also one must taken into account the unhealthy products that is being pushed on americans things like fluoride in public water supplies, aspartame, GMO food products, including things that other countries have banned outright due to its harmful effects on the population....some refer to this as the "eugenics agenda" i just it as the "establishment"(mostly the people behind the scenes) trying to harm us and make us sick and thus dependent, unproductive...
alot of the problems with our medicine in this country, is the fact that doctors seem to practice REACTIVE medicine..they are not adequately taught about proper nutrition and other preventive actions a patient could take...instead the system is LARGELY FUNDED by pharmaceutical companies who have EVERYTHING to gain from reactive medicine.
I still can't find the lies on Paul's behalf. PEOPLE! Just because some can't afford health care doesn't mean we strap a bomb to everyone else. In this time of economic recession EVERYTHING seems hard. It's what people focus on that can bring us down or lead us astray. Short term fixes won't help anything.
Wow! Do we honestly think that Ron Paul supporters watched this video? If they did, dont you think that they would address the facts presented within it? The comments here are just seven pages full of cheer leading. In America its Go Team and Fuck the Facts! Its actually possible for savior Ronnie to be wrong about some shit. He has no answer for the millions of uninsured Americans and he shows it every time he chooses to talk about it.
RON PAUL IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CALL AMERICAN PEOPLE INVADERS AND INITIATORS OF WARS.
RON PAUL SAID THE USA INVADES COUNTRIES AND STARTS WARS, WHICH GIVES USA A BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD , THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME . A US CITIZEN WHO
WAS BORN IN USA CANT GO AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH MIGHT TREATEN THE FUTURE
All of your videos expose you as a collectivist. Not a free-market advocate. Therefore I consider you my enemy or foolish dupe of the left. Which is it?
Besides the fact that I disagree with your biased, incomplete and twisted political loyalties, you do have good skills at video production. Too bad you cannot see the errors of your ways and come over the side of freedom and liberty for the individual. True freedom is not without its problems but it beats your communist style collectivism!
it seems xproletariatx is an operative. He hasn't replied with anything since the passing of the Healthcare bill. Almost as if his effort is no longer needed.
There are secret agendas at play here people. These fraudsters are at war with the people. They want depopulation, they want you dead or under their thumb.
"LOL im a operative? OMG, im just a regular 24 year old guy living in NY. You guys are way too paranoid. "
Hah.. it got your attention thou didn't it?...
"As democratically as possible"
~ what a wonderful utopia you advocate, do you think rule by mob won't give way to elites "Manufacturing Consent"?
Marx's books were paid for by wealthy industrialists... If you want to have a communist society, do it in your own community, don't expect everyone else to capitulate to your system.
Give him props on the "Audit the Fed" legislation (though even there, strictly in terms of his seeing a problem and not his crazy "solutions"). Ron Paul is a guy full to bursting with shitty ideas.
"...on the "Audit the Fed" legislation (though even there, strictly in terms of his seeing a problem and not his crazy "solutions"). Ron Paul is full of shitty ideas.
What good is knowing a problem exists without positing a solution?
He's a social Darwinist little pigfucker. "
What are you implying here? That social darwinism would go if everything was provided for you? Running to gov't for your safety is not the answer, you are. Be an individual and you will retain your freedom.
and for god sakes our healthcare in america is so corrupt at the top, allopathic madicine is a sham and has been tsince the making of the AMA, they don't want a cure and they sure as hell don't want it if they can't patent it, all they want is to squeeze as much money outta of the people, if u have or know any one with cancer, hear disease,
diatbetes...etc..., go to gerson institute, or on the west coast go to hippocrates institute/ holistic or naturopaths now the way ask for ther patients #'s
ok the guy that posted this video is just a hater of Ron Paul/ did any of u guys see his backround and profile pick he likes the satans spawn, dick cheney has done some of the most terrible shit in this world broken the law numerous times/ and a new healthcare system is out of the ques. america can't aford it the us debt clock is already at 12 trillion, its gonna cost trillions more to do this program if any of you know how the fed reserve works its a failing sys, we have a way bigger problem!
Insurance was originally invented to protect property, not health. That goes for both private and state health care. I think private charity would be the best way to distribute wealth to pay for the health care of the poor. The State demands your pay, the insurance can deny, but private charity is voluntary, and must do it's job or people won't give.
"Does it really matter what insurance was originally intended for when someone needs urgent health care ?
Sickness, disease and death does care what insurance was originally intended for. "
It never has.
Healthcare also used to be affordable. but over years of impoverishing government policies. The people are broke, the free market has been abolished, raising costs. Why is more gov't the answer?
What does the clique "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" mean to you?
I know what it is. I know politicians in countries with single payer come to the US to get medical attention they can not get in their own country.
I know people living with single payer health care come to the US to get treatment they are denied in their homeland because they are old or it's just not their turn.
Sorry, don't want to die when I am 60 because a bunch of suits on the hill don't think I am worth being helped because I'm old.
Dumb ass like you who have never used single payer health care system has the most to complain about single payer.
Because of my history with my health, in your system no private insurer would even bother insuring me unless I pay very high premiums.
So you would rather want a bunch of Wall Street types decide if you can get insurance based on if they can take out profit off of you to their private bank accounts rather than if they can cure your health problem.
well when I got cancer, my city held a benefit for me. So if we'd lower taxes, people would be more willing to donate.
Fuck bureaucracy. It's just another scheme to loot our paychecks. Exactly like social security.
Besides, most diseases can be cured cheaply and natually, so national healthcare is a subsidy for big pharma's influence on how people treat themselves, since they pay for it through the bogus tax.
I live in canada and my grandmother had cancer, she had no insurance and didn't paid a dime for it. Now she is healed and feel at lot better. She is 79.
Marijuana Cures cancer. The socialized healthcare would never approve of such an effective treatment, that is an example of how overregulated our healthcare system is.
There will come a time in your system when a grandmother gets cancer, then she will be put down because the system "cant" afford her.
Marijuana as been use as a treatment in Canada as a painkiller since the late 90s. As a Canadian I see you're system as under regulated, where people are denied or drop of their insurance at the first sign. Of course old people in your country are often ALREADY on health care.
Marijuana is legal in lots of countries with a socialized health care system. The Netherlands is the best example. Currently medicinal marijuana is legal in California and they have a privatized health care system. What's your point?
My point is that many don't want to be forced to pay for a treatment that is approved by government bureaucrats at the FDA.
Like other government systems, control will largely rest with who can lobby the most. Our government is run by private interests, and no longer the people through representative government.
Also, Health is related to how well a person lives. If you live healthy, you won't need the healthcare but will be forced to pay for it. There is no monetary incentive to live well.
Would you rather bow to the government, which is merely the intermediary between your health and taxpayer money to fund such health. Or would you rather bow to the economic interests of a bunch of rich CEO's, shareholders, and wealthy lobbyists who deny you health care simply to make a buck. Socialized health care works in other countries. Every other advanced industrialized nation has it. And their life expectancies are much higher than in the US, and their deficits are lower. What more???
Yeah, they've funded health care lobbyists because its private health insurance, not government health insurance. My point is that if government run health care was created, there'd be no lobbyists or CEO's getting rich off of patients.
"Yeah, they've funded health care lobbyists because its private health insurance, not government health insurance. My point is that if gov't run health care was created, there'd be no lobbyists or CEO's getting rich off of patients. "
The problem is, the CEO's already made their money. They have gamed the systems they've set up for so long that they're wealth is untouchable.
Now their agenda is not wealth, it's power over life because they have a dogmatic belief that Earth needs depopulation.
I also wonder if this healthcare bill will effectively abolish the private healthcare insurance industry. Cause really they wont be needed anymore, they would just be middlemen who receive guaranteed government subsidies.
But if they are allowed to remain doing business, influx of gov't contrived capital would essentially be limitless, prices would never deflate, and everyone would be forced into this system. This is antithetical to a free society.
"Would you rather bow to the government, which is merely the intermediary between your health and taxpayer money to fund such health."
@Xproletariatx Rereading the comments here, something dawned on me. Government, Healthcare insurers, nor doctors are responsible for your health... you are responsible and thats the way it MUST be.
To say they are the intermediary is to assume that disease is an accident or a conscious enemy, it isn't. An atheistic socialist should surely understand that.
Another big issue on this scheme is that at least with private healthcare private insurers people can withdraw from the fraudulent healthcare system if they want....
With this healthcare bill everyone must pay. There is no escaping government force. This is purely totalitarianism masquerading as for the people's benefit.
Many natural remedies exist for most of what ails you. Yet the corporate influences of the FDA ensure they won't be studied.
@ParapaDrifter So if you want to be like Tom Hanks in "Cast Away" and advocate survivalism as a means of obtaining whatever is necessary to subsist, then more power to you. But there are tremendously more efficient and easier ways to live. If we simply overthrew the monetary/capitalist system and harnessed the Earth's resources and controlled its distribution as democratically as possible then everything would be better.
LOL. There are already a bunch of suits on the hill who don't think your worth being helped. They're called presidents, senators and represenatives. They're funded by health care lobbyists in the millions so they can preserve as much of the market for the health care and pharmaceutical conglomerates while they preside over a health care system that leaves 50 million people uninsured. It's common sense. Privatized healthcare doesn't work, especially in a recessionary economy.
Universal healthcare will not work. I live outside of the US and in my country they have a compulsory healthcare system where it is a mandate to pay a fix percentage of your salary into your healthcare account till retirement. And this amount of money cannot ever be used for any other purpose, cannot be withdrawn, and has to remain in account till you die.
For many poor people who live by the day , who cannot even afford their daily expenses, being forced to contribute to this compulsory healthcare policy is devastating to them, may it be just 10-20% of their working salary. On top of it, they will have lots of regulation regarding on which areas, what kind of illness, which class ward A , B ,C you are 'allowed' to pay your medical bills with your healthcare savings.
Do not let the government take your money, it will only make you poorer. Once the money goes into that compulsory healthcare account its as good as gone. They will take steps slowly but surely, to impose restrictions on the account until such a time it becomes more a burden than help to the poor. I know this firsthand as this has already been implemented for near 10 years or more in my country.
We helped dismantle Medellín Cartel and its leader Pablo Escobar in Columbia which was in open war with the Colombian govt. Pablo Escobar was hunted down and killed like an astray dog in a garbage dump site and I enjoyed hearing the way he was hunted and put to to his appropriate place in history.
Mexico's Michoacán drug cartel La Familia issued a "peace" proposal to the Meixico's federal govt last week. I guess the Mexico govt should give that cartel a "peace" forever at a nice cemetery.
UnsavoryMen.......and HOW did Medellin Cartel and Pablo Escobar get so powerful in the first place????? DRUGS!!!
Prohibition is NOT the answer. Prohibition only creates more problems.
You really don't believe in liberty of freedom of the individual. YOU think that the people of this country are stupid and need the Federal Gov't to protect them.
DO YOU SMOKE CIGARETTES because they are legal????
UnsavoryMen.......Our founders intent was small/limited Federal government. They understood that not being able to simply print more money would be a measure of checks and balances that would keep government from growing out of control.
Ron Paul's HR 1207 is the most important issue of today.......
I want you to research Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.
This country was ruined with Keynesian philosophy and can be saved by the Austrian School.
OMG. Keynesian economics is what brought Germany, France out of recession, and its what's keeping the US economy afloat because its hanging by a thread. Why don't you criticize the last 30 years of neoliberal economics in the US which has produced a budget and trade deficit, stagnant wages, deregulation, market bubbles, low consumer demand, and skyrocketing debt.
"Why don't you criticize the last 30 years of neoliberal econ. in the US which has produced a budget and trade deficit, stagnant wages, deregulation, market bubbles, low consumer demand, and skyrocketing debt."
~Because these are just sympoms of the disease called Keynesian economics. It encourages gov't to wast and chase good money after poor investments.
Keynesian policies have pushed us onto the "thread" we hang by now.
Cure the disease, don't treat symptoms, numbskull.
You're the fucking numbskull. You should know that Keynesian economic policy and Neoliberal economic policy are diametrically opposed philosophies. The former is demand side, the latter is supply side. You should also know that the last 30 years of recessions, bubbles, debt, etc have occurred under neoliberal presidents with neoliberal economic teams who enacted neoliberal policies. Keynesianism lasted from the 30's to about 1982. Everybody knows that.
Can neoliberal policies be enacted without a fiat currency?
They might be opposed to one another but really the objective (and "disease") is centralized control over the money supply.
And know this our country has undergone a fascist shift, a merger of corporate and state power. -- It would be smart not to trust such a government with any sort of power, due to the effective lobbies that have wrested control over government policy.
@Xproletariatx And I looked up neoliberal, thanks for that word to look up. It seems to me to be Republicans masquerading as conservative. There definitely is an agenda to render gov'ts obsolete, or, rather to incorporate them into private industry.
The best way to combat this sort of hanky-panky shit being done by these people is to promote a strong individualism. I believe people still have innate strength, but coddling socialism is not the way to promote that. believe in the 2nd amendment.
@ParapaDrifter Here's the problem with individualism, its FALSE. You may think you're being as individualistic as possible, but in reality, there's no possible way for any person to survive solely on their own, and if they do, its in extremely exceptional circumstances which can be insurmountable at times. Every since homo sapiens have been around, we've always needed others to live. You may live in a small community and think you're doing everything by yourself, but it takes a whole community.
@Xproletariatx Individualism is about the government treating people as individual rather than groups. That is collectivism which is what we have now. Individualism doesn't mean living without any involvement from anyone else. You're putting a spin on something that should be common sense. Collectivism supports racism, war, and poverty. Idividualism supports personal responsibility and an end to the corporate monopoly.
@BudWithBeats76 Individualism is not realistic at all. It's merely an idealist view encouraged by a class of people who are actually collective in their own right, but they seek to eliminate all laws and regulations that subordinate the interests of one property owner to the interests of a collective group of people, like workers. It sounds politically radical at first, but when you think of it, its very draconian and elitist.
After working for Goodyear Tires for two decades actually it was one of her male co-workers who voluntarily disclosed his pay to Lilly Ledbetter and only then she know she was paid 40% less than her co-equal male counterparts (the pay information of fellow workers is typically confidential and unavailable for comparison).
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does NOT give any power to the govt (administration) to force private companies to act in a certain way.
The Act does NOT let govt to go snoop into pay checks of any employees at any companies for comparison NOR does it bring charges in behalf of an employee(s). The concerned employee(s) must bring complain to courts on their own.
The only thing the Act does is extend EXTEND the 180 day time limit to file complaint in courts by concerned employee(s).
Accidentally I clicked on "remove" instead of clicking "reply" on your last comment so dont accuse me of trying to shut you off.
When Ron Paul's mic shut off because of technical problem at one of those Congressional hearings he said, "They finally shut me off" which shows how hysteric he is.
UnsavoryMen....So, I ask you again: What if Goodyear had offered YOU a contract to work for them, you signed it, and worked for them for 10 years. Then, one day, you talked to a co-worker with the same title who started when you did, but started at a higher salary and has made more money than you.
Do you think that YOU should be able to sue for that money you lost out on?
Why should being a women, or old, or black, or fat make any difference? Wouldn't that "discriminate" against men?
The concerned employee(s) should have opportunity to bring merits of her/his case to the court if he/she feels he/she feels he/she has been wrongfully discriminated based on gender.
Based on facts on hand the courts will either decide in favor of plaintiff or dismiss the case all together.
Disgusting thing is that Ron Paul does not want to provide opportunity or severely limit the opportunity to present grievances in courts.
UnsavoryMen.....You never answered the question.....
Let's say you are a "white male." A PRIVATE company offers you a five year contract for 100K/year, you agree, and sign to accept their offer.
Five years later, a co-worker with the same title and responsibilities, who signed on when you did, says that he signed for a lot more money, and has thus made much more than you have.
Do you think that YOU should be able to GO TO COURT to get some of that money you "lost" back???????????
Regardless of how I might have signed an employment contract I or anyone else should absolutely have the opportunity to present the case to the courts.
If the court under prevailing laws sees that I have proved my case the courts will hand down a remedy for me and if the court sees that I have not proved my case my claim will be dismissed. It is simple as that.
I absolutely hate Ron Paul's notion that people should not even be allowed to present their case to courts.
I will file a suit against any employer even if I willingly signed an employment contract if the employer acted in bad faith or hide important facts and if those facts come into light later on. There is word for it. It is called FRAUD.
Since you seem to suggest that you will abide by any contracts you signed willingly even though it later turns out to be a fraudulent contract well I might have an opportunity make some money off of you with fraudulent contract with no legal liabilities.
UnsavoryMen...The Life expectancy for EVERYBODY went up about 10 years in tthat time, so once again, you have chosen a strawman that doesn't work.
You are wrong. If we have a "government option," it will get rid of health insurance companies. That is not "competition." It is more like the Raider vs Patriots, but the Patriots make the rules and officiate the game.
In terms of COST, why shouldn't VETERINARY MEDICINE be the model for our health care, with government out of
By your standards (not mine) the founding fathers would have rolled over their graves to see Ron Paul ask Federal govt get involved in funding FEMA programs.
Where in the US Constitution does it say the govt should get involved in FEMA programs ?
UnsavoryMen...The founders would not support FEMA. Neither does Ron Paul. He says we should get rid of it.
But, again, the Federal Gov't took his constituents' money, by FORCE, and they SHOULD try to get that money back!!!
His district includes Galveston, TX. They are extremely prone to hurricanes. Should they have their money TAKEN BY FORCE from the Feds, and then be expected to pay for the emergencies, too?
Katrina showed us that you don't want the Federal Gov't in charge of that.
So the best way devised by Ron Paul to get rid of FEMA is to fund it even more.
Ron Paul took over 70 million $ this year (FY 2009) alone from the US Congress to fund FEMA programs according to Houston Chronicle (his home state newspaper).
UnsavoryMen......Ron Paul didn't take 70 million dollars. That money was requested by his constituents!!!
You simply don't understand how the system works (either did Tim Russert).
You would rather see the Federal Gov't take, by FORCE, the money from the people of Texas' 14 district, and then spend ALL of THEIR money the way the Federal Gov't sees fit???
Did his constituents send him to Congress to vote against their own interests ?
Isnt it the interest of his constituents to get back the money they paid in taxes ? If so, why did Ron Paul vote against desire of his constituents in trying to get their money back ?
By the way let me tell you something. Govt has been giving 160 billion $ a year in subsidy to private health insurance companies.
When the govt stops giving that 160 billion dollars a year to these private insurers like your Blue Cross (which Obama has planned to do ) I wonder where these insurance companies will raise the money to make up the difference after the loss of govt subsidy.
I guess the most obvious target is client like you.
I totally agree with you, the govt should get out of health care when it come to subsidizing private health insurance companies. Let these companies fend out for themselves. If they are good enough they will survive no matter what happens, if not they will have a proper place in history books
How can you guarantee that Obama wont continue subsidizing BIG Business private health insurance companies and BIG Pharma through its own version of bailouts.
when you we have a government that bailed out BIG Banks, BIG auto companies, credit card companies, commercial mortgages of irresponsible corporations while responsible corporations cant take market share via TARP, TALF .
HR1207; if we Ever audit the FED we might now Why Goledmen Sachs is So Golden presently
UnsavoryMen....The founders limited the Federal Gov't with the Constiution so they would not grow too big, and then come after the people's money (their property) to pay for its expansion.
The founders would "roll over in their graves" at the thought of a Personal Income Tax, or the IRS. They would cringe at Social Security or Medicare/Medicade.
If you don't agree with me, then you are just not being honest with yourself in order to support you own view.
This video is bullshit. Dr. Paul correctly states that our "crisis" in health care is one of costs. So, that is what we need to find out. Why does it cost so much more in the U.S.?
The "costs" in health care have skyrocketed since the HMO Act of 1973, passed by our Congress. The "costs" were NOT out of control before this Act, and the costs havev actually SKYROCKETED ever since>
Please READ "Free Market Medicine" by Ron Paul, or WATCH "20/20 Sick in America."
UnsavoryMen....So, you were wrong: "choice" has nothing to do with it.
It is about "cost." Why is our health care SO expensive?
Answer this question: Was health care affordable in this country before the HMO Act of 1973 (when our government got involved)? and Has health care costs skyrocketed ever since?
You probably won't answer, and that will speak volumes.
You have a choice of 100s of Ferrari dealers out there to choose from. Can you use any Ferrari(s) out there sitting at parking lots of those dealers unless you can afford to buy one ?
For 47 million Americans, health insurance is just like a Ferrari. There are 100 of place to buy from but cant afford any of them.
So denying some individuals (47 million) of health care so other individuals can have it. Is not a rationing or have you invented your own definition of "RATIONING" just like Ron Paul does so often ?
I presume you were living from 1776 to 1972 to know exactly how affordable was health care then.
Free-market as defined by Ron Paul has existed in only one country so far. It is in Somalia since early 1990s. In the US free-market has existed in only one sector, that is Derivatives market. There has never been a single regulation till this day governing
Derivatives market.
IF you didnt know about either Somalia or US Derivatives market do some research of your own.
Both Ron Paul and you are too blind to see and recognize the fact that removing 47 million Americans completely out of line to provide rest of the population access to health care is somehow not a rationing.
Study what rationing is before you write something stupid.
UnsavoryMen......The government does, and should not control health care. Therefore, they CANNOT ration it, you moron.
Show me in the Constitution where "health care" is a right? If the founders felt that way they would have done it themselves!
That 47 Million number includes some 15 million that make over 50k and choose not to have coverage, and some 15 million who could use medicare/medicade but have not enrolled.
and you want to FORCE me to pay for everybody to have coverage????
The private medical practitioners provide 80% of the primary healthcare services while the government polyclinics provide the remaining 20%. The aim is to keep fees for consultation and treatment at an affordable level. For the more costly hospital care, it is the reverse situation with 80% of the hospital care being provided by the public sector and the remaining 20% by the private sector.
How? the Singaporean study proves him right, the less spending the government does or not at all equals better health results. Even France spends less then US, less, less.
Unless someone is willing to dispute Singapore's budgetary and health data, it looks like we've got strong counter-evidence to this view that government spending leads to better health care.
There are more uninsured Americans now, then before we had HMOS and medicare. More Spending has equaled a disaster
I dont know whose point are you trying to prove. It seems like you are trying to prove my point. Canada spends almost 50% less per person on health care (about 10 % of its GDP vs 16% of GDP of the US) and almost every health indicators of Canadian citizens in almost every category is better than that of the US. Conference Board of Canada an independent study group has done some study on health indicators of about 17 richest nations in the world in this matter.
UnsavoryMen.....Canada spends less per person via RATIONING health care. They have made certain cancer drugs illegal, for example.
Again, the U.S. has the BEST health care in the World!!!! Like RP says, it is a "cost" issue. You don't acknowledge what the HMO Act of 1973 did to the free market.
Besides, if you have money in Canada, and you get really sick, your first thought is, "I'm going to the U.S. to get the best treatment I can find." That says it all.
Your proving my point, and Ron Pauls by the way, were we both argue, less government spending equals better community health results,
Singapore a great case, spends less then its citizens and private insurers and succeeds in the most cost effective system delivering the best health results.
Not even France can compete to its efficiency.; in those terms while France the spends more takes a subsidized loss that Singapore never does, France also has a much better sustained economy then US.
If Canada shows that socialized medicine can save a few percent of GDP without hurting health
Singapore shows that the free lunch offered by greater government control is meager compared to the free lunch offered by? old individual incentives of saving and paying out of pocket for expenses is better
Actually paying for their health care if they want to pick their doctor, better room, ward amenities
Since HMO Act Family Doctors are a dying breed, including once populous hospices in churches
There is also a good interview of Ron Paul on Health Care in 1980s on CNN when he was in his youth, his opinion are the same as then, the problems he debated with anchor have only compounded themselves today presently
The "costs" in health care have skyrocketed since the HMO Act of 1973, passed by our Congress. The "costs" were NOT out of control before this Act, and the costs havev actually SKYROCKETED ever since>
@IPOMonsturd, is correct, Americans once had affordable coverage.
Why would it not skyrocket when there is a such a fractured health care system, when insurance companies typically spend 25-30% of their budget on bureaucracy and corporate profits instead of spending on prevention and cure of actual patients.
UnsavoryMen.......Most importantly, what right does the government have to take money from me, BY FORCE, and give it to somebody else?
You probably call yourself a "liberal." That word means "pertaining to freedom."
But, at its core, liberalism is about FORCE. Before liberals can do something like "universal health care," they must first FORCE the people to pay for it.
I'm sure you will say it is ok because we are "only going to FORCE the rich to pay for it"?
Actually I should be asking Ron Paul this question. Why is he taking my money (taxes) to spend on his shitty Congressional district. I dont live in his Congressional district nor do I live in his state. Why should I pay for his shitty district in pork spending which I will never have opportunity to use at all.
Maybe you should ask why Barack Obama is going to FORCE my money from my pocket in order to give it to people I don't want to give it to?
I have my own insurance. Why am I being FORCED to pay for somebody else?
At its core, "liberalism" is about FORCE. In order to expand government and "do good things," you must first FORCE the money from people who might not want to do it.
UnsavoryMen..............The "pork" money you talk about him taking is THEIR MONEY!!!! It was taken by FORCE from them in the first place.
For you information, I believe Texas' 14 District is bigger than the entire state of Massachusetts.
I do think it is ironic that you ask why you should have to pay for other people (even though they are taking back their money), when you are eager to have me pay for health care, soc security, and welfare for others.
UnsavoryMen..........Let's start from scratch. To do that, we must first understand each others political philosophy.
I believe we should follow the Constitution and the intent of the founders: Limited government, Low Taxation, Maximum Individual Liberty. The Oath of Office is to 'defend and protect" these principles.
Do you support the intent of the Constitution, and what is your political philosophy?
It would help to know who you voted for and why (I voted for Ron Paul).
Where in the Constitution does it say the govt has to get involved in shrimp marketing as Ron Paul asked govt to do in 2007. I'm applying your standard not mine over here.
You talk about "Maximum Individual Liberty" here, well..first of all someone has to be physically alive or medically healthy to enjoy all or any of those "Maximum Individual Liberty" 18,000 a year wont have that opportunity simply because of lack of health insurance because the cost is beyond their reach.
UnsavoryMen...........You still haven't answered my question, but.........
The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.
Therefore, if the people of that district want to spend money on "shrimp marketing," that is THEIR business, using THEIR money that was taken from them, by FORCE, from the Federal Gov't.
UnsavoryMen.....You refuse to look at WHY the cost of health care is out of control.
If the founding fathers believed that being "medically healthy" was a prerequisite for enjoying liberty, they would have declared that the gov't is required to provide health care to the people.
The fact is that a very high percentage of people would be able to afford medical care if the government never got involved where it should not have.
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.
When Americans have to pay 25-30% on overhead on top of actual patient care on such thing as marketing, bureaucracy, profit why would it not be out of reach for so many Americans.
There are lots of things that has not been explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution such as federally funded shrimp marketing.
UnsavoryMen.......I voted for Ron Paul, who believes in Limited Gov't, Low Taxation, and Maximum Individual Liberty, and non-interventionist foreign policy....
YOUR BOY, Obama: Biggest expansion of Gov't EVER, Taxation and Inflation up the ass, voted for Patriot Act and FISA bill, and is spending as much, if not more money on our foreign empire/warfare.
YOUR BOY, Obama, is doing the evil things Bush did, but on steroids!!!!!
Ron Paul who requested and spent almost half a billion dollars for his district alone in a single year should not be preaching others about low taxation. I also paid for his pork spending through my taxes for his shitty district.
I'm not interested in Ron Paul's idea of making America an anarcho-capitalist government-free society like Somalia (since early 1990s).
Since you fall in the top 5% among all Americans according to your yearly earnings (based on your claim that you pay 1/3 of your yearly income on Federal taxes) I can understand why you want to advocate for lowering taxes for the richest Americans like yourself.
UnsavoryMen.....Ron Paul says, "we should follow the Constitution." By definition, that means he believes in government, although limited, as the Constitution prescribes.
I am not rich. I believe that health care should be affordable for EVERYBODY.
It should be provided in a free market, just like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE is.
Again, I am challenging you to show me how that is wrong!!!!
I dont get locked up in rigid ideology like you do or Ron Paul does. I dont have closed mind like you have or Ron Paul has. I look at the evidence available not in this country but from around the world.
By the way I dont prescribe to self-isolationist philosophy of Ron Paul. This is not 16th century.
Pork spending freak like Ron Paul should not be preaching others about taxation or spending just like Gov. Mark Standford should not be preaching others about "family values"
UnsavoryMen.....I don't hear you talking about how YOUR BOY Obama is spending our money like it grows on trees.
It's subscribe, not prescribe, and the fact that you don't know the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist again shows how ignorant you are.
So, you think that the Federal Government should be able to decide how to spend all the money they FORCE me to give them, and not allow my representative to get some of that money back for me?
Even though I have major disagreements with Obama on major social issues like gay marriage, bank bailouts and even on health care. I'm not critical of him on spending and tax because unlike Ron Paul, he DID NOT campaigned for fiscal restraint or reducing tax burden on the wealthiest and did entirely the opposite thing when he got elected.
UnsavoryMen.....So, Obama "DID NOT campaign for fiscal restraint" (which is what we needed) and you STILL voted for him even though our country was broke and the economy was in the shitter???
Good job. That is is mightily MORONIC logic, there, buddy.
No, Obama never campaigned on fiscal restraint or reducing tax burden on the richest. He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Regardless of if you agree with this policy or not he kept his promise on this issue.
I may or may not agree on policy positions of any politicians but they have to keep the promise to whoever they are promising to on whatever issue they talked about.
UnsavoryMen.....So, again, this country was OUT OF MONEY and experiencing a massive RECESSION, and you thought that you would vote for the guy that was going to come in and head the largest expansion of the Federal Gov't, EVER?
Yeah, that is really smart. You must have an amazing political philosophy! How fiscally responsible of you.
We ran at much higher debt vs GDP ratio at the end of WW2 than what it is now. Which only suggests that we are not in as bad position as we were at the end of WW2.
It only suggest that Ron Paul and his supporters are simply unsure about themselves, totally lack confidence on themselves and dead scared of trying anything bold.
UnsavoryMen....That might be factually true, but that was after coming out of the Depression, Fighting a World War, and Rebuilding Germany and Japan.
Most importantly, the gov't then DECREASED SPENDING (Obama?), CUT TAXES (Obama?), SAVED MONEY, and was the biggest PRODUCER/MANUFACTURER in the world!!!
Now, we are the biggest DEBTOR nation, we are over-taxed, we don't save money, and we spend ALL our money on IPODS and toys.
You are not going to give me a "lesson" on economics or WW2.
UnsavoryMen.............So, I follow the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers......and you consider that "rigid ideology"?????
LMFAO
You think that the founding fathers would say OK to working 1/3 of the year to pay for the size of government we have today?? Hell, the American Revolution was fought over taxation that was a small percentage of what it is today.
But, I'm sure YOUR BOY OBAMA's ideology is better for America than Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison's.
Since you mentioned that you pay 1/3 of your yearly income in taxes to the Federal Govt which means you fall in the top 5% of the entire population based on your yearly earning. You should have no problem paying for the best health care plans available.
Now I totally understand why you are not worried about getting health insurance no matter how expensive it might be.
UnsavoryMen..............When all is said and done, most of us pay around 30% in federal taxes. I am certainly not in the top 5% of wage earners. I consider myself "middle class." I have private Blue Cross insurance which is $160/month.
Because our government has destoyed the free-marke in health care via medicare, medicade, and the HMO Act of 1973, I am FORCED to pay this money every month to protect myself from the INSANE cost of out-of-control health care in this country.
Blue Cross must be really grateful towards you for paying about 50 $ out of your 160 $ a month premium for financing their unnecessary non-health care related items like marketing bureaucracy, complicated paperwork, profits etc
UnsavoryMen.......That might be true, but if the government hadn't interfered in the free market of health care, we would not be beholden to insurance companies in the first place.
Our health care should bbe affordable, and paid for like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE, but you "conveniently" havn't answered me regarding that.
UnsavoryMen......We don't have to pay $160/month for pet insurance because the government is not involved, and the free market insures that competition will keep costs down.
UnsavoryMen.....I was just watching "20/20 Sick in America," and there was a great point:
The best example of affordable, free-market medicine, is VETERINARIAN MEDICINE. The government has NOTHING to do with it, the medicine is just a complicated, the cost is affordable (and you can get insurance), and one can get an appointment usually within a week.
This is a perfect example of how our medical care should work, and how government intervention has a negative outcome.
I assume that you are putting out your VETERINARIAN MEDICINE example because you see the value of human health (therefore human life) being similar to that of animals like cats, dogs, rabbits, parrots etc.
It is kinda very strange to hear that the someone who values the life of animals (in this case your dog) as important as life of human beings has total disregard for life of other human beings just because some other human beings cant afford to pay for health care insurance of whom 18,000 will needlessly die each year in this country.
UnsavoryMen....Do you deny that before our government got involved in health care it worked like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE does today?
How many of those "18,000" would not have died if our government had not ruined the free market in health care and it was affordable..... Like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE is today?
I dont know how much the govt involvement in health care insurance in every developed nation (except the US) have ruined their health care system. May be the govts of those nations have ruined their health care system by providing care to every citizens in their nation at much more lower cost (than the US) with much better on short-term and long-term health outcomes than the US.
U.S. health care like it use to be in this country, affordable, and run by the free market like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE is today..or
Run by the government, which translate to more bureaucracy and expansion of government, which leads to massive tax increases and rationing of the most expensive services to keep costs down?
Private health insurance in the US is far more rationed than any govt run health care program. Private health insurance is rationed not just one way but several ways.
Do you think they will make profit without giving you as little care (rationing) as possible ?
Do you think they will disregard the cost of treating by enrolling those who have preconditions (rationing) ?
Isnt enrolling only the ones who are young and healthy again a rationing ?
UnsavoryMen...The Life expectancy for EVERYBODY went up about 10 years in tthat time, so once again, you have chosen a strawman that doesn't work.
You are wrong. If we have a "government option," it will get rid of health insurance companies. That is not "competition." It is more like the Raider vs Patriots, but the Patriots make the rules and officiate the game.
In terms of COST, why shouldn't VETERINARY MEDICINE be the model for our health care, with government out of the picture?
Up till now private insurers have made rules for themselves. What gives them any moral authority to make rules for themselves so they can play rough shots with health (therefore lives) of their own client(s) ? What gives them any moral authority to drop people out of their rolls in the middle of a treatment when they feel treating their own client(s) is gonna hurt their bottom line ?
UnsavoryMen........You have made it clear that you don't care to follow the Constitution and the founders intent of limited government.
The Federal gov't should combat fraud, but when it sticks its nose into business it destroys the free market.
Besides, you still don't get that these EVIL health care companies are byproducts of the gov't being in health care via Medicare, Medicade, and the HMO Act of1973.
You clearly don't see why Health Insurance Co's have grown in cahoots with gov't.
If lives of animals like cats, dogs, rabbits were equally valuable as of humans. I'm petty sure people would be losing sleep over the cost of paying for health insurance of animals. In that case most likely your employer would be chopping a portion of your paycheck to pay for health insurance of your pets in addition to health insurance of your own. Most likely Blue Cross would have seized an opportunity to to make a buck out of pet health care insurance.
UnsavoryMen.....What??? Why would my employer have anything to do with the health of my pet?? See, that is what the HMO Act of 1973 did. It formed the ILLOGICAL coupling of employer to employee's insurance.
VETERINARY MEDICINE is a perfect example of FREE MARKET MEDICINE. And ONLY if the government got involved would it lose its free market principles, insurance co's wold run rampant, and the costs would grow out of control.
The Life expectancy for EVERYBODY went up except that the infant mortality rate went up in this decade for the first time in the last 45 years of so.
World Health Organization which takes infant mortality as the single most vital indicator (for obvious reasons) among all other health indicators of any nation when ranking the state of health care system of any nation in the world.
The US is far behind every other developed nation in the world in this most vital category.
UnsavoryMen.............You said that Medicare was the reason old people lived 10 years longer today than they did before Medicare.
I like how you changed the subject. So, I wll too:
Do you support the killing of fetuses/babies by way of abortion? You seem to put so much emphasis on "infant mortality rate," but I would be willing to bet that you are OK with the killing of fetuses/babies inside the womb.
By the way, did you notice that Ron Paul is so close minded that he still thinks women should not get equal pay as men do for the same job at the same capacity. He voted against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act early this year.
I dont wonder why there is such a gigantic gender gap when its comes to supporting Ron Paul's wacko ideas.
PRIVATE companies should be able to pay WHOMEVER they want, WHATEVER they want. GOODYEAR is a PRIVATE COMPANY!!!
What if I were to tell you that she didn't do as good a job as her counterparts with the same title? Do you think she should be paid as much just because she is a woman???? Bullshit
You have proven over and over again that YOU DON'T CARE what the Constitution says. You don't respect private property or individual rights.
1 First of all the NBA and WNBA are both franchises which means even though teams play in the respective leagues NBA or WNBA do not own the teams.
2 Each individual team is the employer of players not NBA or WNBA.
3 There is no mixed gender team in NBA or WNBA
4 WNBA and NBA fall in entertainment industry
therefore whoever draws more audience (therefore more revenue) gets paid more which very different from lets say an airline pilot or a factory supervisor or an office administrator.
Lilly Ledbetter (therfore Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act) worked for 19 years at Goodyear Tire plant. She worked as one of plant supervisors. Most likely the plant she was working at had several shifts just as most manufacturing plants do. She was paid about 40% less than other male supervisors working in the same capacity as she did. It very possible that the guys
I see very little to compare Lilly Ledbetter's case to compare with WNBA. She and her male colleges were working for the same employer in the same capacity doing the same kind of job. In the case of NBA and WNBA, NBA and WNBA are not even employers of players in the first place.
UnsavoryMen.......Over the course of many years, Goodyear offered Lilly Ledbetter an employment that paid her far less than contracts made with men performing the same or similar duties. At the time, she VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED the CONTRACTS, clearly meaning that she thought the salary was an acceptable payment for her services.
Goodyear is a PRIVATE company. They should have the right to pay WHOMEVER, WHATEVER they want to .
She should have gone elsewhere if she thought it not fair.
UnsavoryMen.....You continue to show that you don't care what the Constitution says, or how a free market works!!!!
I am a man. I have had situtations where I worked with SOME women who had the same title and responsibilities, but simply did not do as good a job, and I made more money (and some did a better job and made more than me!)
The reality is that Lilly Ledbetter signed a CONTRACT with Goodyear that meant she ACCEPTED the amount offered to her.
Lilly Ledbetter signed and accepted a CONTRACT does not give employers a free pass TO HIDE the most important aspect of the contract (her pay in relation to her co-worker workers working in the same capacity).
Let me know if there is any provision in the US Constitution that says contracts signed with false pretense will be protected.
UnsavoryMen...........FRAUDULENT contract are something the government should protect.....
But there is NOTHING fraudulent about a person agreeing on a wage for their services, with an employer, and signing a contract. They are certainly not obligated to tell her what everybody else makes!
Besides, you never answered my question: What if she simply DID NOT do as good of a job as her male counterparts? Should she still get paid as much, just to "be fair to women"?
The govt not only has a right to control fraud it has obligation to do so. If anarchy and chaos is the ultimate goal of you and Ron Paul well it has no place in civilized societies.
Your belief that women will not do a good job as men do therefore should be paid less even before the job begins (at the time of signing contract) is simply disgusting
Contracts are signed at the beginning of a job before he or she has any opportunity to show he or she can do better job than his/her peers
also one must taken into account the unhealthy products that is being pushed on americans things like fluoride in public water supplies, aspartame, GMO food products, including things that other countries have banned outright due to its harmful effects on the population....some refer to this as the "eugenics agenda" i just it as the "establishment"(mostly the people behind the scenes) trying to harm us and make us sick and thus dependent, unproductive...
ilovealexjones1 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
alot of the problems with our medicine in this country, is the fact that doctors seem to practice REACTIVE medicine..they are not adequately taught about proper nutrition and other preventive actions a patient could take...instead the system is LARGELY FUNDED by pharmaceutical companies who have EVERYTHING to gain from reactive medicine.
ilovealexjones1 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I still can't find the lies on Paul's behalf. PEOPLE! Just because some can't afford health care doesn't mean we strap a bomb to everyone else. In this time of economic recession EVERYTHING seems hard. It's what people focus on that can bring us down or lead us astray. Short term fixes won't help anything.
tubaeli93 4 months ago
Wow! Do we honestly think that Ron Paul supporters watched this video? If they did, dont you think that they would address the facts presented within it? The comments here are just seven pages full of cheer leading. In America its Go Team and Fuck the Facts! Its actually possible for savior Ronnie to be wrong about some shit. He has no answer for the millions of uninsured Americans and he shows it every time he chooses to talk about it.
Ikeula75 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CALL AMERICAN PEOPLE INVADERS AND INITIATORS OF WARS.
RON PAUL SAID THE USA INVADES COUNTRIES AND STARTS WARS, WHICH GIVES USA A BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD , THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME . A US CITIZEN WHO
WAS BORN IN USA CANT GO AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH MIGHT TREATEN THE FUTURE
OF THE COUNTRYS SECURITY .
RON PAUL WILL BE PROSECUTED BY US GOVERNMENT!
democratsaresmart 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All of your videos expose you as a collectivist. Not a free-market advocate. Therefore I consider you my enemy or foolish dupe of the left. Which is it?
Besides the fact that I disagree with your biased, incomplete and twisted political loyalties, you do have good skills at video production. Too bad you cannot see the errors of your ways and come over the side of freedom and liberty for the individual. True freedom is not without its problems but it beats your communist style collectivism!
nalejbank 8 months ago
The interviewer is an asshole.He's a liberal version of O'Riley.
MrSafetymeeting 1 year ago
it seems xproletariatx is an operative. He hasn't replied with anything since the passing of the Healthcare bill. Almost as if his effort is no longer needed.
There are secret agendas at play here people. These fraudsters are at war with the people. They want depopulation, they want you dead or under their thumb.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
@ParapaDrifter LOL im a operative? OMG, im just a regular 24 year old guy living in NY. You guys are way too paranoid.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"LOL im a operative? OMG, im just a regular 24 year old guy living in NY. You guys are way too paranoid. "
Hah.. it got your attention thou didn't it?...
"As democratically as possible"
~ what a wonderful utopia you advocate, do you think rule by mob won't give way to elites "Manufacturing Consent"?
Marx's books were paid for by wealthy industrialists... If you want to have a communist society, do it in your own community, don't expect everyone else to capitulate to your system.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
Excellent video. I particularly liked the grilling there done by kucinich. :)
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
Do we actually believe that the price of health care will go down if the federal government takes it over? Haha not likely.
I think we all know that the federal government wants to suck our pocketbooks dry.
I agree with ParpaDrifter, "There is no monetary incentive to live well"!
For people that don't want health insurance, the special interests will just line their pockets with the fines they will charge us.
TheSilencer1313 2 years ago
Give him props on the "Audit the Fed" legislation (though even there, strictly in terms of his seeing a problem and not his crazy "solutions"). Ron Paul is a guy full to bursting with shitty ideas.
He's a social Darwinist little pigfucker.
terpis 2 years ago
"...on the "Audit the Fed" legislation (though even there, strictly in terms of his seeing a problem and not his crazy "solutions"). Ron Paul is full of shitty ideas.
What good is knowing a problem exists without positing a solution?
He's a social Darwinist little pigfucker. "
What are you implying here? That social darwinism would go if everything was provided for you? Running to gov't for your safety is not the answer, you are. Be an individual and you will retain your freedom.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
and for god sakes our healthcare in america is so corrupt at the top, allopathic madicine is a sham and has been tsince the making of the AMA, they don't want a cure and they sure as hell don't want it if they can't patent it, all they want is to squeeze as much money outta of the people, if u have or know any one with cancer, hear disease,
diatbetes...etc..., go to gerson institute, or on the west coast go to hippocrates institute/ holistic or naturopaths now the way ask for ther patients #'s
p00huge 2 years ago
ok the guy that posted this video is just a hater of Ron Paul/ did any of u guys see his backround and profile pick he likes the satans spawn, dick cheney has done some of the most terrible shit in this world broken the law numerous times/ and a new healthcare system is out of the ques. america can't aford it the us debt clock is already at 12 trillion, its gonna cost trillions more to do this program if any of you know how the fed reserve works its a failing sys, we have a way bigger problem!
p00huge 2 years ago
Insurance was originally invented to protect property, not health. That goes for both private and state health care. I think private charity would be the best way to distribute wealth to pay for the health care of the poor. The State demands your pay, the insurance can deny, but private charity is voluntary, and must do it's job or people won't give.
timetraveler3797 2 years ago
Does it really matter what insurance was originally intended for when someone needs urgent health care ?
Sickness, disease and death does care what insurance was originally intended for.
CanadianRockies2005 2 years ago
Yes, many people have trouble geting or affording insurance because of it's structure.
timetraveler3797 2 years ago
"Does it really matter what insurance was originally intended for when someone needs urgent health care ?
Sickness, disease and death does care what insurance was originally intended for. "
It never has.
Healthcare also used to be affordable. but over years of impoverishing government policies. The people are broke, the free market has been abolished, raising costs. Why is more gov't the answer?
What does the clique "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" mean to you?
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
It's still cost us 10% of our GOP compared to 16% from te U.S.
Bleusilences 2 years ago
Sign...
This is old. Single payer = Lottery of death. No thank you.
st4ticblu3 2 years ago
Wondering ever used single payer ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Have you?
I know what it is. I know politicians in countries with single payer come to the US to get medical attention they can not get in their own country.
I know people living with single payer health care come to the US to get treatment they are denied in their homeland because they are old or it's just not their turn.
Sorry, don't want to die when I am 60 because a bunch of suits on the hill don't think I am worth being helped because I'm old.
st4ticblu3 2 years ago
Dumb ass like you who have never used single payer health care system has the most to complain about single payer.
Because of my history with my health, in your system no private insurer would even bother insuring me unless I pay very high premiums.
So you would rather want a bunch of Wall Street types decide if you can get insurance based on if they can take out profit off of you to their private bank accounts rather than if they can cure your health problem.
CanadianRockies2005 2 years ago
well when I got cancer, my city held a benefit for me. So if we'd lower taxes, people would be more willing to donate.
Fuck bureaucracy. It's just another scheme to loot our paychecks. Exactly like social security.
Besides, most diseases can be cured cheaply and natually, so national healthcare is a subsidy for big pharma's influence on how people treat themselves, since they pay for it through the bogus tax.
I SAY LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE BUREAUCRATS!
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
I live in canada and my grandmother had cancer, she had no insurance and didn't paid a dime for it. Now she is healed and feel at lot better. She is 79.
Bleusilences 2 years ago
Marijuana Cures cancer. The socialized healthcare would never approve of such an effective treatment, that is an example of how overregulated our healthcare system is.
There will come a time in your system when a grandmother gets cancer, then she will be put down because the system "cant" afford her.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
Marijuana as been use as a treatment in Canada as a painkiller since the late 90s. As a Canadian I see you're system as under regulated, where people are denied or drop of their insurance at the first sign. Of course old people in your country are often ALREADY on health care.
Bleusilences 2 years ago
Marijuana is legal in lots of countries with a socialized health care system. The Netherlands is the best example. Currently medicinal marijuana is legal in California and they have a privatized health care system. What's your point?
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
My point is that many don't want to be forced to pay for a treatment that is approved by government bureaucrats at the FDA.
Like other government systems, control will largely rest with who can lobby the most. Our government is run by private interests, and no longer the people through representative government.
Also, Health is related to how well a person lives. If you live healthy, you won't need the healthcare but will be forced to pay for it. There is no monetary incentive to live well.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
So simply, we people must bow to government and get the okay from them to pursue our own treatment!!! This is not conducive to freedom.
It's legal status is not the issue, government control of natural, unpatented, substances are.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
Would you rather bow to the government, which is merely the intermediary between your health and taxpayer money to fund such health. Or would you rather bow to the economic interests of a bunch of rich CEO's, shareholders, and wealthy lobbyists who deny you health care simply to make a buck. Socialized health care works in other countries. Every other advanced industrialized nation has it. And their life expectancies are much higher than in the US, and their deficits are lower. What more???
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
"Would you rather bow to the government, which is merely the intermediary between your health and taxpayer money to fund such health."
"merely an intermediary" Can you honestly say that? ---You've said it yourself, "They're funded by health care lobbyists in the millions"
Bow to gov't or rich CEO's.... There is no difference in our fascist society.
I would rather bow to myself and my local community. I don't need federal money and would appreciate not being stolen from by them.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
Yeah, they've funded health care lobbyists because its private health insurance, not government health insurance. My point is that if government run health care was created, there'd be no lobbyists or CEO's getting rich off of patients.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
"Yeah, they've funded health care lobbyists because its private health insurance, not government health insurance. My point is that if gov't run health care was created, there'd be no lobbyists or CEO's getting rich off of patients. "
The problem is, the CEO's already made their money. They have gamed the systems they've set up for so long that they're wealth is untouchable.
Now their agenda is not wealth, it's power over life because they have a dogmatic belief that Earth needs depopulation.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
I also wonder if this healthcare bill will effectively abolish the private healthcare insurance industry. Cause really they wont be needed anymore, they would just be middlemen who receive guaranteed government subsidies.
But if they are allowed to remain doing business, influx of gov't contrived capital would essentially be limitless, prices would never deflate, and everyone would be forced into this system. This is antithetical to a free society.
Besides there are better alternatives.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
"Would you rather bow to the government, which is merely the intermediary between your health and taxpayer money to fund such health."
@Xproletariatx Rereading the comments here, something dawned on me. Government, Healthcare insurers, nor doctors are responsible for your health... you are responsible and thats the way it MUST be.
To say they are the intermediary is to assume that disease is an accident or a conscious enemy, it isn't. An atheistic socialist should surely understand that.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
Another big issue on this scheme is that at least with private healthcare private insurers people can withdraw from the fraudulent healthcare system if they want....
With this healthcare bill everyone must pay. There is no escaping government force. This is purely totalitarianism masquerading as for the people's benefit.
Many natural remedies exist for most of what ails you. Yet the corporate influences of the FDA ensure they won't be studied.
WISE UP! YOU PEOPLE!
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
@ParapaDrifter So if you want to be like Tom Hanks in "Cast Away" and advocate survivalism as a means of obtaining whatever is necessary to subsist, then more power to you. But there are tremendously more efficient and easier ways to live. If we simply overthrew the monetary/capitalist system and harnessed the Earth's resources and controlled its distribution as democratically as possible then everything would be better.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
LOL. There are already a bunch of suits on the hill who don't think your worth being helped. They're called presidents, senators and represenatives. They're funded by health care lobbyists in the millions so they can preserve as much of the market for the health care and pharmaceutical conglomerates while they preside over a health care system that leaves 50 million people uninsured. It's common sense. Privatized healthcare doesn't work, especially in a recessionary economy.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
Universal healthcare will not work. I live outside of the US and in my country they have a compulsory healthcare system where it is a mandate to pay a fix percentage of your salary into your healthcare account till retirement. And this amount of money cannot ever be used for any other purpose, cannot be withdrawn, and has to remain in account till you die.
aurorasnow 1 year ago
For many poor people who live by the day , who cannot even afford their daily expenses, being forced to contribute to this compulsory healthcare policy is devastating to them, may it be just 10-20% of their working salary. On top of it, they will have lots of regulation regarding on which areas, what kind of illness, which class ward A , B ,C you are 'allowed' to pay your medical bills with your healthcare savings.
aurorasnow 1 year ago
Do not let the government take your money, it will only make you poorer. Once the money goes into that compulsory healthcare account its as good as gone. They will take steps slowly but surely, to impose restrictions on the account until such a time it becomes more a burden than help to the poor. I know this firsthand as this has already been implemented for near 10 years or more in my country.
aurorasnow 1 year ago
We helped dismantle Medellín Cartel and its leader Pablo Escobar in Columbia which was in open war with the Colombian govt. Pablo Escobar was hunted down and killed like an astray dog in a garbage dump site and I enjoyed hearing the way he was hunted and put to to his appropriate place in history.
Mexico's Michoacán drug cartel La Familia issued a "peace" proposal to the Meixico's federal govt last week. I guess the Mexico govt should give that cartel a "peace" forever at a nice cemetery.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......and HOW did Medellin Cartel and Pablo Escobar get so powerful in the first place????? DRUGS!!!
Prohibition is NOT the answer. Prohibition only creates more problems.
You really don't believe in liberty of freedom of the individual. YOU think that the people of this country are stupid and need the Federal Gov't to protect them.
DO YOU SMOKE CIGARETTES because they are legal????
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......Our founders intent was small/limited Federal government. They understood that not being able to simply print more money would be a measure of checks and balances that would keep government from growing out of control.
Ron Paul's HR 1207 is the most important issue of today.......
I want you to research Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.
This country was ruined with Keynesian philosophy and can be saved by the Austrian School.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
OMG. Keynesian economics is what brought Germany, France out of recession, and its what's keeping the US economy afloat because its hanging by a thread. Why don't you criticize the last 30 years of neoliberal economics in the US which has produced a budget and trade deficit, stagnant wages, deregulation, market bubbles, low consumer demand, and skyrocketing debt.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
"Why don't you criticize the last 30 years of neoliberal econ. in the US which has produced a budget and trade deficit, stagnant wages, deregulation, market bubbles, low consumer demand, and skyrocketing debt."
~Because these are just sympoms of the disease called Keynesian economics. It encourages gov't to wast and chase good money after poor investments.
Keynesian policies have pushed us onto the "thread" we hang by now.
Cure the disease, don't treat symptoms, numbskull.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
You're the fucking numbskull. You should know that Keynesian economic policy and Neoliberal economic policy are diametrically opposed philosophies. The former is demand side, the latter is supply side. You should also know that the last 30 years of recessions, bubbles, debt, etc have occurred under neoliberal presidents with neoliberal economic teams who enacted neoliberal policies. Keynesianism lasted from the 30's to about 1982. Everybody knows that.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
So indulge me,
what is a neoliberal?
Can neoliberal policies be enacted without a fiat currency?
They might be opposed to one another but really the objective (and "disease") is centralized control over the money supply.
And know this our country has undergone a fascist shift, a merger of corporate and state power. -- It would be smart not to trust such a government with any sort of power, due to the effective lobbies that have wrested control over government policy.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
@Xproletariatx And I looked up neoliberal, thanks for that word to look up. It seems to me to be Republicans masquerading as conservative. There definitely is an agenda to render gov'ts obsolete, or, rather to incorporate them into private industry.
The best way to combat this sort of hanky-panky shit being done by these people is to promote a strong individualism. I believe people still have innate strength, but coddling socialism is not the way to promote that. believe in the 2nd amendment.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
@ParapaDrifter Here's the problem with individualism, its FALSE. You may think you're being as individualistic as possible, but in reality, there's no possible way for any person to survive solely on their own, and if they do, its in extremely exceptional circumstances which can be insurmountable at times. Every since homo sapiens have been around, we've always needed others to live. You may live in a small community and think you're doing everything by yourself, but it takes a whole community.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
@Xproletariatx Individualism is about the government treating people as individual rather than groups. That is collectivism which is what we have now. Individualism doesn't mean living without any involvement from anyone else. You're putting a spin on something that should be common sense. Collectivism supports racism, war, and poverty. Idividualism supports personal responsibility and an end to the corporate monopoly.
BudWithBeats76 1 year ago
@BudWithBeats76 Individualism is not realistic at all. It's merely an idealist view encouraged by a class of people who are actually collective in their own right, but they seek to eliminate all laws and regulations that subordinate the interests of one property owner to the interests of a collective group of people, like workers. It sounds politically radical at first, but when you think of it, its very draconian and elitist.
Xproletariatx 1 year ago
That is exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter.
After working for Goodyear Tires for two decades actually it was one of her male co-workers who voluntarily disclosed his pay to Lilly Ledbetter and only then she know she was paid 40% less than her co-equal male counterparts (the pay information of fellow workers is typically confidential and unavailable for comparison).
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does NOT give any power to the govt (administration) to force private companies to act in a certain way.
The Act does NOT let govt to go snoop into pay checks of any employees at any companies for comparison NOR does it bring charges in behalf of an employee(s). The concerned employee(s) must bring complain to courts on their own.
The only thing the Act does is extend EXTEND the 180 day time limit to file complaint in courts by concerned employee(s).
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Accidentally I clicked on "remove" instead of clicking "reply" on your last comment so dont accuse me of trying to shut you off.
When Ron Paul's mic shut off because of technical problem at one of those Congressional hearings he said, "They finally shut me off" which shows how hysteric he is.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....So, I ask you again: What if Goodyear had offered YOU a contract to work for them, you signed it, and worked for them for 10 years. Then, one day, you talked to a co-worker with the same title who started when you did, but started at a higher salary and has made more money than you.
Do you think that YOU should be able to sue for that money you lost out on?
Why should being a women, or old, or black, or fat make any difference? Wouldn't that "discriminate" against men?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
The concerned employee(s) should have opportunity to bring merits of her/his case to the court if he/she feels he/she feels he/she has been wrongfully discriminated based on gender.
Based on facts on hand the courts will either decide in favor of plaintiff or dismiss the case all together.
Disgusting thing is that Ron Paul does not want to provide opportunity or severely limit the opportunity to present grievances in courts.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....You never answered the question.....
Let's say you are a "white male." A PRIVATE company offers you a five year contract for 100K/year, you agree, and sign to accept their offer.
Five years later, a co-worker with the same title and responsibilities, who signed on when you did, says that he signed for a lot more money, and has thus made much more than you have.
Do you think that YOU should be able to GO TO COURT to get some of that money you "lost" back???????????
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Regardless of how I might have signed an employment contract I or anyone else should absolutely have the opportunity to present the case to the courts.
If the court under prevailing laws sees that I have proved my case the courts will hand down a remedy for me and if the court sees that I have not proved my case my claim will be dismissed. It is simple as that.
I absolutely hate Ron Paul's notion that people should not even be allowed to present their case to courts.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....OK, so under the hypothetical scenario that I gave you.....
Would you file suit against that PRIVATE company that YOU willingly singed an employment contract with, and on what grounds??????
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I will file a suit against any employer even if I willingly signed an employment contract if the employer acted in bad faith or hide important facts and if those facts come into light later on. There is word for it. It is called FRAUD.
Since you seem to suggest that you will abide by any contracts you signed willingly even though it later turns out to be a fraudulent contract well I might have an opportunity make some money off of you with fraudulent contract with no legal liabilities.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
UnsavoryMen...The Life expectancy for EVERYBODY went up about 10 years in tthat time, so once again, you have chosen a strawman that doesn't work.
You are wrong. If we have a "government option," it will get rid of health insurance companies. That is not "competition." It is more like the Raider vs Patriots, but the Patriots make the rules and officiate the game.
In terms of COST, why shouldn't VETERINARY MEDICINE be the model for our health care, with government out of
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
By your standards (not mine) the founding fathers would have rolled over their graves to see Ron Paul ask Federal govt get involved in funding FEMA programs.
Where in the US Constitution does it say the govt should get involved in FEMA programs ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen...The founders would not support FEMA. Neither does Ron Paul. He says we should get rid of it.
But, again, the Federal Gov't took his constituents' money, by FORCE, and they SHOULD try to get that money back!!!
His district includes Galveston, TX. They are extremely prone to hurricanes. Should they have their money TAKEN BY FORCE from the Feds, and then be expected to pay for the emergencies, too?
Katrina showed us that you don't want the Federal Gov't in charge of that.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
So the best way devised by Ron Paul to get rid of FEMA is to fund it even more.
Ron Paul took over 70 million $ this year (FY 2009) alone from the US Congress to fund FEMA programs according to Houston Chronicle (his home state newspaper).
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen......Ron Paul didn't take 70 million dollars. That money was requested by his constituents!!!
You simply don't understand how the system works (either did Tim Russert).
You would rather see the Federal Gov't take, by FORCE, the money from the people of Texas' 14 district, and then spend ALL of THEIR money the way the Federal Gov't sees fit???
You just don't get it.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Did his constituents send him to Congress to vote against their own interests ?
Isnt it the interest of his constituents to get back the money they paid in taxes ? If so, why did Ron Paul vote against desire of his constituents in trying to get their money back ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
By the way let me tell you something. Govt has been giving 160 billion $ a year in subsidy to private health insurance companies.
When the govt stops giving that 160 billion dollars a year to these private insurers like your Blue Cross (which Obama has planned to do ) I wonder where these insurance companies will raise the money to make up the difference after the loss of govt subsidy.
I guess the most obvious target is client like you.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen..........It was the gov't who created the Inurance company monsters in the first place!!!!
Now what is your answer.........we need MORE GOV't .
Trust me, even if the Obama gets rid of the Insurance companies, which it will, they will find plenty of other places to spend that 160 billion.
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I totally agree with you, the govt should get out of health care when it come to subsidizing private health insurance companies. Let these companies fend out for themselves. If they are good enough they will survive no matter what happens, if not they will have a proper place in history books
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
How can you guarantee that Obama wont continue subsidizing BIG Business private health insurance companies and BIG Pharma through its own version of bailouts.
when you we have a government that bailed out BIG Banks, BIG auto companies, credit card companies, commercial mortgages of irresponsible corporations while responsible corporations cant take market share via TARP, TALF .
HR1207; if we Ever audit the FED we might now Why Goledmen Sachs is So Golden presently
bl782 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....The founders limited the Federal Gov't with the Constiution so they would not grow too big, and then come after the people's money (their property) to pay for its expansion.
The founders would "roll over in their graves" at the thought of a Personal Income Tax, or the IRS. They would cringe at Social Security or Medicare/Medicade.
If you don't agree with me, then you are just not being honest with yourself in order to support you own view.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
This video is bullshit. Dr. Paul correctly states that our "crisis" in health care is one of costs. So, that is what we need to find out. Why does it cost so much more in the U.S.?
The "costs" in health care have skyrocketed since the HMO Act of 1973, passed by our Congress. The "costs" were NOT out of control before this Act, and the costs havev actually SKYROCKETED ever since>
Please READ "Free Market Medicine" by Ron Paul, or WATCH "20/20 Sick in America."
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Dumb Ron Paul cant see the relationship between choice and cost (affordability). Dumb like you wont have a choice until you can afford it.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen........There are probably THOUSANDS of health insurance companies out there to "choose" from.
Even if there was only 100, how does adding one more create "choice"???
Health care WAS affordable before our government interfered with the free market by passing the HMO Act of 1973.
Government cause the "cost" problems we have today....and what is their solution?....More government.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
There might be 1000s of health insurance to choose from . Do 47 million Americans have ability to afford to buy from any of them ?
Dumb like you should not be writing anything here until you know the relationship between ability to pay and choice.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....So, you were wrong: "choice" has nothing to do with it.
It is about "cost." Why is our health care SO expensive?
Answer this question: Was health care affordable in this country before the HMO Act of 1973 (when our government got involved)? and Has health care costs skyrocketed ever since?
You probably won't answer, and that will speak volumes.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
You have a choice of 100s of Ferrari dealers out there to choose from. Can you use any Ferrari(s) out there sitting at parking lots of those dealers unless you can afford to buy one ?
For 47 million Americans, health insurance is just like a Ferrari. There are 100 of place to buy from but cant afford any of them.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen..........OK, that analogy shows how stupis you are.
How come you won't answer ANY question I give you???????
Our health care crisis is a matter of "cost." It is VERY expensive. That's not because we don't have universal coverage. That misses the point.
WHY IS HEALTH CARE SO EXPENSIVE IN THIS COUNTRY (I am not asking you to compare it to government rationed health care in other countries).
Answer a question.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
So denying some individuals (47 million) of health care so other individuals can have it. Is not a rationing or have you invented your own definition of "RATIONING" just like Ron Paul does so often ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen............Where in the Constitution do Americans have a RIGHT to health care????
It is NOT rationing if 47 million people don't have health care (for whatever reason).
You don't even understand what rationing is, apparently.
We should all have affordable health care. It is not right to FORCE people against their will to do that.
WAS HEALTH CARE AFFORDABLE BEFORE OUR GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED IN IT?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
That is exactly what happens when health care industry is surrendered to for-profit motive.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen...........Wrong!!!! Health care in this couhtry was FOR-PROFIT before the HMO Act of 1973, and it was completely affordable.
The free market is a "for-profit" enterprise. That is what has made the U.S. the superpower that we are.
However, when the government gets involved, it destroyes the principles of a free market.
Was health care affordable from 1776 to 1972????? the answer is yes, but you won't acknowledge that.
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I presume you were living from 1776 to 1972 to know exactly how affordable was health care then.
Free-market as defined by Ron Paul has existed in only one country so far. It is in Somalia since early 1990s. In the US free-market has existed in only one sector, that is Derivatives market. There has never been a single regulation till this day governing
Derivatives market.
IF you didnt know about either Somalia or US Derivatives market do some research of your own.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Both Ron Paul and you are too blind to see and recognize the fact that removing 47 million Americans completely out of line to provide rest of the population access to health care is somehow not a rationing.
Study what rationing is before you write something stupid.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen......The government does, and should not control health care. Therefore, they CANNOT ration it, you moron.
Show me in the Constitution where "health care" is a right? If the founders felt that way they would have done it themselves!
That 47 Million number includes some 15 million that make over 50k and choose not to have coverage, and some 15 million who could use medicare/medicade but have not enrolled.
and you want to FORCE me to pay for everybody to have coverage????
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....We need to establish what our political philosophies are before we can continue.
I believe in the Constitution and the intent of our founders: Limited Government, Low Taxation (no IRS), and Maximum Individual Liberty.
Now, your turn!
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
The private medical practitioners provide 80% of the primary healthcare services while the government polyclinics provide the remaining 20%. The aim is to keep fees for consultation and treatment at an affordable level. For the more costly hospital care, it is the reverse situation with 80% of the hospital care being provided by the public sector and the remaining 20% by the private sector.
bl782 2 years ago
which proves ROn Paul is dead wrong
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
How? the Singaporean study proves him right, the less spending the government does or not at all equals better health results. Even France spends less then US, less, less.
Unless someone is willing to dispute Singapore's budgetary and health data, it looks like we've got strong counter-evidence to this view that government spending leads to better health care.
There are more uninsured Americans now, then before we had HMOS and medicare. More Spending has equaled a disaster
bl782 2 years ago
I dont know whose point are you trying to prove. It seems like you are trying to prove my point. Canada spends almost 50% less per person on health care (about 10 % of its GDP vs 16% of GDP of the US) and almost every health indicators of Canadian citizens in almost every category is better than that of the US. Conference Board of Canada an independent study group has done some study on health indicators of about 17 richest nations in the world in this matter.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....Canada spends less per person via RATIONING health care. They have made certain cancer drugs illegal, for example.
Again, the U.S. has the BEST health care in the World!!!! Like RP says, it is a "cost" issue. You don't acknowledge what the HMO Act of 1973 did to the free market.
Besides, if you have money in Canada, and you get really sick, your first thought is, "I'm going to the U.S. to get the best treatment I can find." That says it all.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Your proving my point, and Ron Pauls by the way, were we both argue, less government spending equals better community health results,
Singapore a great case, spends less then its citizens and private insurers and succeeds in the most cost effective system delivering the best health results.
Not even France can compete to its efficiency.; in those terms while France the spends more takes a subsidized loss that Singapore never does, France also has a much better sustained economy then US.
bl782 2 years ago
If Canada shows that socialized medicine can save a few percent of GDP without hurting health
Singapore shows that the free lunch offered by greater government control is meager compared to the free lunch offered by? old individual incentives of saving and paying out of pocket for expenses is better
Actually paying for their health care if they want to pick their doctor, better room, ward amenities
Since HMO Act Family Doctors are a dying breed, including once populous hospices in churches
bl782 2 years ago
There is also a good interview of Ron Paul on Health Care in 1980s on CNN when he was in his youth, his opinion are the same as then, the problems he debated with anchor have only compounded themselves today presently
The "costs" in health care have skyrocketed since the HMO Act of 1973, passed by our Congress. The "costs" were NOT out of control before this Act, and the costs havev actually SKYROCKETED ever since>
@IPOMonsturd, is correct, Americans once had affordable coverage.
bl782 2 years ago
Why would it not skyrocket when there is a such a fractured health care system, when insurance companies typically spend 25-30% of their budget on bureaucracy and corporate profits instead of spending on prevention and cure of actual patients.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......Most importantly, what right does the government have to take money from me, BY FORCE, and give it to somebody else?
You probably call yourself a "liberal." That word means "pertaining to freedom."
But, at its core, liberalism is about FORCE. Before liberals can do something like "universal health care," they must first FORCE the people to pay for it.
I'm sure you will say it is ok because we are "only going to FORCE the rich to pay for it"?
You just don't get it
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Actually I should be asking Ron Paul this question. Why is he taking my money (taxes) to spend on his shitty Congressional district. I dont live in his Congressional district nor do I live in his state. Why should I pay for his shitty district in pork spending which I will never have opportunity to use at all.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......LMFAO
Maybe you should ask why Barack Obama is going to FORCE my money from my pocket in order to give it to people I don't want to give it to?
I have my own insurance. Why am I being FORCED to pay for somebody else?
At its core, "liberalism" is about FORCE. In order to expand government and "do good things," you must first FORCE the money from people who might not want to do it.
That is not freedom!
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Why should I ask Obama to give back your money. I'm not here to represent him or his position here.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen..............The "pork" money you talk about him taking is THEIR MONEY!!!! It was taken by FORCE from them in the first place.
For you information, I believe Texas' 14 District is bigger than the entire state of Massachusetts.
I do think it is ironic that you ask why you should have to pay for other people (even though they are taking back their money), when you are eager to have me pay for health care, soc security, and welfare for others.
Hypocritical moron.
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I'm applying your standard not mine to take my back from Ron Paul and his shitty district.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen..........Let's start from scratch. To do that, we must first understand each others political philosophy.
I believe we should follow the Constitution and the intent of the founders: Limited government, Low Taxation, Maximum Individual Liberty. The Oath of Office is to 'defend and protect" these principles.
Do you support the intent of the Constitution, and what is your political philosophy?
It would help to know who you voted for and why (I voted for Ron Paul).
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Where in the Constitution does it say the govt has to get involved in shrimp marketing as Ron Paul asked govt to do in 2007. I'm applying your standard not mine over here.
You talk about "Maximum Individual Liberty" here, well..first of all someone has to be physically alive or medically healthy to enjoy all or any of those "Maximum Individual Liberty" 18,000 a year wont have that opportunity simply because of lack of health insurance because the cost is beyond their reach.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen...........You still haven't answered my question, but.........
The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.
Therefore, if the people of that district want to spend money on "shrimp marketing," that is THEIR business, using THEIR money that was taken from them, by FORCE, from the Federal Gov't.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....You refuse to look at WHY the cost of health care is out of control.
If the founding fathers believed that being "medically healthy" was a prerequisite for enjoying liberty, they would have declared that the gov't is required to provide health care to the people.
The fact is that a very high percentage of people would be able to afford medical care if the government never got involved where it should not have.
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
When Americans have to pay 25-30% on overhead on top of actual patient care on such thing as marketing, bureaucracy, profit why would it not be out of reach for so many Americans.
There are lots of things that has not been explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution such as federally funded shrimp marketing.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen..........You have proven that you are a COWARDLY PUSSY. You don't even have the balls to tell me who you voted for!!!
That's because you don't have a "political philosophy." If you did, you would have been able to tell me what it is.
BTW, saying that you are "liberal" or a "Democrat" does not cut it.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......I voted for Ron Paul, who believes in Limited Gov't, Low Taxation, and Maximum Individual Liberty, and non-interventionist foreign policy....
YOUR BOY, Obama: Biggest expansion of Gov't EVER, Taxation and Inflation up the ass, voted for Patriot Act and FISA bill, and is spending as much, if not more money on our foreign empire/warfare.
YOUR BOY, Obama, is doing the evil things Bush did, but on steroids!!!!!
Nice political philosophy you have, UnsavoryMen!
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Ron Paul who requested and spent almost half a billion dollars for his district alone in a single year should not be preaching others about low taxation. I also paid for his pork spending through my taxes for his shitty district.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....RP represents a district which has 652,000 people. That would make it the 20th biggest city in America.
You claim that earmarks for that district were 500 million dollar. Well, that is 767 dollars per person.
I guarantee they were FORCED to pay a LOT MORE than 767 dollars per person to the Federal gov't.
That is THEIR MONEY!! It should not have been FORCED from them in the first place.
You and YOUR socialist Obama think it is ok to take other people's property.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I'm not interested in Ron Paul's idea of making America an anarcho-capitalist government-free society like Somalia (since early 1990s).
Since you fall in the top 5% among all Americans according to your yearly earnings (based on your claim that you pay 1/3 of your yearly income on Federal taxes) I can understand why you want to advocate for lowering taxes for the richest Americans like yourself.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....Ron Paul says, "we should follow the Constitution." By definition, that means he believes in government, although limited, as the Constitution prescribes.
I am not rich. I believe that health care should be affordable for EVERYBODY.
It should be provided in a free market, just like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE is.
Again, I am challenging you to show me how that is wrong!!!!
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I dont get locked up in rigid ideology like you do or Ron Paul does. I dont have closed mind like you have or Ron Paul has. I look at the evidence available not in this country but from around the world.
By the way I dont prescribe to self-isolationist philosophy of Ron Paul. This is not 16th century.
Pork spending freak like Ron Paul should not be preaching others about taxation or spending just like Gov. Mark Standford should not be preaching others about "family values"
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....I don't hear you talking about how YOUR BOY Obama is spending our money like it grows on trees.
It's subscribe, not prescribe, and the fact that you don't know the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist again shows how ignorant you are.
So, you think that the Federal Government should be able to decide how to spend all the money they FORCE me to give them, and not allow my representative to get some of that money back for me?
You just don't get it
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Even though I have major disagreements with Obama on major social issues like gay marriage, bank bailouts and even on health care. I'm not critical of him on spending and tax because unlike Ron Paul, he DID NOT campaigned for fiscal restraint or reducing tax burden on the wealthiest and did entirely the opposite thing when he got elected.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....So, Obama "DID NOT campaign for fiscal restraint" (which is what we needed) and you STILL voted for him even though our country was broke and the economy was in the shitter???
Good job. That is is mightily MORONIC logic, there, buddy.
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
No, Obama never campaigned on fiscal restraint or reducing tax burden on the richest. He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Regardless of if you agree with this policy or not he kept his promise on this issue.
I may or may not agree on policy positions of any politicians but they have to keep the promise to whoever they are promising to on whatever issue they talked about.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....So, again, this country was OUT OF MONEY and experiencing a massive RECESSION, and you thought that you would vote for the guy that was going to come in and head the largest expansion of the Federal Gov't, EVER?
Yeah, that is really smart. You must have an amazing political philosophy! How fiscally responsible of you.
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
We ran at much higher debt vs GDP ratio at the end of WW2 than what it is now. Which only suggests that we are not in as bad position as we were at the end of WW2.
It only suggest that Ron Paul and his supporters are simply unsure about themselves, totally lack confidence on themselves and dead scared of trying anything bold.
You guys are true pussies.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....That might be factually true, but that was after coming out of the Depression, Fighting a World War, and Rebuilding Germany and Japan.
Most importantly, the gov't then DECREASED SPENDING (Obama?), CUT TAXES (Obama?), SAVED MONEY, and was the biggest PRODUCER/MANUFACTURER in the world!!!
Now, we are the biggest DEBTOR nation, we are over-taxed, we don't save money, and we spend ALL our money on IPODS and toys.
You are not going to give me a "lesson" on economics or WW2.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.............So, I follow the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers......and you consider that "rigid ideology"?????
LMFAO
You think that the founding fathers would say OK to working 1/3 of the year to pay for the size of government we have today?? Hell, the American Revolution was fought over taxation that was a small percentage of what it is today.
But, I'm sure YOUR BOY OBAMA's ideology is better for America than Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison's.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Since you mentioned that you pay 1/3 of your yearly income in taxes to the Federal Govt which means you fall in the top 5% of the entire population based on your yearly earning. You should have no problem paying for the best health care plans available.
Now I totally understand why you are not worried about getting health insurance no matter how expensive it might be.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen..............When all is said and done, most of us pay around 30% in federal taxes. I am certainly not in the top 5% of wage earners. I consider myself "middle class." I have private Blue Cross insurance which is $160/month.
Because our government has destoyed the free-marke in health care via medicare, medicade, and the HMO Act of 1973, I am FORCED to pay this money every month to protect myself from the INSANE cost of out-of-control health care in this country.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Blue Cross must be really grateful towards you for paying about 50 $ out of your 160 $ a month premium for financing their unnecessary non-health care related items like marketing bureaucracy, complicated paperwork, profits etc
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......That might be true, but if the government hadn't interfered in the free market of health care, we would not be beholden to insurance companies in the first place.
Our health care should bbe affordable, and paid for like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE, but you "conveniently" havn't answered me regarding that.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I dont know how much you or anyone else would feel compelled to pay 160$ a month on health insurance for their pets out of their tight family budget
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen......We don't have to pay $160/month for pet insurance because the government is not involved, and the free market insures that competition will keep costs down.
That is what I call a "foot in the mouth."
LMFAO
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I dont know which comes first , health concerns of humans or health concern of animal like cats, dogs , parrots etc.
I dont know if there are over 300 million pets losing sleep over if they will be covered by health insurance or not.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....I was just watching "20/20 Sick in America," and there was a great point:
The best example of affordable, free-market medicine, is VETERINARIAN MEDICINE. The government has NOTHING to do with it, the medicine is just a complicated, the cost is affordable (and you can get insurance), and one can get an appointment usually within a week.
This is a perfect example of how our medical care should work, and how government intervention has a negative outcome.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I assume that you are putting out your VETERINARIAN MEDICINE example because you see the value of human health (therefore human life) being similar to that of animals like cats, dogs, rabbits, parrots etc.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen...Don't ASSume, it doesn't make you look good.
I site VETERINARIAN MEDICINE because this is what human health care looked like before government intervention drove up the cost to what it is today.
Tell me how this is wrong!!!!!
BTW, my dog IS as important to me as a human life. I consider him a member of my family.
Again, tell me how I am wrong here!
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
It is kinda very strange to hear that the someone who values the life of animals (in this case your dog) as important as life of human beings has total disregard for life of other human beings just because some other human beings cant afford to pay for health care insurance of whom 18,000 will needlessly die each year in this country.
Thanks for the insight
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....Do you deny that before our government got involved in health care it worked like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE does today?
How many of those "18,000" would not have died if our government had not ruined the free market in health care and it was affordable..... Like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE is today?
Are you incapable of answering a simple question?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
I dont know how much the govt involvement in health care insurance in every developed nation (except the US) have ruined their health care system. May be the govts of those nations have ruined their health care system by providing care to every citizens in their nation at much more lower cost (than the US) with much better on short-term and long-term health outcomes than the US.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen....Let's see, which is better:
U.S. health care like it use to be in this country, affordable, and run by the free market like VETERINARIAN MEDICINE is today..or
Run by the government, which translate to more bureaucracy and expansion of government, which leads to massive tax increases and rationing of the most expensive services to keep costs down?
People with money come to the US for treatment.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
You are talking as if rationing does not exist in health care system in the US ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Unlike Ron Paul or you, I'm not in a state of self-denial of the fact that rationing does exist in the US health care system.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Private health insurance in the US is far more rationed than any govt run health care program. Private health insurance is rationed not just one way but several ways.
Do you think they will make profit without giving you as little care (rationing) as possible ?
Do you think they will disregard the cost of treating by enrolling those who have preconditions (rationing) ?
Isnt enrolling only the ones who are young and healthy again a rationing ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen...The Life expectancy for EVERYBODY went up about 10 years in tthat time, so once again, you have chosen a strawman that doesn't work.
You are wrong. If we have a "government option," it will get rid of health insurance companies. That is not "competition." It is more like the Raider vs Patriots, but the Patriots make the rules and officiate the game.
In terms of COST, why shouldn't VETERINARY MEDICINE be the model for our health care, with government out of the picture?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Why should not the govt make rules of the game ?
Up till now private insurers have made rules for themselves. What gives them any moral authority to make rules for themselves so they can play rough shots with health (therefore lives) of their own client(s) ? What gives them any moral authority to drop people out of their rolls in the middle of a treatment when they feel treating their own client(s) is gonna hurt their bottom line ?
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen........You have made it clear that you don't care to follow the Constitution and the founders intent of limited government.
The Federal gov't should combat fraud, but when it sticks its nose into business it destroys the free market.
Besides, you still don't get that these EVIL health care companies are byproducts of the gov't being in health care via Medicare, Medicade, and the HMO Act of1973.
You clearly don't see why Health Insurance Co's have grown in cahoots with gov't.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
If lives of animals like cats, dogs, rabbits were equally valuable as of humans. I'm petty sure people would be losing sleep over the cost of paying for health insurance of animals. In that case most likely your employer would be chopping a portion of your paycheck to pay for health insurance of your pets in addition to health insurance of your own. Most likely Blue Cross would have seized an opportunity to to make a buck out of pet health care insurance.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....What??? Why would my employer have anything to do with the health of my pet?? See, that is what the HMO Act of 1973 did. It formed the ILLOGICAL coupling of employer to employee's insurance.
VETERINARY MEDICINE is a perfect example of FREE MARKET MEDICINE. And ONLY if the government got involved would it lose its free market principles, insurance co's wold run rampant, and the costs would grow out of control.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
The Life expectancy for EVERYBODY went up except that the infant mortality rate went up in this decade for the first time in the last 45 years of so.
World Health Organization which takes infant mortality as the single most vital indicator (for obvious reasons) among all other health indicators of any nation when ranking the state of health care system of any nation in the world.
The US is far behind every other developed nation in the world in this most vital category.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.............You said that Medicare was the reason old people lived 10 years longer today than they did before Medicare.
I like how you changed the subject. So, I wll too:
Do you support the killing of fetuses/babies by way of abortion? You seem to put so much emphasis on "infant mortality rate," but I would be willing to bet that you are OK with the killing of fetuses/babies inside the womb.
I happen to be pro-choice. What are you?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
By the way, did you notice that Ron Paul is so close minded that he still thinks women should not get equal pay as men do for the same job at the same capacity. He voted against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act early this year.
I dont wonder why there is such a gigantic gender gap when its comes to supporting Ron Paul's wacko ideas.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen......That Act is unconstitutional.
PRIVATE companies should be able to pay WHOMEVER they want, WHATEVER they want. GOODYEAR is a PRIVATE COMPANY!!!
What if I were to tell you that she didn't do as good a job as her counterparts with the same title? Do you think she should be paid as much just because she is a woman???? Bullshit
You have proven over and over again that YOU DON'T CARE what the Constitution says. You don't respect private property or individual rights.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen................Perhaps you think that WNBA players should have the government MANDATE that they are paid as much as NBA players?
After all, they are both professional basketball players. Why should the women make a fraction of what the men do?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
1 First of all the NBA and WNBA are both franchises which means even though teams play in the respective leagues NBA or WNBA do not own the teams.
2 Each individual team is the employer of players not NBA or WNBA.
3 There is no mixed gender team in NBA or WNBA
4 WNBA and NBA fall in entertainment industry
therefore whoever draws more audience (therefore more revenue) gets paid more which very different from lets say an airline pilot or a factory supervisor or an office administrator.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Lilly Ledbetter (therfore Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act) worked for 19 years at Goodyear Tire plant. She worked as one of plant supervisors. Most likely the plant she was working at had several shifts just as most manufacturing plants do. She was paid about 40% less than other male supervisors working in the same capacity as she did. It very possible that the guys
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
I see very little to compare Lilly Ledbetter's case to compare with WNBA. She and her male colleges were working for the same employer in the same capacity doing the same kind of job. In the case of NBA and WNBA, NBA and WNBA are not even employers of players in the first place.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.......Over the course of many years, Goodyear offered Lilly Ledbetter an employment that paid her far less than contracts made with men performing the same or similar duties. At the time, she VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED the CONTRACTS, clearly meaning that she thought the salary was an acceptable payment for her services.
Goodyear is a PRIVATE company. They should have the right to pay WHOMEVER, WHATEVER they want to .
She should have gone elsewhere if she thought it not fair.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen.....You continue to show that you don't care what the Constitution says, or how a free market works!!!!
I am a man. I have had situtations where I worked with SOME women who had the same title and responsibilities, but simply did not do as good a job, and I made more money (and some did a better job and made more than me!)
The reality is that Lilly Ledbetter signed a CONTRACT with Goodyear that meant she ACCEPTED the amount offered to her.
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
Lilly Ledbetter signed and accepted a CONTRACT does not give employers a free pass TO HIDE the most important aspect of the contract (her pay in relation to her co-worker workers working in the same capacity).
Let me know if there is any provision in the US Constitution that says contracts signed with false pretense will be protected.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
UnsavoryMen...........FRAUDULENT contract are something the government should protect.....
But there is NOTHING fraudulent about a person agreeing on a wage for their services, with an employer, and signing a contract. They are certainly not obligated to tell her what everybody else makes!
Besides, you never answered my question: What if she simply DID NOT do as good of a job as her male counterparts? Should she still get paid as much, just to "be fair to women"?
IPOMonsturd 2 years ago
The govt not only has a right to control fraud it has obligation to do so. If anarchy and chaos is the ultimate goal of you and Ron Paul well it has no place in civilized societies.
Your belief that women will not do a good job as men do therefore should be paid less even before the job begins (at the time of signing contract) is simply disgusting
Contracts are signed at the beginning of a job before he or she has any opportunity to show he or she can do better job than his/her peers
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago