RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul

RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

petdave -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 4:58:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Ron Paul does not support Universal Healthcare on any basis. So you think that the government is doing a good job with all the other programs they run? Funny, somehow i hadn't gotten that impression [8\|]

cyberdude611 -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 5:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Ron Paul does not support Universal Healthcare on any basis. In fact, he advocates a reduction of government regulation over the healthcare industry. He also advocates some nutty insurance scheme over good old malpractice lawsuits - yeah, because it's the lawyers' fault doctors make actionable mistakes. I know he maintains an anti-choice position also. None of that works for me. Ultimately, he's just another "free market" lunatic. This is one of the reasons I can't vote for any of the Democrats. Giving healthcare for all will sink this economy. The government can't even regulate Medicare properly and you want them to regulate a healthcare program that will cover everybody? Sure universal healthcare works in France or in Germany or in Canada. But it can't work here because America is too big, has too many people, and healthcare in this country is too expensive. An emergency room visit costs at least $500 just to see the doctor....that doesn't include any treatment you may need or any prescription you need to pick up. To pay for it, the taxes would have to be raised astronomically. Estimates are that such a program in this country will cost between $600-$800 BILLION dollars a year to operate. That is about twice the current defense budget. We are $8 trillion dollars in debt, have a budget deficit of $300 billion, and are currently fighting two wars. Not to mention we have allowed all our productivity jobs to be shipped over seas in the name of free trade and globalization. So we don't have any money left to pay for healthcare. Unless someone has an idea to lower the cost of healthcare....there is no way the government can afford to pick up the tab. The only way I can see universal healthcare work in this country is to have each state maintain, fund, and regulate it. Kind of like how each state maintains their public schools. Universal healthcare just can't work on the federal level.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 5:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 We are $8 trillion dollars in debt, have a budget deficit of $300 billion, and are currently fighting two wars. So, the people you voted for are bankrupting us several ways that do nothing for the average American. Good to know... I would like to experiment with bankrupting us a different way - one that does actually provide a benefit to the average American. And actually, I think it can be done far more cheaply than people think.

Real0ne -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 5:46:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: This view is considered by most people to be a very fringe perspective - that's not going to help him become a viable candidate. My Friend...... The only reason its fringe.....is because very FEW understand it. And there's nothing conspiratorial about losing it. Even if you asked the above-average/informed person on the street to explain it - and more importantly, explain in detail what's wrong with it, even with the help of say ''wikipedia'', very few could do so and fully understand the ramifications in their own mind. So that's why I always say - we need something like the Ross Perot infomercials of the 90's to make people aware and have a full understanding. JMHO - R PS - I think you need a new quote from Heraclitus [;)] Agreed! The american people neeed to hear this hacked out in an open debate and that alone gets my vote because they will NOT hear it anywhere else and to miss this is to miss a once in a lifetiume opprotunity.

DollysSissyGirl -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 6:43:56 PM)
Ron Paul is much more sizzle than steak at the moment due to the fact that he has to fight for every second of air time he can. I do not personally think he has a shot in the dark to grab the GOP's candidacy. I admit I do appreciate his candor and unpolitical tongue . Its refreshing to see a politician speak from the heart and at the same time quantify what he is conveying as a sound solution. Healthcare reform will not happen overnight or over years. Frankly, in the state I currently am in I personally hope that universal healthcare does not become a reality unless I am guaranteed the exact same healthcre privelages which I currently obtain because of my constant hard work and fortitude in keeping a great job. I far from think life should be fair. In a capitalistic society we cannot become classless . This is the very reason people to this day risk their lives to come to this great country. Simply for the opportunity of their personal blood, sweat and tears to build their own personal fortune.

caitlyn -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 9:02:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The government can't even regulate Medicare properly and you want them to regulate a healthcare program that will cover everybody? I know many people that are very close to this issue, on many different levels. The almost universally consider MediCare to be by far, the most efficient and effective healthcare plan. What you might consider, is that a lot of the scare tactics that are spread about MediCare, are spread by those that will stop at nothing to keep the current 'healthcare for profit' system, the way it is now.

popeye1250 -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 9:11:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The government can't even regulate Medicare properly and you want them to regulate a healthcare program that will cover everybody? I know many people that are very close to this issue, on many different levels. The almost universally consider MediCare to be by far, the most efficient and effective healthcare plan. What you might consider, is that a lot of the scare tactics that are spread about MediCare, are spread by those that will stop at nothing to keep the current 'healthcare for profit' system, the way it is now. Caitlyn, correct! Of course insurance companies and big pharma don't want anything to change. And if "we can't afford" a national healthcare plan how can we " afford" to piss away $400 B in Iraq plus the $34.7 B that they just approved in "foreign aid" the other week? It's the same people making the money year after year that are telling us that we "can't afford" national healthcare.

caitlyn -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 9:23:57 PM)
We can afford a national healthcare plan. The money for the plan is going in the pockets of people that are ripping us of, at the expense of our health, and laughing all the way to the bank. This is one area where we agree Popeye ... what the fuck is wrong with the United States government, actually providing something for American taxpayers once in a while?

popeye1250 -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/13/2007 11:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn We can afford a national healthcare plan. The money for the plan is going in the pockets of people that are ripping us of, at the expense of our health, and laughing all the way to the bank. This is one area where we agree Popeye ... what the fuck is wrong with the United States government, actually providing something for American taxpayers once in a while? Caitlyn, "one area?" I thought we agreed on a few things. And yes, our government needs to start listening to The People.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 4:43:26 AM)
quote: cyberdude611 An emergency room visit costs at least $500 just to see the doctor....that doesn't include any treatment you may need or any prescription you need to pick up. To pay for it, the taxes would have to be raised astronomically. Are you forgetting that if the taxes to finance health care were spread across the whole population then that should reduce the cost on a "per head basis". In health care IMO both sides abuse their position. Many in the medical profession in extracting every last penny they can and many patients who when tax subsidised just dont care 'cos somebody else is going to pay. Not true of all but true enough to cause major problems. The suppliers of equipment and drugs like to take their share too. I also notice that its not considered the American way to shift towards government interference except of course for Farmers, Defense Contracters who used to got cost plus contracts and when a tariff needs to be imposed for protection eg Steel and on Chinese goods. Possibly Japanese cars and m/cycles. Dont forget Finance Houses when their investments go wrong. Doctors could be employed by the state but thats too Socialistic I guess lol Having said that this is a difficult problem with no simple answers.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 4:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 This is one of the reasons I can't vote for any of the Democrats. Giving healthcare for all will sink this economy. The government can't even regulate Medicare properly and you want them to regulate a healthcare program that will cover everybody? Sure universal healthcare works in France or in Germany or in Canada. But it can't work here because America is too big, has too many people, and healthcare in this country is too expensive. An emergency room visit costs at least $500 just to see the doctor....that doesn't include any treatment you may need or any prescription you need to pick up. To pay for it, the taxes would have to be raised astronomically. Estimates are that such a program in this country will cost between $600-$800 BILLION dollars a year to operate. That is about twice the current defense budget. We are $8 trillion dollars in debt, have a budget deficit of $300 billion, and are currently fighting two wars. Not to mention we have allowed all our productivity jobs to be shipped over seas in the name of free trade and globalization. So we don't have any money left to pay for healthcare. Unless someone has an idea to lower the cost of healthcare....there is no way the government can afford to pick up the tab. The only way I can see universal healthcare work in this country is to have each state maintain, fund, and regulate it. Kind of like how each state maintains their public schools. Universal healthcare just can't work on the federal level. This is one of the most ridiculous postings you have ever made cyberdude. American healthcare is expensive because it is run by private companies milking its clients for their own profit. American healthcare is twice as expensive as that of world class European health services. If America copied Europe, all Americans could have health cover for no extra expense and even have a tax rebate. EDIT 450 million people have health cover in the EU. The last I heard there was 300 million Americans. The new East European members aren't up to the standard of western Europe yet but that still leaves over 250 million Europeans having world class health cover and all pay less than Americans pay for cover.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 1:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The government can't even regulate Medicare properly and you want them to regulate a healthcare program that will cover everybody? I know many people that are very close to this issue, on many different levels. The almost universally consider MediCare to be by far, the most efficient and effective healthcare plan. What you might consider, is that a lot of the scare tactics that are spread about MediCare, are spread by those that will stop at nothing to keep the current 'healthcare for profit' system, the way it is now. Caitlyn, correct! Of course insurance companies and big pharma don't want anything to change. And if "we can't afford" a national healthcare plan how can we " afford" to piss away $400 B in Iraq plus the $34.7 B that they just approved in "foreign aid" the other week? It's the same people making the money year after year that are telling us that we "can't afford" national healthcare. Then you might not want to vote for Paul. Ron Paul is very much against Universal Healthcare. He doesn't want the government involved in healthcare at all. He opposes the FDA. He opposes the government giving mandatory vaccinations. He said he supports personal freedom when it comes to healthcare, where the person has the choice to make their own heathcare decisions without government interference. If you put in place universal healthcare...what you actually do is make the government one, big, giant HMO. Instead of the health insurance company making your healthcare decisions...the government will be making your decisions. What he supports is lowering the cost of healthcare and giving people tax credits to help pay for insurance premiums. He supports legislation that will reduce the maximum people can sue for malpractice. Ron Paul is also a medical doctor. While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. -Ron Paul August 2006

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 2:13:46 PM)
I read this elsewhere: ----- Ron Paul is a kook. Anti-abortion? Check. Anti-separation of state and church? Check. Pro-teaching creationism in school? Check. Pro-allowing racial discrimination? Check. Pro-banning atheists from holding office? Check. Pro-withdrawing from the UN and all international treaties? Check. Pro-gold standard? Check. Pro-protectionism? Check. Pro-withdrawing all US military from foreign soil (e.g. Germany, South Korea, and Afghanistan=? Check. Pro-allowing atrocities in the world without intervening? Check. Pro-legalizing all drugs, including e.g. crack and meth? Check. Pro-removing all checks on buying and owning guns? Check. Believes there's an evil world government (NWO) running the world? Check. Wants to disband FDA, NASA and all other federal science/oversight organizations? Check. Anti-environmentalist? Check. Supports Big Oil? Check. Perhaps the funniest of it all is that he's a MD - and he's a supporter of the pseudoscientific quackery known as Homeopathy. Kook? Fuck, he's the PERFECT STORM of kook! Source: User "Junkyarddawg" @ http://digg.com/politics/Members_of_the_U_S_Military_Are_Now_Shifting_Donations_to_Democrats ----- I don't agree that Ron Paul is a total nutter, but I wanted to show how he may be perceived by many centrist voters. The news is not good for Paul or his supporters.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 7:18:27 PM)
Does Ron Paul owe you money or did he steal your girlfriend to cause this negative obsession? You seem rather obsessed with a candidate that you believe will not win, and go out of your way almost daily to post something unflattering, or in the most recent case, warping some of his positions for god knows what reason. If all things were equal, I would imagine that you'd be equally disgusted by at least a few of the other candidates, but from reading your posts the whole of your opinion on every other candidate doesn't even come close to the effort you spend on Ron Paul. So, what's that all about. Does he really piss you off that much? It's weird like a stalker type weird.

popeye1250 -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 7:35:09 PM)
Cyber, I don't want the govt involved in it either. But if American Citizens are willing to pay for it it's not "socialised medicine." We could have another non-government agency run it.

Sanity -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 7:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Cyber, I don't want the govt involved in it either. But if American Citizens are willing to pay for it it's not "socialised medicine." We could have another non-government agency run it. I'm seeing a circular argument from you here, popeye. It's like, gee, let's give health care to the government to run, then we could have them farm it out to, say... insurance companies or something. But hey, that might be an actual improvement anyway - if even by pure accident. I say that because we have the trial lawyers running the health care system now. Who could possibly be better suited to run it other than trial lawyers? And you might as well face it, if the government is ever trusted to run the health care system, then it would still be the lawyers calling the shots anyway. Right?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/14/2007 9:20:31 PM)
NeedToUseYou: He's relevant for a few reasons. Some people find him an interesting Libertarian/Republican possibility. He's the online darling of various Libertarian communities. Mainstream comedian Bill Maher mentions Ron Paul all the time. Some of his ideas are actually very interesting to those of us that at some point held out a hope for a Constitutional form of government. On the other hand, some of views just are odd and highly personal and not supported by anything more than his own personal opinion. Many people that might support his more rigorous Constitutionalist views would probably NOT support some of his more peculiar personal opinions. But when you vote someone into office, you get the good and the bad - not just one or the other. So yes, I admit he's interesting in various ways. I also think he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything because he's too outsider for most people. So at best, he's a distraction. But I have hardly gone out of my way to malign him with oddball links. How can I distort his views when I am linking directly to his material? In most of my posts I merely link to Lewrockwell.com where Paul has dozens of comments, take a look: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html And its not my fault if you find his ideas there too fringe. What other source(s) do you prefer? I mean, if you don't like then don't vote for him. If you do like him, then do vote for him. I won't be voting for him - some of the reasons why have already been covered. So what, now we can't even have an honest discussion about topical people and events? Sheesh!

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/15/2007 12:10:25 PM)
quote: Ron Paul is a kook. Anti-abortion? Check. Anti-separation of state and church? Check. Pro-teaching creationism in school? Check. Pro-allowing racial discrimination? Check. Pro-banning atheists from holding office? Check. Pro-withdrawing from the UN and all international treaties? Check. Pro-gold standard? Check. Pro-protectionism? Check. Pro-withdrawing all US military from foreign soil (e.g. Germany, South Korea, and Afghanistan=? Check. Pro-allowing atrocities in the world without intervening? Check. Pro-legalizing all drugs, including e.g. crack and meth? Check. Pro-removing all checks on buying and owning guns? Check. Believes there's an evil world government (NWO) running the world? Check. Wants to disband FDA, NASA and all other federal science/oversight organizations? Check. Anti-environmentalist? Check. Supports Big Oil? Check. I was referring to the quote above, and comments like kook, and nutter. The above quote that you originally quoted from is about 1/2 manipulation, and half true. It's just painting his views in the most negative light possible. He doesn't support Big OIL for example, if anything the present system supports big oil via subsidies, he certainly wouldn't do that. He wouldn't impede businesses though or put pricing restrictions into place, I assume that is what the original author that you quoted took as supporting big oil. The author is simply applying their paranoid analysis of the effects of his views, and stating it as if that is his position. It verges on a outright lie in some of those cases such as the supporting Big OIL. The truth is all the recent administrations democrat and repub, have supported big oil, and he's not wanting to subsidize them. Go figure. My point is simple if you don't want to vote for him fine, I simply don't see any need to post crap like the above, which is mostly just warping his views, and using terms like nutty, or kook, in reference to him, or people that support him. I fully agree a lot of people probably will be turned off by his views on some issues. Like people that say they want universal healthcare, and say they support Ron Paul, are living with a conflict of personality if you ask me. I'm pretty sure he won't win, there is a chance though, if something happens or comes out in the interim, it doesn't change my vote though. People want a welfare state, and I'm pretty certain whoever gets elected will win on that premise barring some unforeseen event, or revelation in regards to the frontrunners. It's simple in the end what I'm saying, if he has a small chance of winning, why post things that verge on lies and call people names in the process. It makes no sense and only will alienate people from your positions..

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/15/2007 12:27:57 PM)
I can't take responsibility for what others will think about anything. I posted the quote and I explained why I did. End of story.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul (9/15/2007 12:30:04 PM)
LOL, okay, I could dredge the message board, for previous kook, nutter comments, that weren't quotes. Anyway, express yourself how you like, it seems self-defeating to me in this context.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125