they didnt havesuch huge insurance bills
@ncwdane Agreed, and if alternative medicine would also be accepted instead of the corporatocrary ruled FDA, which prohibits anything with natural ingredients as real medicine, the cost of health care would go down even further.
@ncwdane As long as insurance companies ' lobbyists , tobacco lobbyists and other groups buy elections, we are in trouble. Ron Paul can't be bought - all grassroots donations -that says a lot .
Look at the pain in his fucking eyes. Fuck you Blitzer. Fuck you ass holes for dragging the painful memories of a good family friend through the fucking mud. Med costs are out of control due to poor tort laws and federal intervention.
medical bills should never get that high in the first place. government continues like this next year another person in the same situation is going to have to pay 600,000 for the same treatment. opposed to 20k. where you could just go out of country and get this treatment done.
the problem is that his care cost $400,000 which is entirely absurd and an aspect of a society which has no control over the health care system, which is run by profit seeking 'medical doctors' that have become businessmen demanding millionaire status a few years out of medical school
The ONLY thing anyone needs to know about Ron Paul is that his own (2008) campaign manager died owing $400K in medical bills. Friends and family managed to raise about $35K the rest was paid by the TAX PAYERS. Presumably RP would have thrown him out of the hospital to die at a church or in the street. F*** RP and his idiot followers.
@MasterOfSparks Lol, really? If someone shows up to a hospital and they're deathly ill, whether they have insurance or not, that hospital isn't going to throw them out on to the street to die. If they don't have insurance they're going to get a bill in the mail eventually but that's life. Lol, don't be so dramatic.
@Tommygunns90 The ONLY thing the hospital is legally required to do is stabilize the patient. That means things like stopping the bleeding or clearing the airway. Beyond that they don't have to do a damned thing other than put you in a cab to get you off the property. Also it costs 50 times as much to treat someone in the emergency room as it does for an office visit. And by the time it gets to that point the problem is more advanced. Cons are being penny wise and pound foolish.
@MasterOfSparks that's not what hospitals do though. they don't just throw a band-aid on you and boot you out the door. you still get adequate treatment for your injury / illness. you're going to recieve a bill for it but a lot of hospitals bill you on a sliding pay scale. there are other options for people who aren't in dire need of care such as health departments, most of which bill according to the same scale. people make it sound like you will die if you get sick & don't have insurance.
@Tommygunns90 You mean all those gov't programs that Ron Paul wants to do away with? Or the bills that hospitals don't get paid for so they jack the rates up on the ones who do pay? You just aren't going to get around the fact that it costs 50 times as much for an emergency room visit as it does for a doctor's office. And again by the time it gets to the emergency room its a lot worse than if caught early. Conservative policies are just plain stupid. Always have been. Always will be.
@MasterOfSparks and right now, liberal policies are bankrupting the country. look, a rational, critically thinking person wouldn't stand there and say "all conservative policies are stupid no matter what." there are times when either liber or conservative can be the best solution to the issue. example: when you're broke, you need to be less liberal and more conservative with your spending. if you have a lot of money you can be more liberal with your spending.
@Tommygunns90 I just heard on the radio that every year 45,000 Americans die for the sole reason that they don't have insurance. Feel free to look that up as its all over the internet. So I guess your belief system once again turns out to be total bullsh*t.
@MasterOfSparks that's a bullshit statistic that is impossible to prove. diseases, gun shot wounds, vehicle accidents and drugs kill people. not having insurance doesn't. anyone ever told you :don't believe everything you hear on the radio". i can find you radio stations and dozens of websites that say 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that a missle, not a plane, hit the pentagon. i have personal experience with this hospital visit without insurance topic. i am speaking from experience.
@Tommygunns90 You seem to keep forgetting that if you have your way the next time you or a family member show up at a hospital needing help and you don't have insurance they're going to tell you to take a hike. Its really a shame that scum like you can't live in the hellhole of a country you so desperately want without fucking it up for everyone else. Have you considered maybe moving somewhere like ethiopia?
@MasterOfSparks that is a lie. if i didn't have insurance and showed up at the ER needing medical care, urgent or not, i would in fact get it. i would be billed for it BUT as i stated earlier most hospitals and health departments bill people on that sliding pay scale and let people make interest free payments. it's not cheap but part of the reason cost is so high is because of gov't regulation messing up the market. lol, and drop the childish insults. don't be so dramatic.
@Tommygunns90 The problem with idiots like you is that you've had one damned experience and you think that's how it always is and how its always going to be. That comes from having everything handed to you. You think your stupid opinons are just as valid as anyone else's despite the fact that you don't know anything. You have no empathy for anyone else. I hope you get a dose of reality real soon.
@MasterOfSparks lol, don't tell me i've had everything handed to me. i've worked my ass off for what i now have. the FACT of the matter is that hospitals don't kick people to the curb when they need care whether they have insurance or not. this is not my "stupid opinion" it is a fact. if you don't believe me feel free to ask your doctor about this on your next visit, or walk into a hospital and ask any medical professional. it's actually common knowledge.
This is so ridiculous, Government healthcare is going broke and how many will die if people don't take responsibility for themselves and for their local community. The Government doesn't give a shit about your health, they would rather you die if you can't pay them tax. We have to kid these bastards from Government ASAP. Vote for Ron Paul before fascism takes over.
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere!
SO STUPID!! most americans can afford health insurance, im 30 and healthy and I turn down my hospital employee health because I DONT NEED COMP HEALTH INS. and its more per month than i pay and the coverage is not WHAT I NEED!! I need NO COINSURANCE!! I pay $52 a month for catastrophic with 100% COVERAGE after $2,500 ded. Even if I didnt have the $2,500 the hospital will let you make payments interest free. You people are so brainwashed and STUPID. Stop watching F*#king TV all day and GET A LIFE
@americanwithclass no they cant thats a Terrible generalization and you only have considered those with economic standing such as your own. you can only speak up for YOU not millions of others. I know too many that have been BANKRUPTED because of outstanding hospital bills to let you spout that crap off
@JBoogieRadio oh no they were bankrupted! WAAAHHH!! so what they were treated and in america you can come back from bankruptcy pretty easily. if they were responsible human beings they would have had my ins. their whole life, paid for it a year in advance every month, if you have no ins on your house and it burns down do you go ask a ins. company to insure it? people like you say the gov needs to make it so if my house burns down and i couldnt afford the ins then it should be on the taxpayer FU
@americanwithclass I stopped watching FAUX and the other cable tv news a couple of weeks ago. I can't believe I watched them for that long. I admit it, I too was a sheep, but now I am awake thanks to "tha internets". Ron Paul 2012!
Mom took me to the doctor in 1969. We paid what we could. This family doctor waived his fees many times. Big Pharma, lobbyists and corrupt politicians are the cause of Half a million dollar hospital stays. Good grief!
No one would have this problem if the first thing they buy is health insurance. I mean buy insurance before a car, if you need to purchase a home that is 100 square feet less than you anticipated just to buy insurance, so be it. Everyone needs insurance.
Odd how Ron Paul get the hard and serious question while most of the others at the podium get the status quo questions.... How come they did not ask Rick Perry about the making little girls take a vaccine whether they like it or not? Journalism must be asleep at the helm...
My kids will need a smartphone with a dataplan, a car, and a place to stay when he goes off to college... I think we need a government program to help me paid for all that.... cause we know education is important. What's another program.... money comes out of thin air at Ben's place anyway, right?
@MrSeriouslynot those are luxuries.. A "smart phone" and a "car" have nothing to do with education..and there is help for education..Who is Ben? Just stop...
@morsea30 , You really thought I was serious? I was only making fun of the welfare state... Ben Bernanke. The guy at the helm of the FED. Plz google it..
@morsea30 , You really thought I was serious? I was only making fun of the welfare state... Ben Bernanke. The guy at the helm of the FED. Plz google it..
How the... $400,000 hospital bill... I know technology and medical knowledge is expensive, but what the fucking fuck?! I mean is this money broken down tremendously amongst many, many dozens of people? Or is it there to stuff the pockets of a handful of people? It just seems kinda sick is all.
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere, and vote up when u see
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere, and vote up
This report is so bogus from the onset....You're blaming Dr. Paul for death? You're simply saying, people can't take care of themselves, they're too stupid to know what's best for themselves, so people like Ron Paul are kooks. Got news for you pal....most people feel this way when you get right down to it. Everyone want's to be free. So back off!
He said quote, " it's not up to us to help other people" - I would love for my taxes to go towards helping others, instead of going towards a bomb that kills people..."What would Jesus do" ?
@morsea30 Is that what happens though? Government spends money for political reasons. It also lacks a profit/loss feedback mechanism. Govt., for that reason and others, is a horrible director/user of resources.
I am an atheist, buy I grew up in the church. Christ was all about free will, not force.
Why should you be forced to pay taxes to help others when you can't control where the $'s go and to whom? Isn't it far more consistent with human freedom to allow you to decide for yourself?
@joepeeler34 O.K- Christ never used free will in a context of government. I am not preaching to you to believe in Jesus, That is your "free will". So in this case all Ron Paul is saying is that "we don't need government. I agree..That is "free will". Some might call it "anarchy, I have a belief that people would do the right thing is they we not controlled and forced into a system. That is what Ron Paul is saying. So this freedom your talking about is not a freedom, It's just not helping others
@morsea30 He isn't saying that we don't need government. He is saying that government has few legitimate functions. He thinks most things should be left to civil society. People can organize themselves out of the state. The inference that socialists make is that without government welfarism people would just callously leave their fellows to suffer.
Government force isn't charity. If I steal from you to give to another is that moral? Government shouldn't do it either.
@joepeeler34 Wow brother. without welfare, people who not help. you church or your neighbor does not have a 10,000 dollars laying around for a operation or meds for a cancer patient.You know who does,the government. The percent that is spend on welfare is like 1% of 100%. It's nothing. but you are saying to cut that help off. How sick is that. it's like a dime out of your paycheck.most of your taxes goes to war. but as you wrote "government force" isn't a charity...that's a sad day for humanity.
@morsea30 It's not just families and neighbors. The voluntary welfare soceity was composed of charities, churches, cooperatives, pro-bono work or reduced payment by family doctors, mutual-aid societies, lodges, fraternal organizations, etc. Sometimes it was a combination of these voluntary organizations.
The % spent on welfare is well-above 60%. You are only counting food stamps and AFDC probably. Even those programs constitute well over 1%. You aren't counting S.S., Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
@morsea30 Add up the cost of medicare and medicaid. It's over the defense department budget unless you count off-budget expenditures. I agree that there is far too much military spending.
Paul's ideas were in place before the mid-60's. Doctors and nursed dispensed health care at reduced or no fees for the poor. Medicare-Medicaid just TRANSFERRED the cost of what was done for free/reduced costs from middle-class taxpayers to middle-class health care professionals
Are you asking why Ron Paul's employee's hospital bills cost 400k? We know he had cancer so he probably had to get a spinal tap, chemotherapy, a lot of blood work, probably stayed in the hospital for many nights, etc. Without the breakdown of the costs I can say that 400k is not out of bounds for a cancer patient that doesn't have insurance. If he was getting treated for a few years it definitely adds up.
@A0DBOB I understand that on todays system, it would cost $400k .. as you say. There is alot of work and technology obviously like you mentioned. But I am saying, should it really cost $400k? Maybe if the government wasnt so involved the prices could be much lower.
The cost of technology should be going down but when the government gets involved it seems to go up.
The government regulations monopolize the system, not enough competition, &America could live healthier if they just ate right..
Now even if somehow it can be cut to 200k (removing a lot of useless regulations, getting government out of it, etc) it would STILL be an unacceptable amount of money for an uninsured person to pay. Remember, Ron Paul and his staff was only able to raise 50k to help his friend... so imagine an average Joe with no connections trying to raise that much for himself... while in the hospital. Not happening.
@A0DBOB Where did you get the $200,000 figure. Do a little research on the cost of health care and health insurance pre-government state managed care system and post. What we are trying to get through to people is that the cost for major medical wasn't out of control relative to people's wages. His campaign managed would have in all likelyhood been able to afford major medical if there were a free market.
It the third party payer system (govt. created it) that is the biggest problem.
I grabbed that number from my ass, I took a very nice figure of 50% (I don't think Ron Paul is suggesting health care will come down by more than 50%? Is he?).
I did not mean to indicate that price as a well-thought out figure, though I do find it hard to believe that prices can/will drop by 50%, 20%-30% maybe.. but unless I see some serious numbers I don't think 50% is possible.
@A0DBOB I suspect it will fall much more than that.
There is one measure we could look at to get an idea. Costs weren't out of control relative to people's wages before the state managed care systems. We could take avg. wages and divide by avg. health insurance policy or cost of health care for a given year pre-state managed care system and post. That would give us a ratio of what would likely pay if we returned to a free market system. The socialist/corporatist hybrid is failing.
@A0DBOB I suspect it will fall much more than that.
There is one measure we could look at to get an idea. Costs weren't out of control relative to people's wages before the state managed care systems. We could take avg. wages and divide by avg. health insurance policy or cost of health care for a given year pre-state managed care system and post. That would give us a ratio of what would likely pay if we returned to a free market system. The socialist/corporatist hybrid is failing.
Do you have some dates/legislation where states started managing health care? ie: What is the cut off date of pre/post-state managed care that we are looking at?
Tomorrow I will look up what i can find and play with some numbers. We also have to keep in mind that we are keeping things that didn't exist back then such as the "Pre-existing condition" problem, mandatory emergency care, etc.
It would be great if you could find some organization that has done this analysis since I have little faith in my amateur number wielding.. since this is obviously much more complex than just looking at ratios. I'd have to figure out how much the mandatory emergency care costs us a year, how much admin costs have increased due to many more patients, increase in R&D, better/more expensive treatments etc. Way too many factors for me to do justice to =)
@A0DBOB I am aware of the numbers showing cost of health care and health insurance. One of the most popular major medical insurance policies of the 50's and 60's was $15 per year. It was only for major medical with a high deductible. All other routine care costs were payed out of pocket. That is how insurance would work in a free market.
I am not aware of anyone attmepting to find the ratio of wages going to insurance then and now. I do know that costs were affordable compared to wages then.
They may have been more more affordable, but with MANY less people covered. We need to find a fix that will keep rates low while maintaining a decent coverage for those less fortunate. The way our current system is now obviously fails... but Ron Paul's method also fails. Sadly I cannot give an answer to what method is best because I am not educated in that field enough, but something has to change.
They may have been more more affordable, but with MANY less people covered. We need to find a fix that will keep rates low while maintaining a decent coverage for those less fortunate. The way our current system is now obviously fails... but Ron Paul's method also fails. Sadly I cannot give an answer to what method is best because I am not educated in that field enough, but something has to change.
@A0DBOB What do you mean less people? In absolute numbers that's true because there were far fewer U.S. citizens then. I don't know the exact percentage of people who purchased major medical. I know that the cost were low relative to people's wages.
Moreover, because costs were lower it was easier for cooperatives and churches to foot the bill or offer reduced care. No one was turned away. Central planning has failed. We should give free markets and volunteerism a try again. It worked before.
I meant less as in percent-wise. Nearly 50% of the elderly had no insurance before medicare. Now everyone over 65, or anyone with a severe disability have insurance under medicare (granted they've lived here for 10 years or something like that).
Volunteerism does NOT work as a public policy, it can not be relied on to support 137 million people with health care, that is NOT feasible.
@A0DBOB I don't know the percentage of elderly people that didn't have insurance. It it relevant given that costs were low and they had cooperaties, families, church hospitals, private charities, etc. that they could depend on. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They did get care.
Volunteerism isn't "public policy." It's an emergent order like common law, language, and a free market. I disagree with the whole notion of so-called "public policy." It's cattle prodding.
@A0DBOB I don't know the percentage of elderly people that didn't have insurance. It it relevant given that costs were low and they had cooperaties, families, church hospitals, private charities, etc. that they could depend on. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They did get care.
Volunteerism isn't "public policy." It's an emergent order like common law, language, and a free market. I disagree with the whole notion of so-called "public policy." It's cattle prodding.
@A0DBOB I don't know the percentage of elderly people that didn't have insurance. It it relevant given that costs were low and they had cooperaties, families, church hospitals, private charities, etc. that they could depend on. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They did get care.
Volunteerism isn't "public policy." It's an emergent order like common law, language, and a free market. I disagree with the whole notion of so-called "public policy." It's cattle prodding.
What I keep trying to get at is Mr. Paul's plan is great on paper, in a perfect world the people like you and I would care for those who need help, no one would be left without care, etc.
What you need to realize is that we don't live in such a world, the poor will not get that kind of "volunteer" help or charity that they SHOULD with any acceptable level of consistency that we see with Medicare/Medicaid.
@A0DBOB What I keep trying to explain to you is that Dr. Paul's ideas were tried for most of our history and people did do the right thing. If you have a low opinion of people, you have a low opinion of yourself.
Read through Tocqueville's "Democracy In America" sometime. He explains all of the cooperatives, mutual-aid societies, church charities, fraternal organizations, etc. that existed in the 19th century. Those things were the social safety net. No force was used. It was moral.
@A0DBOB Yes, some elderly people were uninsured--I don't know the exact percentage. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They most certainly did. They relied on the volunteerism of the welfare society. It was composed of mutual-aid societies, fraternal organizations, church hospitals and charities, neighbors, families, etc.
It wasn't as hard to for other's to pay the medical expenses of the poor then because prices weren't out of control due perverse government programs and mandates.
@A0DBOB Yes, some elderly people were uninsured--I don't know the exact percentage. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They most certainly did. They relied on the volunteerism of the welfare society. It was composed of mutual-aid societies, fraternal organizations, church hospitals and charities, neighbors, families, etc.
It wasn't as hard to for other's to pay the medical expenses of the poor then because prices weren't out of control due perverse government programs and mandates.
@A0DBOB Yes, some elderly people were uninsured--I don't know the exact percentage. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They most certainly did. They relied on the volunteerism of the welfare society. It was composed of mutual-aid societies, fraternal organizations, church hospitals and charities, neighbors, families, etc.
It wasn't as hard to for other's to pay the medical expenses of the poor then because prices weren't out of control due perverse government programs and mandates.
Think of it like this: Capitalism sounds wonderful on paper: People working to develop better goods for less, competition all around to make things faster, smaller, cheaper, more variety.
Now look at reality: We have to make laws telling companies not to pollute our rivers, we had to make laws to keep both employees and customers safe from companies using unsafe shortcuts, we have to force companies to not discriminate due to gender/race/religion/etc.
@A0DBOB Why does pollution mean that free markets are discredited.
Environmental laws are very much a private property rights issue. If someone pollutes the water on your land, it can be handled through the courts. Same with pollution of your air. I think state and local governments can handle most environmental issues.
Also, we don't have free market capitalism currently. We don't even have a free market in money, interest rates, or banking.
It does not discredit the free market, but it does reinforce the idea that we need a certain set of regulations for it to run smoothly. A certain level of environmental laws are needed, no questions asked. And no, you as a home owner are not going to do much in terms of suing Chevron for polluting your well water. Normal people do not have the financial resources to go up against a super-power.
@A0DBOB We need laws that protect private property. Environmentalism is primarily a property rights issue.
In a free market force is not to initiated. When a person pollutes another's air, water, land, etc. he has initiated force. The victim's recourse is the court system. That is consistent with a private property rights and free markets. Why would you think enforcement of private property rights in regard to pollution would somehow be anathema to a free market?
@A0DBOB Why couldn't I and others sue Chevron for violating our private property? Firms that break the law are sued everyday. Some of those firms are victims of the legal code, but in some instances they deserve to be litigated against. Class action lawsuits could also be pursued.
Corporations lose lawsuits everyday despite having an advantage in money.
People have lost faith in the law because much of what passes for law is illegal govt. actions that abrogate natural rights.
@A0DBOB A free market is absent force. It is a matrix of individuals engaged in mutually beneficial trade with each giving volitional consent.
For capitalism to work there needs to be savings. Who saves when a central bank artificially lowers interest rates and debases the currency? We have a corporatist/socialist system. Wall Street has been turned into debt paper traders. They would be directing capital if not for the perverse incentives of the paper currency system.
@A0DBOB A free market is absent force. It is a matrix of individuals engaged in mutually beneficial trade with each giving volitional consent.
For capitalism to work there needs to be savings. Who saves when a central bank artificially lowers interest rates and debases the currency? We have a corporatist/socialist system. Wall Street has been turned into debt paper traders. They would be directing capital if not for the perverse incentives of the paper currency system.
@A0DBOB Some companies will always take shortcuts. They are doing it right now despite (because?) there being more regulations in place that at any point in U.S. history. There will always be snakeoil salesmen, and even good companies will have employees or managers doing unethical things.
However, the market's effective regulator is fear of loss. If people produce a shoddy prodcut, they lose market share. If they keep doing it, they go out of business. There is also threat of lawsuits.
@A0DBOB Yes, some companies take shortcut, even occasionally good ones. There will always be fly-by-night type businesses and snake-oil salesman as well. Those exists right now with millions of regulations in place. Those regulations don't stop anything. They give people a false sense of security. It's a confidence game.
What businesses fear is loss of marketshare, bankruptcy, and lawsuits. That's what keeps most of them from offering shoddy products, not government bureaucrats.
And keep in mind that any return to the free market will still have to cover the medicare/medicaid people. That's literally tens of millions more people, which typically increase costs since those people will need to be subsidized by other insurance payers, so everyones insurance rates will raise a bit to cover those people.
Now that I think of it this way I don't think it will get to anywhere near that 50% savings...
For my reading pleasure could you point me to a site that breaks down some of the govt. regulations? Maybe after seeing some of them I could agree that 50% is a low average. I know that putting more more regulations obviously increases cost but I'd like to see which regulations we agree with vs. useless ones.
They just barely touched on why healthcare is so expensive. Because govt wants it that way! They have been sticking themselves into insurance and mandating what insurance companies must insure for the sole reason of driving up the cost and driving people to govt health plans. Look at Obamacare, everything in it is designed to drive up the cost of insurance and push people off private plans and toward govt plans. Stop beleiving what they say and watch what they do!
The media is always trying to make him look bad but they fail miserably. All of his supporters have researched him enough to know what he supports and doesnt in DETAiL, half of the haters dont know shit they are just parrots.
How about take good care of yourself and practice preventative health
care on yourself. Health in the U.S. is a joke. Everyone wants a pill after they have allowed themselves to take on an energy of dis-ease. Ayurvedic medicine recognizes that germ theory is incorrect. All is potentiality. Body mind spirit are connected in balance for optimum health, Citizens of U.S. have fragmented, worried minds. Health is peace. It follows a mind that is at ease. It is the natural state of peace and love.
Charities could easily pay for all this stuff if we weren't taxed so much that so little is given to charities. Think about it.
Besides, what is more moral/ethical? Extroting money (teax) on the threat of kidnapping (prison) to pay for it, or getting willful donations to pay for it?
What is more efficient? Wastefull government who need not satisfy "customers" to keep getting paid? Or charities that rely on willful donations and semi-efficient allocation of funds to keep up funding? Think guys
The real question they should be asking is how on Earth does it cost $400,000 to treat a man with pnemonia? If the government got out of healthcare then costs could finally come down to a sane level that people could afford or at least pay off. Requiring insurance companies to accept pre-exisiting conditions means they are no longer insurance, that's simply not what insurance is. You can't wreck your care over and over and keep paying a low premium.
The problem in US is that the healthcare is overly expensive. Regardless of who pays it, the bill is not payable. Government in US interferes the system in the worst possible way and inflates the prices. I'm a Turkish citizen and I bet you in Turkey it is possible to get better health care services than US for only 20% of what you and your insurance company will pay. This is what you would pay, Turkish nationals pay much less since there is almost universal health care there.
The reason healthcare is so expensive is that they've got you hooked and you need a fix. And they're the only ones you can get it from. You believe that the answer to your health issues is a bottle of prozac or a quadruple bypass and as long as you keep believing that and put your health in someone elses hands instead of taking control and responsibility for yourself, you will suffer at the hands of the corrupt.
There really is only one premise to argue....and I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree. And that is why would you want to give control of one of the most important facets of life over to an extremely corrupt and tiny group of people?
So these people...the ones that steal your money and give it to rich bankers, brainwash you and your kids through the "education" (or indoctrination) system and media...allow drugs that poison and kill thousands of people every year...the ones that throw you in jail for peaceably assembling and have destroyed the entire bill of rights.....the ones that won't allow competition in any of their interests. This is the group of people you want in charge of health care? You've got my sympathies.
@paullie6719 well what you're saying is a bit ironic. so the even tinier and even more corrupt people you have mostly in charge of your healthcare now is somehow better? The monsters who place bets, derivatives, and securities on your lives, profit on your death, with the aim of making more and more profit at the lowest cost to THEM? So that's what you want?
You own yourself.. you own your money.. you own your property, whatever it may be. No one has the right to come in and take it for ANY reason without your consent. If you give government the privilege to take your money, that's a different story. I understand people get sick and hurt and need help. But on my first point alone, how is it moral to STEAL money from each individual and hand it over to the government, in turn to give healthcare to others. This idea alone BANS government healthcare.
@bratlert gee it seems to work well in EVERY OTHER western democracy in the world. everyone needs heathcare at some if not multiple points in their lives, which is the reason why making such a basic service and need universal is justified. If you want to talk about morals what about the rampant immorality of needless tax spending on needless military ventures all around the world that kill, injure, and disrupt the lives of millions of innocent civilians in already impoverished countries?
"how is it moral to STEAL money from each individual and hand it over to the government, in turn to give healthcare to others. "
Sadly I do not remember the philosophers name (I will look it up) but essentially the argument is like this: If you can significantly help someone (health care) at little to no loss of our own than it is immoral not to do so.
The analogy was: If you see a drowning baby in a fountain, but to get to that baby you have to ruin your new shoes than the trade off difference is so great that you must help because the loss is negligible (a pair of shoes).
Now if that same baby was drowning in an icy river, the scenario is different, the trade off may be too large to give a black/white answer because of the potential loss to you (death).
I apologize for the barrage of messages, but I found it: Peter Singer. Please understand I am not a fan of all his ideas, but please read "Famine, Affluence, and Morality;
Peter Singer;
Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 229-243 [revised edition]". A quick google search for the title should suffice. Let me know what you agree/disagree with.
well America you got two choose, you gonna keep on paying for me to eat your food stamps, (when you can't afford to feed your own kids mines eat good)and get 5 dollar rent, you pay the rest of the 700 a month, Thank you for that btw, also I love getting my meds for 2 bucks when it cost you 2 thousand, Obama 2012!
I'm glad it's helping you out, and I hope you are able to find a good job in the future. I have absolutely no problem with giving my tax dollars to those like you who need a little extra help. Please enjoy the food stamps.. I know its not much but do your best.
@digitalbullshit Actually no. The man still received care, even if it is expensive. He also states that the reason it is so expensive is because gov't meddling has driven costs up through unnecessary regulation and faulty law. He is for returning step-by-step to a place where gov't interference in your health and costs are both low and successful. His friend's case is a reason to continue in his work, not falter in it.
@PierzStyx why do you overlook the obvious profiteering by the insurance and pharmacuetical companies? If you stopped whatever useless and paltry regulations are there now, that's not going to stop the insurance companies and their lust for short-term profit gain, in fact it would only exacerbate it. It would end up whatever was saved getting rid of "meddling" government would very soon be cancelled out and costs would continue to rise due to the profit motive itself.
@delreydavid "So you think that the population should be based on the ammount of charitable contributions each year?"
......well if that is your logic, with government in charge the population is already based on contributions...only they are forced contributions through the 2 Acts passed by congress in 1913!!! Duh!
CONSTITUTION DAY MONEYBOMB ON SATURDAY, SEPT 17, 2011. Please consider donating and help Dr. Paul's message get across to the American people without mainstream media distortion. America needs Ron Paul - we can all help! Ron Paul 2012! Bring troops home!
Ron Paul specifically says society should not let people die, The Government will ALWAYS fail to keep people alive because on the large scale on which they function they can only be counter productive, without their over-imposition into our lives and finances society can save more lives than the government ever could.
@TimSarver where's this "society" come from that's supposed to save lives better? Government is a part of society anyway, so I don't quite get what you mean.
What about your government's overimposition into other nations' lives? You could EASILY cut utterly needless, fanatical military spending and re-allocate those funds to provide healthcare coverage for all Americans like every other Western democracy does. Step outside your little American bubble and take a look for yourself.
@unfortunatebeam I agree that money used to occupy other countries could be put to a better use, Ron Paul wants to get our troops home, out of all the countries where they are not wanted, that's something he's been very consistent/earnest about. The society I and Ron Paul mentioned are the people who can group together to change things, why give the government money to try and fix problems inefficiently, when Ron Paul will let you keep your money and use it to ACTUALLY fix problems.
@unfortunatebeam Government is ALWAYS going to mess up, history proves that, and while individuals will sometimes be corrupt they won't always be, like the government. What Ron Paul advocates is not restricting people from helping one another by making it the governments job to help you. I completely support the ideas that America should get out of other countries and that people should never be left to die by society, so does Ron Paul. And so do you. The answer to this is not socialism, it's RP
@TimSarver well havn't you seen in the last 30 some years big business and corporations messing up healthcare? The whole time healthcare costs were steadily rising while health of citizens steadily decreasing was over a period of unprecedented deregulation and record profits for big insurance and pharmaceutical. Here in Canada our healthcare generally works well. And let me tell you I know many people, including my own family, who would be in massive debt if not for universal healthcare.
@unfortunatebeam Yes it's totally true that corporations are messing up healthcare, however Corporatism and Capitalism are total opposites. If Capitalism was allowed to function as it should companies would need to lower their prices in order to gain customers. I realize Canada is doing well in a lot of respects but don't pretend it has no problems, everything is nearly twice as expensive there and unemployment is higher.
@TimSarver actually our prices here now are much more comparable to the States with your dollar declining. We also have a higher minimum wage and labour laws that make regular wage increases after a certain number of hours worked. But I never said there were no problems, esp with reactionary Harper in power. btw, unemployment is higher in the US by about 2 percent more (7.2 for Canada, 9.2 for US)
@TimSarver anyway it sounds like a vicious circle: regulations were put in place originally so big companies didn't just gobble up the little ones and make unfair competition but then that leads to government waste and so deregulation is hailed as a saviour and then that's when corporitism steps in and then you have that disaster which leads to more calls for regulation. what you should do is re-allocate tax funds from insane spending on military and grants into healthcare for all citizens.
@unfortunatebeam Those regulations actually end up hurting the little companies that are just starting off more than the big corporations, those regulations are what is keeping down the competition that's why so many CEO's actually press for more regulation. Corporatism has already started to step in. America has somewhat less regulations than the rest of the world and that's why people come here, to start businesses, but we keep getting more and more and it makes it harder for small business.
@TimSarver you have the wrong regulations and not the right ones, and corporitism has long stepped in. CEOs would of course want regulation if it's in their selfish interest, that is, if it's only going to effect the little people and benefit them (the "right" regulations for them and the wrong ones for the rest of us). The truth is they have so much wealth they can find so many creative ways to dodge regs (they have whole divisions for doing this), find legal loopholes, bribe lawmakers etc.
@unfortunatebeam As for the reallocation of military funds, that money needs to be used to pay off debts first, but RP is the only one of the candidates who is genuine and serious about bringing the troops home, and treating other countries how we want to be treated, free healthcare sounds nice, but everyone keeping all their income and then spending it on a family member/friend when he/she actually needs care sounds a lot better, that way the gov. gets no excuse to start wars with all its money
@TimSarver well it's a difficult, complex set of issues of course. anyway, good luck with everything in your country. Suffice to say it would be an interesting turn of events if Ron Paul became president.
"churches, charities, and friends can't come up with that kind of money"
Yeah, the government will pay for them. wait....
government gets money from taxes, we pay taxes. WE PAY EITHER WAY.
Simple stuff people.
Starpilot149 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Paul not only said no, he did so without hesitation, before even anyone else grasped the quesition - look closely :)
GIVE AMERICA THE RON PAUL CURE - END THE FED
Subscribe to not miss must-see Ron Paul vids. Also a toolbox with button links for Ron Paul online supporters incl. submit to Google ;)
youtube.com/user/ashwadhwani
Pls like/dislike, comment wherever possible to prove you believe your opinion matters. For online help for Ron Paul, message my youtube inbox
RON PAUL 2012
ashwadhwani 5 days ago
I hate ron paul, I always vote liberal.
mrliberalatheist1 3 months ago
@mrliberalatheist1 I hate mrliberalatheist1, I always vote down.
Ievolovel 3 months ago
@Ievolovel I hate conservatives who want to jack rights.
mrliberalatheist1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'NEW "Ron Paul 2012" DVD now available for a dollar or two.
The OneDollarDVDProject (dotcom) needs activist patriots to distribute the message with the "Ron Paul 2012" DVD. Preview all the short Ron Paul videos on the Project site. The 90 minute DVD is a powerful wake up call.
Please, 'thumbs up" to keep this DVD source at the top of "All Comments."
ronaldneil 4 months ago in playlist New Ron Paul Videos
This has been flagged as spam show
WANT TO GIVE DR. PAUL FREE ADVERTISING?
WRITE "RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT 2012" ON EVERY DOLLAR YOU SEE!
FRONT AND BACK!
AND IF YOU STILL HAVE ROOM, WRITE "THIS DOLLAR IS WORTH LESS TODAY THAN IT WAS YESTERDAY. YOU'RE BEING RIPPED OFF"
COPY AND PASTE THIS! SPREAD THE MESSAGE
lcntfeelmyface 5 months ago
Can CNN assure that without health insurance companies would ao doctor charge a patient 220$ a 10 min visit. In a free market any dotor would not charge so high....insurance is a means to suck blood
harithal 5 months ago
The RonBots eat everything this man spews! Just remember,CNN is Propaganda! LOL!
deeppurple28 5 months ago
Just call it prepaid care. Don't change the meaning of insurance and call it insurance.
AkoyPinoy2 5 months ago
Comment removed
iammrbeat 5 months ago
People dont get the point of the question. I have great health insurance with my job. I am very grateful for it. Lets say someone else there chose to not have health insurance. We both get sick and need health care. i paid my amount out paycheck, he didnt cause he opted out and chose not to have health insurance even tho he can afford it. Should he be let to die? NO! but he needs to be taught a strict lesson... Im sorry but no he needs to pay for his ignorance.
Edridz73 5 months ago
What would you attempt to do if you knew you couldn't fail?
vote for ron paul in the PRIMARY ELECTION, bring back OUR AMERICA.....
kileydogg 5 months ago
I Like what he said at the end
We cant afford it cause the cost has been so ran up !
Insurance companies that dont care for the parient, but schuffle papers, get a Huge piece of the pie first from the insured & then from the DR. so they get paid twice & they arnt even there....
Might be able to afford a DR if they didnt havesuch huge insurance bills
ncwdane 5 months ago 2
@ncwdane Agreed, and if alternative medicine would also be accepted instead of the corporatocrary ruled FDA, which prohibits anything with natural ingredients as real medicine, the cost of health care would go down even further.
toolejitful 5 months ago
@ncwdane As long as insurance companies ' lobbyists , tobacco lobbyists and other groups buy elections, we are in trouble. Ron Paul can't be bought - all grassroots donations -that says a lot .
doogleandalix 5 months ago
Look at the pain in his fucking eyes. Fuck you Blitzer. Fuck you ass holes for dragging the painful memories of a good family friend through the fucking mud. Med costs are out of control due to poor tort laws and federal intervention.
c0d0r12 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
healthcare is too overpriced, like everything else. If we do like Dr.Paul says, It'll all balance it'self out.
heycolslaw 5 months ago
healthcare is too overpriced, like everything else. If we do like Dr.Paul says, It'll all balance it'self out.
heycolslaw 5 months ago
medical bills should never get that high in the first place. government continues like this next year another person in the same situation is going to have to pay 600,000 for the same treatment. opposed to 20k. where you could just go out of country and get this treatment done.
altezzadrifter07 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are angry at the media, for ignoring Ron Paul and the American people let them know
FOX News room - 212-301-3344
FOX news radio 212-301-5800
CNN news desk 404-827-2751
CNN news desk fax: 404-827-3368
MSNBC - 212-664-3720
ABC News - 212-456-7777
CBS News - 212-975-4321
CBS News fax - 212-975-1893
bossrube53 5 months ago
1 - Google Ron Paul in 60 minutes petition
2 - Petition - CBS News 60 minutes - Get Ron Paul go to change.org
3 - sign the petition
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ronpaul2012. com donate his campaign now
bossrube53 5 months ago
the problem is that his care cost $400,000 which is entirely absurd and an aspect of a society which has no control over the health care system, which is run by profit seeking 'medical doctors' that have become businessmen demanding millionaire status a few years out of medical school
SmileyGarrish 5 months ago
America uber Alles.......
SmileyGarrish 5 months ago
The ONLY thing anyone needs to know about Ron Paul is that his own (2008) campaign manager died owing $400K in medical bills. Friends and family managed to raise about $35K the rest was paid by the TAX PAYERS. Presumably RP would have thrown him out of the hospital to die at a church or in the street. F*** RP and his idiot followers.
MasterOfSparks 5 months ago
@MasterOfSparks Lol, really? If someone shows up to a hospital and they're deathly ill, whether they have insurance or not, that hospital isn't going to throw them out on to the street to die. If they don't have insurance they're going to get a bill in the mail eventually but that's life. Lol, don't be so dramatic.
Tommygunns90 5 months ago
@Tommygunns90 The ONLY thing the hospital is legally required to do is stabilize the patient. That means things like stopping the bleeding or clearing the airway. Beyond that they don't have to do a damned thing other than put you in a cab to get you off the property. Also it costs 50 times as much to treat someone in the emergency room as it does for an office visit. And by the time it gets to that point the problem is more advanced. Cons are being penny wise and pound foolish.
MasterOfSparks 5 months ago
@MasterOfSparks that's not what hospitals do though. they don't just throw a band-aid on you and boot you out the door. you still get adequate treatment for your injury / illness. you're going to recieve a bill for it but a lot of hospitals bill you on a sliding pay scale. there are other options for people who aren't in dire need of care such as health departments, most of which bill according to the same scale. people make it sound like you will die if you get sick & don't have insurance.
Tommygunns90 5 months ago
@Tommygunns90 You mean all those gov't programs that Ron Paul wants to do away with? Or the bills that hospitals don't get paid for so they jack the rates up on the ones who do pay? You just aren't going to get around the fact that it costs 50 times as much for an emergency room visit as it does for a doctor's office. And again by the time it gets to the emergency room its a lot worse than if caught early. Conservative policies are just plain stupid. Always have been. Always will be.
MasterOfSparks 5 months ago
@MasterOfSparks and right now, liberal policies are bankrupting the country. look, a rational, critically thinking person wouldn't stand there and say "all conservative policies are stupid no matter what." there are times when either liber or conservative can be the best solution to the issue. example: when you're broke, you need to be less liberal and more conservative with your spending. if you have a lot of money you can be more liberal with your spending.
Tommygunns90 5 months ago
@Tommygunns90 I just heard on the radio that every year 45,000 Americans die for the sole reason that they don't have insurance. Feel free to look that up as its all over the internet. So I guess your belief system once again turns out to be total bullsh*t.
MasterOfSparks 5 months ago
@MasterOfSparks that's a bullshit statistic that is impossible to prove. diseases, gun shot wounds, vehicle accidents and drugs kill people. not having insurance doesn't. anyone ever told you :don't believe everything you hear on the radio". i can find you radio stations and dozens of websites that say 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that a missle, not a plane, hit the pentagon. i have personal experience with this hospital visit without insurance topic. i am speaking from experience.
Tommygunns90 5 months ago
@Tommygunns90 You seem to keep forgetting that if you have your way the next time you or a family member show up at a hospital needing help and you don't have insurance they're going to tell you to take a hike. Its really a shame that scum like you can't live in the hellhole of a country you so desperately want without fucking it up for everyone else. Have you considered maybe moving somewhere like ethiopia?
MasterOfSparks 5 months ago
@MasterOfSparks that is a lie. if i didn't have insurance and showed up at the ER needing medical care, urgent or not, i would in fact get it. i would be billed for it BUT as i stated earlier most hospitals and health departments bill people on that sliding pay scale and let people make interest free payments. it's not cheap but part of the reason cost is so high is because of gov't regulation messing up the market. lol, and drop the childish insults. don't be so dramatic.
Tommygunns90 5 months ago
@Tommygunns90 The problem with idiots like you is that you've had one damned experience and you think that's how it always is and how its always going to be. That comes from having everything handed to you. You think your stupid opinons are just as valid as anyone else's despite the fact that you don't know anything. You have no empathy for anyone else. I hope you get a dose of reality real soon.
MasterOfSparks 5 months ago
@MasterOfSparks lol, don't tell me i've had everything handed to me. i've worked my ass off for what i now have. the FACT of the matter is that hospitals don't kick people to the curb when they need care whether they have insurance or not. this is not my "stupid opinion" it is a fact. if you don't believe me feel free to ask your doctor about this on your next visit, or walk into a hospital and ask any medical professional. it's actually common knowledge.
Tommygunns90 5 months ago
This is so ridiculous, Government healthcare is going broke and how many will die if people don't take responsibility for themselves and for their local community. The Government doesn't give a shit about your health, they would rather you die if you can't pay them tax. We have to kid these bastards from Government ASAP. Vote for Ron Paul before fascism takes over.
nikolayzou 5 months ago
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere!
CapoeiraboyGali 5 months ago 18
SO STUPID!! most americans can afford health insurance, im 30 and healthy and I turn down my hospital employee health because I DONT NEED COMP HEALTH INS. and its more per month than i pay and the coverage is not WHAT I NEED!! I need NO COINSURANCE!! I pay $52 a month for catastrophic with 100% COVERAGE after $2,500 ded. Even if I didnt have the $2,500 the hospital will let you make payments interest free. You people are so brainwashed and STUPID. Stop watching F*#king TV all day and GET A LIFE
americanwithclass 5 months ago 5
@americanwithclass no they cant thats a Terrible generalization and you only have considered those with economic standing such as your own. you can only speak up for YOU not millions of others. I know too many that have been BANKRUPTED because of outstanding hospital bills to let you spout that crap off
JBoogieRadio 5 months ago
@JBoogieRadio oh no they were bankrupted! WAAAHHH!! so what they were treated and in america you can come back from bankruptcy pretty easily. if they were responsible human beings they would have had my ins. their whole life, paid for it a year in advance every month, if you have no ins on your house and it burns down do you go ask a ins. company to insure it? people like you say the gov needs to make it so if my house burns down and i couldnt afford the ins then it should be on the taxpayer FU
americanwithclass 5 months ago
@americanwithclass I stopped watching FAUX and the other cable tv news a couple of weeks ago. I can't believe I watched them for that long. I admit it, I too was a sheep, but now I am awake thanks to "tha internets". Ron Paul 2012!
toolejitful 5 months ago
@toolejitful welcome to the new majority, the media wont be able to stop us this time
americanwithclass 5 months ago
@americanwithclass Easy to say now wait till the chimps are down.
COATEStoCOATES 4 months ago
Mom took me to the doctor in 1969. We paid what we could. This family doctor waived his fees many times. Big Pharma, lobbyists and corrupt politicians are the cause of Half a million dollar hospital stays. Good grief!
EMPIRE0FLIES 5 months ago 2
No one would have this problem if the first thing they buy is health insurance. I mean buy insurance before a car, if you need to purchase a home that is 100 square feet less than you anticipated just to buy insurance, so be it. Everyone needs insurance.
zardcat1111 5 months ago
400 K... god help us.
zardcat1111 5 months ago
Odd how Ron Paul get the hard and serious question while most of the others at the podium get the status quo questions.... How come they did not ask Rick Perry about the making little girls take a vaccine whether they like it or not? Journalism must be asleep at the helm...
MrSeriouslynot 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrSeriouslynot 5 months ago
My kids will need a smartphone with a dataplan, a car, and a place to stay when he goes off to college... I think we need a government program to help me paid for all that.... cause we know education is important. What's another program.... money comes out of thin air at Ben's place anyway, right?
MrSeriouslynot 5 months ago
@MrSeriouslynot those are luxuries.. A "smart phone" and a "car" have nothing to do with education..and there is help for education..Who is Ben? Just stop...
morsea30 5 months ago
@morsea30 , You really thought I was serious? I was only making fun of the welfare state... Ben Bernanke. The guy at the helm of the FED. Plz google it..
MrSeriouslynot 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@morsea30 , You really thought I was serious? I was only making fun of the welfare state... Ben Bernanke. The guy at the helm of the FED. Plz google it..
MrSeriouslynot 4 months ago
How the... $400,000 hospital bill... I know technology and medical knowledge is expensive, but what the fucking fuck?! I mean is this money broken down tremendously amongst many, many dozens of people? Or is it there to stuff the pockets of a handful of people? It just seems kinda sick is all.
CelticPoison 5 months ago
@CelticPoison Fucking hell!! a hospital bill ... $400,000 to stay alive if you get sick in the US...
digisexdj 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 - Google Ron Paul in 60 minutes petition
2 - Petition - CBS News 60 minutes - Get Ron Paul go to change.org
3 - sign the petition
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ronpaul2012. com donate his campaign now
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are angry at the media, for ignoring Ron Paul and the American people
let them know
FOX News room - 212-301-3344
FOX news radio 212-301-5800
CNN news desk 404-827-2751
CNN news desk fax: 404-827-3368
MSNBC - 212-664-3720
ABC News - 212-456-7777
CBS News - 212-975-4321
CBS News fax - 212-975-1893
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere, and vote up when u see
soaringpen85 5 months ago
I only wish I lived in America right now so I could help get him elected.
blah979 5 months ago
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere, and vote up
blah979 5 months ago
"Ron Paul's a racist." "Ron Paul's a kook." "Ron Paul doesn't care about people with no health insurance."
Is that seriously all you got on this wonderful and passionate human being? Have you seen the list of grievances with the other guys and girls?
Poonard 5 months ago
This report is so bogus from the onset....You're blaming Dr. Paul for death? You're simply saying, people can't take care of themselves, they're too stupid to know what's best for themselves, so people like Ron Paul are kooks. Got news for you pal....most people feel this way when you get right down to it. Everyone want's to be free. So back off!
Poonard 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
COPY THIS BANNER BELOW AND PASTE IT ALL OVER YOUTUBE!
IF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WONT HELP DR. PAUL, WE WILL!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
★ ☆ ★ ☆ RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT 2012!!!! ★ ☆ ★ ☆
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Loafy1212 5 months ago
He said quote, " it's not up to us to help other people" - I would love for my taxes to go towards helping others, instead of going towards a bomb that kills people..."What would Jesus do" ?
morsea30 5 months ago
@morsea30 Is that what happens though? Government spends money for political reasons. It also lacks a profit/loss feedback mechanism. Govt., for that reason and others, is a horrible director/user of resources.
I am an atheist, buy I grew up in the church. Christ was all about free will, not force.
Why should you be forced to pay taxes to help others when you can't control where the $'s go and to whom? Isn't it far more consistent with human freedom to allow you to decide for yourself?
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34 O.K- Christ never used free will in a context of government. I am not preaching to you to believe in Jesus, That is your "free will". So in this case all Ron Paul is saying is that "we don't need government. I agree..That is "free will". Some might call it "anarchy, I have a belief that people would do the right thing is they we not controlled and forced into a system. That is what Ron Paul is saying. So this freedom your talking about is not a freedom, It's just not helping others
morsea30 5 months ago
@morsea30 He isn't saying that we don't need government. He is saying that government has few legitimate functions. He thinks most things should be left to civil society. People can organize themselves out of the state. The inference that socialists make is that without government welfarism people would just callously leave their fellows to suffer.
Government force isn't charity. If I steal from you to give to another is that moral? Government shouldn't do it either.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34 Wow brother. without welfare, people who not help. you church or your neighbor does not have a 10,000 dollars laying around for a operation or meds for a cancer patient.You know who does,the government. The percent that is spend on welfare is like 1% of 100%. It's nothing. but you are saying to cut that help off. How sick is that. it's like a dime out of your paycheck.most of your taxes goes to war. but as you wrote "government force" isn't a charity...that's a sad day for humanity.
morsea30 5 months ago
@morsea30 I am not oppposed to welfare. I advocate a voluntary welfare society, not the force, fraud, and waste of a welfare state.
Costs were much lower when a free market was in place. Costs only exploded after the third party payer/state managed care system was erected.
About 75% of Americans had health insurace in the early 60's. This was up from 10% in 1940. It was going in the right direction.
continued...
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@morsea30 It's not just families and neighbors. The voluntary welfare soceity was composed of charities, churches, cooperatives, pro-bono work or reduced payment by family doctors, mutual-aid societies, lodges, fraternal organizations, etc. Sometimes it was a combination of these voluntary organizations.
The % spent on welfare is well-above 60%. You are only counting food stamps and AFDC probably. Even those programs constitute well over 1%. You aren't counting S.S., Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34 i'll give you 10%, including medicare and medicaid- military spending is more than 2 times the amount we spend on heath and education
morsea30 4 months ago
@morsea30 Add up the cost of medicare and medicaid. It's over the defense department budget unless you count off-budget expenditures. I agree that there is far too much military spending.
Paul's ideas were in place before the mid-60's. Doctors and nursed dispensed health care at reduced or no fees for the poor. Medicare-Medicaid just TRANSFERRED the cost of what was done for free/reduced costs from middle-class taxpayers to middle-class health care professionals
Costs have went to the moon
joepeeler34 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are angry at the media, for ignoring Ron Paul and the American people
let them know
FOX News room - 212-301-3344
FOX news radio 212-301-5800
CNN news desk 404-827-2751
CNN news desk fax: 404-827-3368
MSNBC - 212-664-3720
ABC News - 212-456-7777
CBS News - 212-975-4321
CBS News fax - 212-975-1893
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 - Google Ron Paul in 60 minutes petition
2 - Petition - CBS News 60 minutes - Get Ron Paul go to change.org
3 - sign the petition
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ronpaul2012. com donate his campaign now
bossrube53 5 months ago
RON PAUL is the People's Choice in 2012! Place signs, bumper stickers, and volunteer. We only have one shot at freedom. Join the REVOLUTION!!!!!
MountainMan19831 5 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
ronpaul2012. com donate his campaign now
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are angry at the media, for ignoring Ron Paul and the American people
let them know
FOX News room - 212-301-3344
FOX news radio 212-301-5800
CNN news desk 404-827-2751
CNN news desk fax: 404-827-3368
MSNBC - 212-664-3720
ABC News - 212-456-7777
CBS News - 212-975-4321
CBS News fax - 212-975-1893
bossrube53 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 - Google Ron Paul in 60 minutes petition
2 - Petition - CBS News 60 minutes - Get Ron Paul go to change.org
3 - sign the petition
bossrube53 5 months ago
THE BIGGER QUESTION... why on earth does it COST $400,000.00? ? ? ? WHY WHY WHY
this is the very problem Ron Paul is exposing... the healthcare already is a sham
PhilippoChannel 5 months ago
@PhilippoChannel
Are you asking why Ron Paul's employee's hospital bills cost 400k? We know he had cancer so he probably had to get a spinal tap, chemotherapy, a lot of blood work, probably stayed in the hospital for many nights, etc. Without the breakdown of the costs I can say that 400k is not out of bounds for a cancer patient that doesn't have insurance. If he was getting treated for a few years it definitely adds up.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB I understand that on todays system, it would cost $400k .. as you say. There is alot of work and technology obviously like you mentioned. But I am saying, should it really cost $400k? Maybe if the government wasnt so involved the prices could be much lower.
The cost of technology should be going down but when the government gets involved it seems to go up.
The government regulations monopolize the system, not enough competition, &America could live healthier if they just ate right..
PhilippoChannel 5 months ago
@PhilippoChannel
Now even if somehow it can be cut to 200k (removing a lot of useless regulations, getting government out of it, etc) it would STILL be an unacceptable amount of money for an uninsured person to pay. Remember, Ron Paul and his staff was only able to raise 50k to help his friend... so imagine an average Joe with no connections trying to raise that much for himself... while in the hospital. Not happening.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Where did you get the $200,000 figure. Do a little research on the cost of health care and health insurance pre-government state managed care system and post. What we are trying to get through to people is that the cost for major medical wasn't out of control relative to people's wages. His campaign managed would have in all likelyhood been able to afford major medical if there were a free market.
It the third party payer system (govt. created it) that is the biggest problem.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
I grabbed that number from my ass, I took a very nice figure of 50% (I don't think Ron Paul is suggesting health care will come down by more than 50%? Is he?).
I did not mean to indicate that price as a well-thought out figure, though I do find it hard to believe that prices can/will drop by 50%, 20%-30% maybe.. but unless I see some serious numbers I don't think 50% is possible.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB I suspect it will fall much more than that.
There is one measure we could look at to get an idea. Costs weren't out of control relative to people's wages before the state managed care systems. We could take avg. wages and divide by avg. health insurance policy or cost of health care for a given year pre-state managed care system and post. That would give us a ratio of what would likely pay if we returned to a free market system. The socialist/corporatist hybrid is failing.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@A0DBOB I suspect it will fall much more than that.
There is one measure we could look at to get an idea. Costs weren't out of control relative to people's wages before the state managed care systems. We could take avg. wages and divide by avg. health insurance policy or cost of health care for a given year pre-state managed care system and post. That would give us a ratio of what would likely pay if we returned to a free market system. The socialist/corporatist hybrid is failing.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
Do you have some dates/legislation where states started managing health care? ie: What is the cut off date of pre/post-state managed care that we are looking at?
Tomorrow I will look up what i can find and play with some numbers. We also have to keep in mind that we are keeping things that didn't exist back then such as the "Pre-existing condition" problem, mandatory emergency care, etc.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
It would be great if you could find some organization that has done this analysis since I have little faith in my amateur number wielding.. since this is obviously much more complex than just looking at ratios. I'd have to figure out how much the mandatory emergency care costs us a year, how much admin costs have increased due to many more patients, increase in R&D, better/more expensive treatments etc. Way too many factors for me to do justice to =)
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB I am aware of the numbers showing cost of health care and health insurance. One of the most popular major medical insurance policies of the 50's and 60's was $15 per year. It was only for major medical with a high deductible. All other routine care costs were payed out of pocket. That is how insurance would work in a free market.
I am not aware of anyone attmepting to find the ratio of wages going to insurance then and now. I do know that costs were affordable compared to wages then.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
They may have been more more affordable, but with MANY less people covered. We need to find a fix that will keep rates low while maintaining a decent coverage for those less fortunate. The way our current system is now obviously fails... but Ron Paul's method also fails. Sadly I cannot give an answer to what method is best because I am not educated in that field enough, but something has to change.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
They may have been more more affordable, but with MANY less people covered. We need to find a fix that will keep rates low while maintaining a decent coverage for those less fortunate. The way our current system is now obviously fails... but Ron Paul's method also fails. Sadly I cannot give an answer to what method is best because I am not educated in that field enough, but something has to change.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB What do you mean less people? In absolute numbers that's true because there were far fewer U.S. citizens then. I don't know the exact percentage of people who purchased major medical. I know that the cost were low relative to people's wages.
Moreover, because costs were lower it was easier for cooperatives and churches to foot the bill or offer reduced care. No one was turned away. Central planning has failed. We should give free markets and volunteerism a try again. It worked before.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
I meant less as in percent-wise. Nearly 50% of the elderly had no insurance before medicare. Now everyone over 65, or anyone with a severe disability have insurance under medicare (granted they've lived here for 10 years or something like that).
Volunteerism does NOT work as a public policy, it can not be relied on to support 137 million people with health care, that is NOT feasible.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB I don't know the percentage of elderly people that didn't have insurance. It it relevant given that costs were low and they had cooperaties, families, church hospitals, private charities, etc. that they could depend on. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They did get care.
Volunteerism isn't "public policy." It's an emergent order like common law, language, and a free market. I disagree with the whole notion of so-called "public policy." It's cattle prodding.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A0DBOB I don't know the percentage of elderly people that didn't have insurance. It it relevant given that costs were low and they had cooperaties, families, church hospitals, private charities, etc. that they could depend on. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They did get care.
Volunteerism isn't "public policy." It's an emergent order like common law, language, and a free market. I disagree with the whole notion of so-called "public policy." It's cattle prodding.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A0DBOB I don't know the percentage of elderly people that didn't have insurance. It it relevant given that costs were low and they had cooperaties, families, church hospitals, private charities, etc. that they could depend on. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They did get care.
Volunteerism isn't "public policy." It's an emergent order like common law, language, and a free market. I disagree with the whole notion of so-called "public policy." It's cattle prodding.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
What I keep trying to get at is Mr. Paul's plan is great on paper, in a perfect world the people like you and I would care for those who need help, no one would be left without care, etc.
What you need to realize is that we don't live in such a world, the poor will not get that kind of "volunteer" help or charity that they SHOULD with any acceptable level of consistency that we see with Medicare/Medicaid.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB What I keep trying to explain to you is that Dr. Paul's ideas were tried for most of our history and people did do the right thing. If you have a low opinion of people, you have a low opinion of yourself.
Read through Tocqueville's "Democracy In America" sometime. He explains all of the cooperatives, mutual-aid societies, church charities, fraternal organizations, etc. that existed in the 19th century. Those things were the social safety net. No force was used. It was moral.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Yes, some elderly people were uninsured--I don't know the exact percentage. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They most certainly did. They relied on the volunteerism of the welfare society. It was composed of mutual-aid societies, fraternal organizations, church hospitals and charities, neighbors, families, etc.
It wasn't as hard to for other's to pay the medical expenses of the poor then because prices weren't out of control due perverse government programs and mandates.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A0DBOB Yes, some elderly people were uninsured--I don't know the exact percentage. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They most certainly did. They relied on the volunteerism of the welfare society. It was composed of mutual-aid societies, fraternal organizations, church hospitals and charities, neighbors, families, etc.
It wasn't as hard to for other's to pay the medical expenses of the poor then because prices weren't out of control due perverse government programs and mandates.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A0DBOB Yes, some elderly people were uninsured--I don't know the exact percentage. Your inference is that they didn't get care. They most certainly did. They relied on the volunteerism of the welfare society. It was composed of mutual-aid societies, fraternal organizations, church hospitals and charities, neighbors, families, etc.
It wasn't as hard to for other's to pay the medical expenses of the poor then because prices weren't out of control due perverse government programs and mandates.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
Think of it like this: Capitalism sounds wonderful on paper: People working to develop better goods for less, competition all around to make things faster, smaller, cheaper, more variety.
Now look at reality: We have to make laws telling companies not to pollute our rivers, we had to make laws to keep both employees and customers safe from companies using unsafe shortcuts, we have to force companies to not discriminate due to gender/race/religion/etc.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Why does pollution mean that free markets are discredited.
Environmental laws are very much a private property rights issue. If someone pollutes the water on your land, it can be handled through the courts. Same with pollution of your air. I think state and local governments can handle most environmental issues.
Also, we don't have free market capitalism currently. We don't even have a free market in money, interest rates, or banking.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
It does not discredit the free market, but it does reinforce the idea that we need a certain set of regulations for it to run smoothly. A certain level of environmental laws are needed, no questions asked. And no, you as a home owner are not going to do much in terms of suing Chevron for polluting your well water. Normal people do not have the financial resources to go up against a super-power.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB We need laws that protect private property. Environmentalism is primarily a property rights issue.
In a free market force is not to initiated. When a person pollutes another's air, water, land, etc. he has initiated force. The victim's recourse is the court system. That is consistent with a private property rights and free markets. Why would you think enforcement of private property rights in regard to pollution would somehow be anathema to a free market?
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Why couldn't I and others sue Chevron for violating our private property? Firms that break the law are sued everyday. Some of those firms are victims of the legal code, but in some instances they deserve to be litigated against. Class action lawsuits could also be pursued.
Corporations lose lawsuits everyday despite having an advantage in money.
People have lost faith in the law because much of what passes for law is illegal govt. actions that abrogate natural rights.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@A0DBOB A free market is absent force. It is a matrix of individuals engaged in mutually beneficial trade with each giving volitional consent.
For capitalism to work there needs to be savings. Who saves when a central bank artificially lowers interest rates and debases the currency? We have a corporatist/socialist system. Wall Street has been turned into debt paper traders. They would be directing capital if not for the perverse incentives of the paper currency system.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A0DBOB A free market is absent force. It is a matrix of individuals engaged in mutually beneficial trade with each giving volitional consent.
For capitalism to work there needs to be savings. Who saves when a central bank artificially lowers interest rates and debases the currency? We have a corporatist/socialist system. Wall Street has been turned into debt paper traders. They would be directing capital if not for the perverse incentives of the paper currency system.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Some companies will always take shortcuts. They are doing it right now despite (because?) there being more regulations in place that at any point in U.S. history. There will always be snakeoil salesmen, and even good companies will have employees or managers doing unethical things.
However, the market's effective regulator is fear of loss. If people produce a shoddy prodcut, they lose market share. If they keep doing it, they go out of business. There is also threat of lawsuits.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Yes, some companies take shortcut, even occasionally good ones. There will always be fly-by-night type businesses and snake-oil salesman as well. Those exists right now with millions of regulations in place. Those regulations don't stop anything. They give people a false sense of security. It's a confidence game.
What businesses fear is loss of marketshare, bankruptcy, and lawsuits. That's what keeps most of them from offering shoddy products, not government bureaucrats.
joepeeler34 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
And keep in mind that any return to the free market will still have to cover the medicare/medicaid people. That's literally tens of millions more people, which typically increase costs since those people will need to be subsidized by other insurance payers, so everyones insurance rates will raise a bit to cover those people.
Now that I think of it this way I don't think it will get to anywhere near that 50% savings...
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@joepeeler34
For my reading pleasure could you point me to a site that breaks down some of the govt. regulations? Maybe after seeing some of them I could agree that 50% is a low average. I know that putting more more regulations obviously increases cost but I'd like to see which regulations we agree with vs. useless ones.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
They just barely touched on why healthcare is so expensive. Because govt wants it that way! They have been sticking themselves into insurance and mandating what insurance companies must insure for the sole reason of driving up the cost and driving people to govt health plans. Look at Obamacare, everything in it is designed to drive up the cost of insurance and push people off private plans and toward govt plans. Stop beleiving what they say and watch what they do!
cobrabeebop 5 months ago
The media is always trying to make him look bad but they fail miserably. All of his supporters have researched him enough to know what he supports and doesnt in DETAiL, half of the haters dont know shit they are just parrots.
lilsm555 5 months ago
How about take good care of yourself and practice preventative health
care on yourself. Health in the U.S. is a joke. Everyone wants a pill after they have allowed themselves to take on an energy of dis-ease. Ayurvedic medicine recognizes that germ theory is incorrect. All is potentiality. Body mind spirit are connected in balance for optimum health, Citizens of U.S. have fragmented, worried minds. Health is peace. It follows a mind that is at ease. It is the natural state of peace and love.
MattIndigoWilliams 5 months ago
Ron Paul is the reason why I have like.. one pussy hair of faith left in humanity.
Seriously
bluedogofdark 5 months ago
tax*
ProIndividual 5 months ago
extorting*
ProIndividual 5 months ago
Charities could easily pay for all this stuff if we weren't taxed so much that so little is given to charities. Think about it.
Besides, what is more moral/ethical? Extroting money (teax) on the threat of kidnapping (prison) to pay for it, or getting willful donations to pay for it?
What is more efficient? Wastefull government who need not satisfy "customers" to keep getting paid? Or charities that rely on willful donations and semi-efficient allocation of funds to keep up funding? Think guys
ProIndividual 5 months ago
The real question they should be asking is how on Earth does it cost $400,000 to treat a man with pnemonia? If the government got out of healthcare then costs could finally come down to a sane level that people could afford or at least pay off. Requiring insurance companies to accept pre-exisiting conditions means they are no longer insurance, that's simply not what insurance is. You can't wreck your care over and over and keep paying a low premium.
midtra52 5 months ago
oboma needs to lick my hairy asshole
oboma nation is an abomination
scapegoat666 5 months ago
The problem in US is that the healthcare is overly expensive. Regardless of who pays it, the bill is not payable. Government in US interferes the system in the worst possible way and inflates the prices. I'm a Turkish citizen and I bet you in Turkey it is possible to get better health care services than US for only 20% of what you and your insurance company will pay. This is what you would pay, Turkish nationals pay much less since there is almost universal health care there.
caskurlu 5 months ago
The reason healthcare is so expensive is that they've got you hooked and you need a fix. And they're the only ones you can get it from. You believe that the answer to your health issues is a bottle of prozac or a quadruple bypass and as long as you keep believing that and put your health in someone elses hands instead of taking control and responsibility for yourself, you will suffer at the hands of the corrupt.
paullie6719 5 months ago
There really is only one premise to argue....and I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree. And that is why would you want to give control of one of the most important facets of life over to an extremely corrupt and tiny group of people?
paullie6719 5 months ago
So these people...the ones that steal your money and give it to rich bankers, brainwash you and your kids through the "education" (or indoctrination) system and media...allow drugs that poison and kill thousands of people every year...the ones that throw you in jail for peaceably assembling and have destroyed the entire bill of rights.....the ones that won't allow competition in any of their interests. This is the group of people you want in charge of health care? You've got my sympathies.
paullie6719 5 months ago
@paullie6719 well what you're saying is a bit ironic. so the even tinier and even more corrupt people you have mostly in charge of your healthcare now is somehow better? The monsters who place bets, derivatives, and securities on your lives, profit on your death, with the aim of making more and more profit at the lowest cost to THEM? So that's what you want?
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
You own yourself.. you own your money.. you own your property, whatever it may be. No one has the right to come in and take it for ANY reason without your consent. If you give government the privilege to take your money, that's a different story. I understand people get sick and hurt and need help. But on my first point alone, how is it moral to STEAL money from each individual and hand it over to the government, in turn to give healthcare to others. This idea alone BANS government healthcare.
bratlert 5 months ago
@bratlert gee it seems to work well in EVERY OTHER western democracy in the world. everyone needs heathcare at some if not multiple points in their lives, which is the reason why making such a basic service and need universal is justified. If you want to talk about morals what about the rampant immorality of needless tax spending on needless military ventures all around the world that kill, injure, and disrupt the lives of millions of innocent civilians in already impoverished countries?
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bratlert
"how is it moral to STEAL money from each individual and hand it over to the government, in turn to give healthcare to others. "
Sadly I do not remember the philosophers name (I will look it up) but essentially the argument is like this: If you can significantly help someone (health care) at little to no loss of our own than it is immoral not to do so.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@bratlert
The analogy was: If you see a drowning baby in a fountain, but to get to that baby you have to ruin your new shoes than the trade off difference is so great that you must help because the loss is negligible (a pair of shoes).
Now if that same baby was drowning in an icy river, the scenario is different, the trade off may be too large to give a black/white answer because of the potential loss to you (death).
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@bratlert
I will dust off my bookshelf tomorrow and find that philosopher for you hopefully... it has been a few years since I've sat down and read it.
If anyone else reading this can assist me that would be greatly appreciated.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@bratlert
I apologize for the barrage of messages, but I found it: Peter Singer. Please understand I am not a fan of all his ideas, but please read "Famine, Affluence, and Morality;
Peter Singer;
Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 229-243 [revised edition]". A quick google search for the title should suffice. Let me know what you agree/disagree with.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
well America you got two choose, you gonna keep on paying for me to eat your food stamps, (when you can't afford to feed your own kids mines eat good)and get 5 dollar rent, you pay the rest of the 700 a month, Thank you for that btw, also I love getting my meds for 2 bucks when it cost you 2 thousand, Obama 2012!
MichaelTMurray 5 months ago
@MichaelTMurray
I'm glad it's helping you out, and I hope you are able to find a good job in the future. I have absolutely no problem with giving my tax dollars to those like you who need a little extra help. Please enjoy the food stamps.. I know its not much but do your best.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@digitalbullshit Actually no. The man still received care, even if it is expensive. He also states that the reason it is so expensive is because gov't meddling has driven costs up through unnecessary regulation and faulty law. He is for returning step-by-step to a place where gov't interference in your health and costs are both low and successful. His friend's case is a reason to continue in his work, not falter in it.
PierzStyx 5 months ago 18
@PierzStyx why do you overlook the obvious profiteering by the insurance and pharmacuetical companies? If you stopped whatever useless and paltry regulations are there now, that's not going to stop the insurance companies and their lust for short-term profit gain, in fact it would only exacerbate it. It would end up whatever was saved getting rid of "meddling" government would very soon be cancelled out and costs would continue to rise due to the profit motive itself.
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
This Ron Paul guy knows what he is on about. Smart man, I have much respect for him.
AustralianAllTheWay 5 months ago
Dr. Paul an Epic statesman. Health care wasn't such a beast of crony insurance corps and costs weren't so high until govt got itself involved.
BrokenSentence 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@delreydavid "So you think that the population should be based on the ammount of charitable contributions each year?"
......well if that is your logic, with government in charge the population is already based on contributions...only they are forced contributions through the 2 Acts passed by congress in 1913!!! Duh!
JDNYE1 5 months ago
You have to ask why it was $400,000. Because the system is broken! Any little thing to bring a good man down.
brooklynzoo81 5 months ago
It's funny (and sad) how CNN is more 'fair and balanced' than FOX when it comes to Ron Paul.
brdly187 5 months ago in playlist New Ron Paul Videos
@brdly187 Agreed.
munkyusm 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONSTITUTION DAY MONEYBOMB ON SATURDAY, SEPT 17, 2011. Please consider donating and help Dr. Paul's message get across to the American people without mainstream media distortion. America needs Ron Paul - we can all help! Ron Paul 2012! Bring troops home!
theleemeister 5 months ago
Ron Paul specifically says society should not let people die, The Government will ALWAYS fail to keep people alive because on the large scale on which they function they can only be counter productive, without their over-imposition into our lives and finances society can save more lives than the government ever could.
TimSarver 5 months ago 30
@TimSarver where's this "society" come from that's supposed to save lives better? Government is a part of society anyway, so I don't quite get what you mean.
What about your government's overimposition into other nations' lives? You could EASILY cut utterly needless, fanatical military spending and re-allocate those funds to provide healthcare coverage for all Americans like every other Western democracy does. Step outside your little American bubble and take a look for yourself.
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
@unfortunatebeam I agree that money used to occupy other countries could be put to a better use, Ron Paul wants to get our troops home, out of all the countries where they are not wanted, that's something he's been very consistent/earnest about. The society I and Ron Paul mentioned are the people who can group together to change things, why give the government money to try and fix problems inefficiently, when Ron Paul will let you keep your money and use it to ACTUALLY fix problems.
TimSarver 5 months ago
@unfortunatebeam Government is ALWAYS going to mess up, history proves that, and while individuals will sometimes be corrupt they won't always be, like the government. What Ron Paul advocates is not restricting people from helping one another by making it the governments job to help you. I completely support the ideas that America should get out of other countries and that people should never be left to die by society, so does Ron Paul. And so do you. The answer to this is not socialism, it's RP
TimSarver 5 months ago
@TimSarver well havn't you seen in the last 30 some years big business and corporations messing up healthcare? The whole time healthcare costs were steadily rising while health of citizens steadily decreasing was over a period of unprecedented deregulation and record profits for big insurance and pharmaceutical. Here in Canada our healthcare generally works well. And let me tell you I know many people, including my own family, who would be in massive debt if not for universal healthcare.
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
@unfortunatebeam Yes it's totally true that corporations are messing up healthcare, however Corporatism and Capitalism are total opposites. If Capitalism was allowed to function as it should companies would need to lower their prices in order to gain customers. I realize Canada is doing well in a lot of respects but don't pretend it has no problems, everything is nearly twice as expensive there and unemployment is higher.
TimSarver 5 months ago
@TimSarver actually our prices here now are much more comparable to the States with your dollar declining. We also have a higher minimum wage and labour laws that make regular wage increases after a certain number of hours worked. But I never said there were no problems, esp with reactionary Harper in power. btw, unemployment is higher in the US by about 2 percent more (7.2 for Canada, 9.2 for US)
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
@TimSarver anyway it sounds like a vicious circle: regulations were put in place originally so big companies didn't just gobble up the little ones and make unfair competition but then that leads to government waste and so deregulation is hailed as a saviour and then that's when corporitism steps in and then you have that disaster which leads to more calls for regulation. what you should do is re-allocate tax funds from insane spending on military and grants into healthcare for all citizens.
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
@unfortunatebeam Those regulations actually end up hurting the little companies that are just starting off more than the big corporations, those regulations are what is keeping down the competition that's why so many CEO's actually press for more regulation. Corporatism has already started to step in. America has somewhat less regulations than the rest of the world and that's why people come here, to start businesses, but we keep getting more and more and it makes it harder for small business.
TimSarver 5 months ago
@TimSarver you have the wrong regulations and not the right ones, and corporitism has long stepped in. CEOs would of course want regulation if it's in their selfish interest, that is, if it's only going to effect the little people and benefit them (the "right" regulations for them and the wrong ones for the rest of us). The truth is they have so much wealth they can find so many creative ways to dodge regs (they have whole divisions for doing this), find legal loopholes, bribe lawmakers etc.
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago
@unfortunatebeam As for the reallocation of military funds, that money needs to be used to pay off debts first, but RP is the only one of the candidates who is genuine and serious about bringing the troops home, and treating other countries how we want to be treated, free healthcare sounds nice, but everyone keeping all their income and then spending it on a family member/friend when he/she actually needs care sounds a lot better, that way the gov. gets no excuse to start wars with all its money
TimSarver 5 months ago
@TimSarver well it's a difficult, complex set of issues of course. anyway, good luck with everything in your country. Suffice to say it would be an interesting turn of events if Ron Paul became president.
unfortunatebeam 5 months ago