• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Ron Paul 2012

Ron Paul was booed for saying we should obey the 'golden rule', "treat others as you would want to be treated." WTF is wrong with people?
 
There was a time Ron Paul intrigued me, but no more. Frankly, his racial and social issues views scare me. If you've been following the campaigns thus far, you will have heard that the newsletters from Paul's defunct company have started circulating again. You can find a Washington Post story here. One of the most disturbing passages for me can be found in a Talking Point's Memo article. Saying that 13 year olds should not be held "as responsible as a man of 23" unless they are a black male is just wrong. Google Ron Paul and racism and you'll find many such articles. Of course, Paul denies that he wrote these things, and even goes so far as to say he never even read them. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him. But that doesn't make him any less responsible for the content of those newsletters published under his name, by his company. At the very least, he was negligent, at worst, a racist.

His views on gay rights also concern me. We can't call ourselves the "land of the free" if not all of our citizens have the same rights. Regardless of religious views, which have no place in our political system, (separation of Church and State) you cannot deny the rights of one group of people. We've been down this road before with women's rights, and the Civil rights movement. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. It's a slippery slope. If we continue to deny the rights of the LGTB community, what's next? Perhaps we should deny the rights of autistic people to marry. What about little people, people with physical disabilities?

I agree with Dr. Paul on some issues, but cannot in good conscience vote for someone who condoned, however indirectly, such hateful rhetoric. Buddy Roemer seems a much more likely candidate.



*I am aware that the TPM is a liberal site, but the Christian Science Monitor is not.
 
cmybliss said:
There was a time Ron Paul intrigued me, but no more. Frankly, his racial and social issues views scare me. If you've been following the campaigns thus far, you will have heard that the newsletters from Paul's defunct company have started circulating again. You can find a Washington Post story here. One of the most disturbing passages for me can be found in a Talking Point's Memo article. Saying that 13 year olds should not be held "as responsible as a man of 23" unless they are a black male is just wrong. Google Ron Paul and racism and you'll find many such articles. Of course, Paul denies that he wrote these things, and even goes so far as to say he never even read them. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him. But that doesn't make him any less responsible for the content of those newsletters published under his name, by his company. At the very least, he was negligent, at worst, a racist.
Click to expand...

How about we look at his record and his beliefs which he has always held which benefit blacks and minorities? Federal laws he wants abolished would be a huge benefit to minorities and keep them out of jail. He also is against the federal death penalty. Who does that affect the most?? Minorities. Ron Paul believes in freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. There's nothing racist about that.

cmybliss said:
His views on gay rights also concern me. We can't call ourselves the "land of the free" if not all of our citizens have the same rights. Regardless of religious views, which have no place in our political system, (separation of Church and State) you cannot deny the rights of one group of people. We've been down this road before with women's rights, and the Civil rights movement. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. It's a slippery slope. If we continue to deny the rights of the LGTB community, what's next? Perhaps we should deny the rights of autistic people to marry. What about little people, people with physical disabilities?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with his views on gays? He wants the federal government out of their lives, and more importantly out of their bedroom. He's not trying to deny anyone their rights. I can't understand where this comes from. And there is no such thing as a separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution. We have freedom of religion, or as it is written in the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
 
cmybliss said:
There was a time Ron Paul intrigued me, but no more. Frankly, his racial and social issues views scare me. If you've been following the campaigns thus far, you will have heard that the newsletters from Paul's defunct company have started circulating again. You can find a Washington Post story here. One of the most disturbing passages for me can be found in a Talking Point's Memo article. Saying that 13 year olds should not be held "as responsible as a man of 23" unless they are a black male is just wrong. Google Ron Paul and racism and you'll find many such articles. Of course, Paul denies that he wrote these things, and even goes so far as to say he never even read them. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him. But that doesn't make him any less responsible for the content of those newsletters published under his name, by his company. At the very least, he was negligent, at worst, a racist.

His views on gay rights also concern me. We can't call ourselves the "land of the free" if not all of our citizens have the same rights. Regardless of religious views, which have no place in our political system, (separation of Church and State) you cannot deny the rights of one group of people. We've been down this road before with women's rights, and the Civil rights movement. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. It's a slippery slope. If we continue to deny the rights of the LGTB community, what's next? Perhaps we should deny the rights of autistic people to marry. What about little people, people with physical disabilities?

I agree with Dr. Paul on some issues, but cannot in good conscience vote for someone who condoned, however indirectly, such hateful rhetoric. Buddy Roemer seems a much more likely candidate.



*I am aware that the TPM is a liberal site, but the Christian Science Monitor is not.
Click to expand...

Just where does this opinion come from? Who spoke eloquently to plant these seeds in your mind? No body running right now has a better track record for minorities and gay rights than Ron Paul. He wants to end the 'war on drugs' & many other wars that end up punishing people for things that they should have the right to choose on their own as long as it's not harming anyone else. He wants the government out of our lives and this benefits everyone... especially those imprisoned for petty drug offenses. You think that won't benefit minorities? Take a look at how many are locked up on petty drug offenses before you call RP a racist. As far as gay rights, who do you think keeps overturning individual state's decisions to allow gay marriage? Ron Paul wants to return power to the states just as this country was founded. State governments SHOULD be more powerful than the federal government and SHOULD be able to make up their own laws based on the majority of their own populace. It was done this way so individuals can pick and choose which states best suit their lifestyle. The way this republic was founded some states should be able to allow gay marriage while others can choose to 'honor the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman' and then the people can vote and move while still being US Citizens. That's what was great about this nation. It was designed to vary to meet the varying lifestyles of it's people and be able to cater to the melting pot theory. When the federal government assumes power and tells EVERY state what they can and can't do then you have unrest in alarming numbers. It's time we returned power to the people by returning power to the states. Our federal government is a HUGE drain of money and is doing NOTHING in return for that spending. If any of this turns a light bulb on above your head then Ron Paul is your candidate and don't fall for the propaganda w/o educating yourself because that's how good candidates have lost support in the past. Dirty politics shouldn't be rewarded.
 
OstrichSaK said:
Just where does this opinion come from? Who spoke eloquently to plant these seeds in your mind? No body running right now has a better track record for minorities and gay rights than Ron Paul. He wants to end the 'war on drugs' & many other wars that end up punishing people for things that they should have the right to choose on their own as long as it's not harming anyone else. He wants the government out of our lives and this benefits everyone... especially those imprisoned for petty drug offenses. You think that won't benefit minorities? Take a look at how many are locked up on petty drug offenses before you call RP a racist. As far as gay rights, who do you think keeps overturning individual state's decisions to allow gay marriage? Ron Paul wants to return power to the states just as this country was founded. State governments SHOULD be more powerful than the federal government and SHOULD be able to make up their own laws based on the majority of their own populace. It was done this way so individuals can pick and choose which states best suit their lifestyle. The way this republic was founded some states should be able to allow gay marriage while others can choose to 'honor the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman' and then the people can vote and move while still being US Citizens. That's what was great about this nation. It was designed to vary to meet the varying lifestyles of it's people and be able to cater to the melting pot theory. When the federal government assumes power and tells EVERY state what they can and can't do then you have unrest in alarming numbers. It's time we returned power to the people by returning power to the states. Our federal government is a HUGE drain of money and is doing NOTHING in return for that spending. If any of this turns a light bulb on above your head then Ron Paul is your candidate and don't fall for the propaganda w/o educating yourself because that's how good candidates have lost support in the past. Dirty politics shouldn't be rewarded.
Click to expand...

The eyes in my head spoke so eloquently when I read the trash that was published under his name. As I stated before, there are a lot of things I can agree with Dr. Paul on, but the fact that he allowed such hateful words to be published by a company he ran is inexcusable in my book.
I for one do not believe all government is evil. As the parent of a child with disabilities, I cannot agree with his views on healthcare. Getting my daughter the help she needs got a bit easier with the passage of "Obama Care". I would like to see those reforms go farther.It's my responsibility to pay for her care, because I am her parent, but the cost should be affordable. And the insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse to cover her because she was born with disabilities. Speaking from experience, I can tell you the greedy bastards won't do that on their own, they need an agency with a big stick to keep them in line.We need the Dept. Of Education. Without it our children will receive a worse education than they already do. The EPA is great if you want clean air to breath and clean water to drink.
In order for society to function in a somewhat orderly fashion, you need a strong central government.
Is our government messed up? Yes indeed. Do we need dome major reforms? You betcha. But I personally don't see Ron Paul as the answer. I'd like to throw all the bums out and start again.
This is just my opinion. I appreciate the chance to have a civil conversation with people who hold opposing views.
 
cmybliss, where in the Constitution is the authority to create all these agencies and laws that you embrace? Just because you might be a beneficiary from them does not make it right. The federal government is to be limited...period. How did poor, sick people get care before there was big healthcare or big pharma? How did kids become educated before the Bd of Ed? If people want these things, it's up to the States to provide them.

The federal government violates the Constitution every time it involves itself in these things. And because it has strayed beyond the Constitution that we find ourselves over $15 trillion in debt. I empathize with you regarding your daughter, but looking to the federal government for help does much more harm than good.
 
cmybliss said:
The eyes in my head spoke so eloquently when I read the trash that was published under his name. As I stated before, there are a lot of things I can agree with Dr. Paul on, but the fact that he allowed such hateful words to be published by a company he ran is inexcusable in my book.
I for one do not believe all government is evil. As the parent of a child with disabilities, I cannot agree with his views on healthcare. Getting my daughter the help she needs got a bit easier with the passage of "Obama Care". I would like to see those reforms go farther.It's my responsibility to pay for her care, because I am her parent, but the cost should be affordable. And the insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse to cover her because she was born with disabilities. Speaking from experience, I can tell you the greedy bastards won't do that on their own, they need an agency with a big stick to keep them in line.We need the Dept. Of Education. Without it our children will receive a worse education than they already do. The EPA is great if you want clean air to breath and clean water to drink.
In order for society to function in a somewhat orderly fashion, you need a strong central government.
Is our government messed up? Yes indeed. Do we need dome major reforms? You betcha. But I personally don't see Ron Paul as the answer. I'd like to throw all the bums out and start again.
This is just my opinion. I appreciate the chance to have a civil conversation with people who hold opposing views.
Click to expand...

I am only going to pick out one example here, the EPA. They are not interested in protecting the environment, all they do is line their pockets and force technology on us. If they were truly interested in the environment then they would put a minimum standard that had to be met and let the manufacturers meet that with whatever technology they have at their disposal instead of saying what they have to use. That is industry lobbyists and bribery at its worst.

Prime example are diesel engines, do you realize a simple water injection system is far more effective than a urea exhaust fluid set up and far less costly, but the EPA said they can't trust drivers to put in free water themselves but they will trust you to have to buy and put in urea fluid. And EGR systems are flat out bad for a diesel and reduce the life of the engine by half or more but the EPA decided they have to be installed on them anyway. And many of the systems they mandate for diesels reduce mileage potential by as much as 10 mpg!

This is all due to greed and shows the inefficiency and down right corruption of many of these agencies, they need to be eliminated and an effective system put in place. The EPA could be replace with nothing more regulation.
 
mike114 said:
cmybliss, where in the Constitution is the authority to create all these agencies and laws that you embrace? Just because you might be a beneficiary from them does not make it right. The federal government is to be limited...period. How did poor, sick people get care before there was big healthcare or big pharma? How did kids become educated before the Bd of Ed? If people want these things, it's up to the States to provide them.

The federal government violates the Constitution every time it involves itself in these things. And because it has strayed beyond the Constitution that we find ourselves over $15 trillion in debt. I empathize with you regarding your daughter, but looking to the federal government for help does much more harm than good.
Click to expand...

I had a nice long reply typed up about how much health care cost BEFORE health insurance and why health insurance has caused this (how much do you think food would cost if nobody shopped prices and just bought food insurance for $100 per month and got to eat whatever they wanted instead of price comparing and making due with Mac N Cheese in come case?) but it was lost while posting. There are FAR deeper problems when it comes to health care but people are focusing on fixing the symptoms rather than the root causes. When's the last time someone on health insurance called around to see what prices were for office visits, screenings and procedures? There's no reason to lower prices when nobody asks before buying your product and comparing it to your competitor. The one place we see where this actually works as it relates to health care is Lasik eye surgery. This proceedure was incredibly expensive 20yrs ago and has plummeted in price because this is one of the procedures most people had to pay out of pocket. When people have to pay with their hard earned money they price shop and compare services and value. This is quite the opposite mentality of someone with health insurance who goes to the 'best' place or most convenient and says 'make me better' w/o a single care as to the cost of anything. If you ever stay in a hospital take a look at an itemized list sometime of what you get and what you pay for. $45 Ibuprofen pills. $65 Neosporin tubes. It's craziness. Most people chuckle at stuff like that because THEY don't pay for it. The bottom line is we ALL pay for it as a result. If you had to pay those prices out of pocket you would be FURIOUS! People would complain in mass and hospitals would be FORCED to charge fair market prices for things to avoid customer service nightmares out the wazoo. It frustrates me when people don't educate themselves on what the ACTUAL problems are and want to fix them. There's no reason at all a child's broken arm should cost $10-$15k to ANYONE let alone everyone!
 
cmybliss said:
It's my responsibility to pay for her care, because I am her parent, but the cost should be affordable.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more but where we disagree is in how this gets done. Insurance has done nothing but allow healthcare to increase in price at a rate 1,000x the cost of inflation over the last 5 decades since it was introduced by the Nixon administration. Don't forget that it was never introduced with the intent to 'help people' as they sell it. It was instead introduced as a way to make gobs of money for those in the know and there are even audio tapes of it being presented to Nixon as such. They have succeeded at fleecing the American populace to the point where they think that insurance is the ONLY way people can be healthy. Without it we are all dead. Amazing propaganda program. Health insurance = life and no health insurance = death. Imagine if you could easily afford ALL the care you needed with your paycheck. Imagine if you could go into a Doctors office and pay for your cure with the cash in your pocket. Imagine if you didn't have to waste your life away with red tape bullshit and phone calls with people who couldn't give a hobo's crap about YOU as a person and were incentivised to find reasons to DENY paying your claim. The very fact that So many people think the real debate is health insurance versus no health insurance sickens me. You and I both want the same thing but you want the option that has done nothing but make the problem worse and hide the real problem. I want a solution.
 
Everyone in the EU basically has health insurance and/or government subsidised care and our healthcare costs are half yours. Gotta keep thosse insurers regulated.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Everyone in the EU basically has health insurance and/or government subsidised care and our healthcare costs are half yours. Gotta keep thosse insurers regulated.
Click to expand...

Of those in the US who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills almost 70% are insured. Doesn't seem like health insurance is the solution. Why do so many keep saying it's the solution? Seems more like a diversion from the real problem.
 
OstrichSaK said:
Of those in the US who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills almost 70% are insured. Doesn't seem like health insurance is the solution. Why do so many keep saying it's the solution? Seems more like a diversion from the real problem.
Click to expand...

The only alternative to health insurance is state provided care, like the NHS.
 
ElasticNinja said:
The only alternative to health insurance is state provided care, like the NHS.
Click to expand...

Is that right?? How did sick people get care BEFORE there was this monstrosity known as healthcare? Maybe we should back in history, and it's not even that long ago for some answers. When you subsidize something, you get more of it and at a much higher cost. Look at college tuition fees as example B.
 
mike114 said:
Is that right?? How did sick people get care BEFORE there was this monstrosity known as healthcare? Maybe we should back in history, and it's not even that long ago for some answers. When you subsidize something, you get more of it and at a much higher cost. Look at college tuition fees as example B.
Click to expand...

Before, the wealthy paid for doctors and medecine, the poor died sweating in bed. Anyone in any other developed country would be dumb as shit to call healthcare a monstrosity. Maybe you are confused.
Sunsidising something and regulating it prevents costs from spiraling out of control. Look at the rest of the developed world for example.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Before, the wealthy paid for doctors and medecine, the poor died sweating in bed. Anyone in any other developed country would be dumb as shit to call healthcare a monstrosity. Maybe you are confused.
Sunsidising something and regulating it prevents costs from spiraling out of control. Look at the rest of the developed world for example.
Click to expand...

This exactly. I don't want to go back to the "good old days" of little to no regulation. Anyone heard stories/seen pictures of London during the industrial revolution. The air was so thick with soot you could almost cut it with a knife. Children were dying in cotton mills, getting caught up in the mechanisms because they were the only ones small enough to free a jam. Arsenic was used as a preservative and people who worked in those factories were being poisoned. Of course their employers, those kind hearted factory owners, paid for them to see a Dr. right? Not so much.

Look, as a parent of a kid with disabilities, who has had to go shopping for insurance, I know first hand how broken the system is. At one point when my husband was laid off, yay outsourcing! We had to find an alternative to employer paid healthcare. An insurance agent actually laughed at me when I told him my daughter had a mild form of cerebral palsy and I wanted to buy insurance for her. Laughed! Said no company would touch her. This is before she was diagnosed as having autism on top of it. These companies need oversight. Heck, some of them just need to be put out of business. But that doesn't mean we need to get rid of the system all together. If we did, people like my daughter wouldn't get the care they are entitled to in order to fulfil their right to life. Cancer would be an automatic death sentence for poor and middle class people.
It's great to talk about the constitution as written by our founding fathers being the supreme law. But our founding fathers didn't consider non-whites to be people. They exterminated whole tribes of Native Americans because they were savages. Africans were little better than trained monkeys who had to be enslaved and bred like dogs for their own protection. Should we go back to that way of thinking? The constitution is a living, breathing document, ment to change with society. Our founders were smart enough to know that times changed, and what is relevant today, may not be so tomorrow.
 
cmybliss said:
...wouldn't get the care they are entitled to in order to fulfil their right to life.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have to call you out on this statement. Nobody is ENTITLED to health care. Nobody. Educate yourself on the definition of that word and how it applies to health care specifically before you try to argue that fact. This is the problem with LOTs of people is they actually believe people are entitled to health care as some sort of an inalienable right. This is simply not true.

You never did answer my questions about health care itself (not health care insurance) being affordable. Funny that.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Before, the wealthy paid for doctors and medecine, the poor died sweating in bed. Anyone in any other developed country would be dumb as shit to call healthcare a monstrosity. Maybe you are confused.
Sunsidising something and regulating it prevents costs from spiraling out of control. Look at the rest of the developed world for example.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of inaccuracies in this post. For starters, the average life expectancy was substantially less than it is right now. What does doubling your life cost? I can understand why some exotic treatments that extend life are expensive but what about common injuries like broken arms? If they are using crazy exotic procedures to set an arm then maybe. Used to be you could set a broken arm on an emergency basis for the cost of a week's pay. Will a week's pay even get you through the door at an ER now? Why is that?

If health care costs were affordable health insurance would simply be choice like getting insurance on your new smart phone or extended warranties on your new car. Where we decided you HAVE to have health insurance to live a long healthy life is where the train came off the tracks. There is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that health insurance is actually the CAUSE of our broken health care system. The CAUSE! It's not the fix. It will NEVER be the fix. The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

At some point, we all die. It's inevitable. Face facts, those with more resources will have better care. Period. The disconnect is that people are of the feeling now that they are ENTITLED to better things w/o having to work for them. My stance is we need to make health care more affordable so that EVERYONE can actually afford it. As it stands right now nobody but the wealthy can afford even basic needs which isn't right. Health care insurance is NOT the solution.

HEALTH CARE INSURANCE IS THE PROBLEM!
 
OstrichSaK said:
I'm sorry but I have to call you out on this statement. Nobody is ENTITLED to health care. Nobody. Educate yourself on the definition of that word and how it applies to health care specifically before you try to argue that fact. This is the problem with LOTs of people is they actually believe people are entitled to health care as some sort of an inalienable right. This is simply not true.

You never did answer my questions about health care itself (not health care insurance) being affordable. Funny that.
Click to expand...
Every child is entitiled to healthcare. Everyone who cant provide for themselves because of disability or inability to earn a living is. Dont you dare tell a child that they should be left die.

OstrichSaK said:
There's a lot of inaccuracies in this post. For starters, the average life expectancy was substantially less than it is right now. What does doubling your life cost? I can understand why some exotic treatments that extend life are expensive but what about common injuries like broken arms?
Click to expand...
Surely this works against your earlier points? :confused: I dont see how this is an inaccuracy.


OstrichSaK said:
If they are using crazy exotic procedures to set an arm then maybe. Used to be you could set a broken arm on an emergency basis for the cost of a week's pay. Will a week's pay even get you through the door at an ER now? Why is that?
Click to expand...
To get my arm set would set me back
 
ElasticNinja said:
Every child is entitiled to healthcare. Everyone who cant provide for themselves because of disability or inability to earn a living is. Dont you dare tell a child that they should be left die.
Click to expand...

Again, no. I know to you and people like you it sounds like I'm saying 'Kill the babies' and 'all children must die' when I say that but trust my, I'm not killing children any more than you're saving them with your stance. Your stance insures that medical costs will continue to climb out of control until NOBODY can afford it (dangerously close already) regardless of health insurance or not.

ElasticNinja said:
To get my arm set would set me back
Click to expand...
 
It might be worth reading my post again (and looking up how healthcare is provided in the rest of the world). I agree that ObamaCare is a mess, but that doesnt mean a properly done universal health care system would be. I'd rather leave healthcare to each state personally, I dont think the federal government should be so involved.
Again, I'm seeing this from a European perspective, and then examining the U.S. situation. Its important to differentiate between systems and results, domnt say health insurance is wrong just because of the scandalous health care "system" in the U.S.
Sorry to hear about your mother BTW, but that wouldnt happen anywhere else in the Developed World.
 
ElasticNinja said:
It might be worth reading my post again (and looking up how healthcare is provided in the rest of the world). I agree that ObamaCare is a mess, but that doesnt mean a properly done universal health care system would be. I'd rather leave healthcare to each state personally, I dont think the federal government should be so involved.
Again, I'm seeing this from a European perspective, and then examining the U.S. situation. Its important to differentiate between systems and results, domnt say health insurance is wrong just because of the scandalous health care "system" in the U.S.
Sorry to hear about your mother BTW, but that wouldnt happen anywhere else in the Developed World.
Click to expand...

And it wouldn't have happened because of the COSTS of the care. You keep missing the point. 300 Euro to fix a broken arm versus $15,000USD. Think about that for a minute and let it sink in. Of course this wouldn't happen in the rest of the developed world because our government has been successfully conspiring against the populace with the mission to make money in this area for decades. Needless to say they've perfected it. You go in with heartburn and rather than telling you the ways to treat it (lose weight, don't eat large portions, don't eat before bed, don't eat spicy food, don't drink caffeine) they sell you a pill. Don't worry, your insurance will pay for most of it. So you've taken a problem than can likely be solved with zero dollars and instead treated the symptoms with something that costs more than zero dollars and also potentially adds side effects. Do that a few billion times over a few decades and slowly increase costs at first then greatly increase costs later and all the while feed people the solution of 'insurance' and eventually they will forget what stuff use to cost to begin with. I've said this several times now with many examples and facts to back it up but you keep missing it so here, I'll break it down for you:

Problem: Health care costs
Solution: Lower health care costs
Treatment of symptoms: Health insurance

Much like heartburn if you don't treat the problem and continue to treat symptoms you will eventually end up with a MUCH larger problem. The solution are the steps I listed earlier but fact is, it doesn't make anyone any money. Same in both cases. No money to be made from a free cure of heartburn (using the steps I listed works in most cases) just like lowering health costs don't benefit the providers. So instead, much like the heartburn comparison, we continue to try to treat the symptoms with things like health care insurance. Keep treating those symptoms and eventually you have a MUCH larger problem on your hands since you mask the symptoms until it becomes something worse that can no longer simply be medicated and ignored. This is our current health care system.

So, the real question should be how do you fix it? The problem didn't happen overnight so the solution also can't be overnight. If there was an overnight solution it would actually be to END all forms of health care insurance. It would force people to price shop and apply being frugal just the same way they do in everything else that concerns money. After all, they will have to pay for it just like they pay for everything else. Eventually offices and doctors HAVE to lower prices and find ways to also save money because office XYZ up the street can do the same procedure for less money and they're losing appointments. Open slots in a Dr's schedule is immediately noticeable. This will correct up the chain with everything involved as a result. It will return the power of control to the buyer the way all other industries are controlled. Someone who is on health insurance generally has NO idea what things cost nor did they do any sort of shopping in advance at all. This is exactly why health care providers can charge whatever they want because they can. There are no regulations keeping them from doing so so once you make it so the consumer doesn't care either, what's to stop them? No other industry is set up this way and making it so everyone HAS to have insurance will only make the problem worse.
 
I would like to add that insurance usually makes situations worse, not better. You want safer drivers? Take away auto insurance and watch how much safer people drive when they're paranoid that they may have to pay $10k in damages out of their hard earned money rather than a hundred bucks a month and a $500 deductible. People are more careful with their mobile phones when they don't have phone insurance. People take better care of themselves when they know that an investment in health up front will save them paying LOTs of money down the road.

Insurance companies are in it for one reason: Profit. Who do you think they make that profit off of? They sure as heck don't make the boat loads of profit they do seeing to it that everyone is helped who needs it. In fact, the fewer people they help the more profit they make. You force them to pay out and they will just adjust the other numbers to show a profit. Used to be you didn't HAVE to have insurance so they had to work harder to provide a service which made them better. So you require people to pay for health insurance and this will help these things... how?

Doesn't take a genius to figure these things out if you choose to openly and honestly look at them all.

In an attempt to bring this conversation full circle to the topic at hand, Ron Paul believes in individual responsibility and freedoms which both at the heart will help to correct the massive financial problems we have right now.
 
You havent provided facts. You've just said health insurance is fecked up in the U.S.A. so the solution is no health insurance. Thats ridiculous. Loads of countries have health insurance based healthcare systems and it works out fine and ok value.
Also I'm pretty sure its €1500 to get a broken arm seen to, not $15,000, even if you have twenty checkups bundled with that :D Thats still crazy mind, its less then €300 here in a private hospital because the state helps keep it that way (That is unsubisised FYI). Obviously if its a bad break you'll be off for pricy fancy scans which you'll have to pay out of pocket if you dont have insurance or dont go to a public hospital.
Emergency care: Playing the waiting game - Health News, Health - Independent.ie
^Might give you an idea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom