Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Need an example of why the Department of Education needs to be eliminated?

"Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks."

 

But where might you settle and be allowed to exercise your sovereignty? Simply not voting or relocating is not a solution. Or are you implying you would instead vote for Obama to keep us on the path towards prosperity?

 

Prosperity my ass

 

Ah, The Naked Communist again. Is there any particular point of you quoting this? I asked you about it last time and, to no surprise, you didn't answer. You seem to be saying that because certain Americans, like RooRshack, have certain ideas, that that is evidence of some communist conspiracy in which they have taken over education systems. You do realize that's a complete non-sequitur, right?

 

Isn't that where Obama and the Democrats are leading us? Just take a look at how Julia will benefit from a second Obama term, as shown on his website.

 

A lot of us see a mixed economy with elements of social safety net and a (well-regulated) free market with rewards as well as obligations as a goal, not as a step in the path toward socialism.

Libertarians claim that they would bring us freedom, but these freedoms would quickly be devoured by unrestrained corporations and the oligarchy.
The problem is that without safeguards in place, money buys votes, gains influence and brings injustice to everyone else.
Libertarianism: Lovely dream, but the reality is a nightmare.
Fight with all your might to keep libertarians from ever taking office anywhere!

 

The point being an explanation of how our form of government is being and has been changing from being one "by the people" gradually into one "of the people".

Is it a non-sequitur? And you would agree that the below quote is not? And should be accepted as fact?

 

So I take it you see us headed in the right direction, and that direction is not toward socialism? Thankfully, government in its present form has reduced the effect of money in buying votes, gaining influence, and is bringing justice to everyone else?

 

Socialism is not an inevitable destination. For decades, countries have generally settled on a very pragmatic mix of free-enterprise and government control, each in roles where they are potentially most efficient.

Potentially is the key word, as what we currently have is inefficient.
Many social democracies in Europe provide social services far more expediently than in the USA. Health care is getting so expensive that we will need to outlaw private medical practice, outlaw health insurance companies and provide universal free health care. I used to think that health care could remain privately controlled, but costs are annually rising beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest citizens. Private health care is no longer an option. It should be a government service like the IRS or Army.

And what we have now is not free enterprise, but cronyism. We need laws and enforcement of those laws to stop lobbying, influence peddling, bribery and the like.

 

Really now, "a very pragmatic? mix of free-enterprise and government control, each in roles where they are potentially most efficient."? I suppose that would depend upon your definition of 'efficient'.

When you say "Many social democracies in Europe provide social services far more expediently than in the USA.", are you claiming there is a shorter wait to receive medical care when needed, or just that newl social programs are created more quickly?

Health care costs could be cut enormously simply by outlawing costly procedures and drugs to be developed.

While you may claim that "Socialism is NOT an inevitable destination", it does sound like you do support it as THE desired destination.

I've yet to see one single item to be provided by those on the Left which would eliminate, or even reduce, cronyism, lobbying, influence peddling, bribery, or any other form of corruption which takes place not only in business, but even more so in government, not to mention society in general as well.

How many more government regulatory agencies will it take? Just take a look at what exists at the Federal level of government today, on top of State and local government.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

Not enough yet?

 

Preliminary estimates are that Congressman Paul captured 95% of the Oklahoma delegates.

 

What I want is affordable medical care when I need it (ideally before I need it).

The cost of this care used to be affordable, but for me and a lot of people, the bills are growing faster than our paychecks.
This is not free enterprise. If it were, medical care costs would be competitive.
The price of most everything else has to compete in an open market.

If health care doesn't work in the free market, and I have proved that it doesn't then, it needs to be a government service, just like paving roads or defending our borders.

If health care were affordable and free market, I would be fine with that. But right now, I don't dare get sick.

 

I take it you voted "No - I'm liberal leaning" in the poll.

I assume you do accept as fact that there is a 'cost' to providing health care services, like any other service provided to humans by other humans?

Since hospitals are required by an act of Congress (EMTALA - 1986) to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay, without providing reimbursement for the costs of those services, the costs need to be made up somewhere else.

If you really live in Atlanta, and would like to see an example of some of the abuse as a consequence, just visit the emergency room at Grady or any other hospital.

What are some examples of cost increases over the last 25, 50, or 75 years that you are talking about? Many drugs and medical devices/procedures have come about in recent times which required great investment in time and acquiring FDA approval prior to coming to market. Like most any product, the work leading to both success as well as ensuing failures need to be recouped, and something as simple seeming as a new miracle drug may be priced quite high initially, but usually diminishes in price becoming more affordable to a greater number of persons over time in relation to the costs of production along with the demand.

The costs of living in general have risen over time, and will continue to rise as our currency devalues.

If government takes over health care and costs decrease, it will likely be due to the fact that the quality and availability of health care will be diminished as the means. Nearly anyone can work effectively paving roads, or even serve as fodder protecting our borders, but few become proficient as neurosurgeons, heart specialists, etc. How would you like to have the surgeon enter the operating room and tell you he just lost his job paving roads last week but was hired by the hospital this week, please relax and start counting to 100 as my ex-road paving co worker begins to administer anesthesia, and good luck.

Health care when I was young was much more a free market, and must less costly, before the Federal government became deeply involved beginning in 1965, along with subsequent expansions.

 

Actually I am moderate on most issues, or to be more precise, a pragmatist rather than an ideologue.
I just believe that health care needs to be government-operated because the private sector has failed. There is no free market in health care. It's not like we can go back to what we had 25 years ago. It ain't there!

There are costs to inaction as well. Without a government run system of public health, pandemics would kill thousands and only the richest elite could afford even the most basic of care.

It is up to the federal government to reimburse hospitals for indigent care, but hospitals are charging too much as well.

Actually, I did go to the Grady Emergency Room once and had to pay the full cost of my treatment and followup. There was no "free" emergency room workaround for me. For followup, I saw a nurse. She took a bottle of peroxide and a cotton ball and a pair of scissors (which she still possesses) and billed me $90 for a procedure that took 15 seconds and required minimal first aid training. A lot of places don't even charge for followup visits, but they gouge the patients, (literally too) because they can.
Until hospital charges get in line with the level of service they provide and there is true competition for my health care, they have no business operating in the private sector, but it ain't gonna happen! Health care must become goverment-run.
Most of the time we don't need fancy drugs or high tech medicine. Most health care is the same stuff it has always been, at far, far higher cost. And yes, costs are increasing faster than inflation every year for decades.

 

hell no. ever hear of christian reconstructionism? paul is one of those cats. he's a pseudo-libertarian "former" member of the constitution party, too. you know, these loons.

 

I just threw in the vote comment in an attempt to maintain some semblance of remaining on topic.

You imply the private sector has failed in health care, asserting that there is no free market in health care, without identifying the underlying causes resulting in your opinion. It's a matter of people expecting, or perhaps demanding, to receive the most up to date and costly care with total disregard of the costs. What existed 25 years ago remains in existence, but much has improved, and those improvements come at a price or not at all.

There is a difference between controlling an infectious, easily spread, disease, and general health care available to individuals.

While it may be "up to the government" to reimburse hospitals for some care provided, like medicare and medicaid, the government decides how much it will allow, if any at all in some cases, and leaves it to the hospitals to make up the short fall as best they can. When you speak of the cost of inaction, you might apply that thought to what care will continue to be provided if the costs of providing the care due to government regulations exceed the fee allowed to be charged. No one seems to give thought to the responsibilities and insurance requirements of health care providers, which in turn drive up the costs.

I would have expected a pragmatic thinker would have instead went to a local drug store and purchased a bottle of peroxide, bag of cotton balls, and pair of scissors.

What constantly seems to be ignored is the fact that when government provides, or mandates the provision of anything, it can not eliminate the underlying costs of what is being provided which are then distributed among all those who do pay, for what is being provided to others at no cost.

If everyone had to pay for the services they received, prices would go down, but when services are being provided to some, and often many at no price or a price below the costs of the services provided, then others will be charged accordingly to make up the difference. Even government provided services, health care included, are bound to reality, only government has the ability to deficit spend perpetually as noted by the rapidly increasing national debt. Everyone seems willing to accept that, ignoring the fact that at some point, it becomes difficult to find anyone willing to make loans, and that leaves only the creation of a larger supply of fiat currency, devaluing the existing currency, and raising prices of everything.

I suspect in short order all countries, with the likely exception of China, will begin to gradually increase their money supplies devaluing their currencies in unison in order to not have much noticeable effect on exchange rates, which will result in a rising cost of living globally.

 

Indie

The dictionary definition is that it is a disabled person and many also explain it can be a derogatory or offensive term for a disabled person.

So I repeat - Can you explain what you mean by ‘crippled’ because you seem to imply you think ‘cripples’ cannot be healthy or athletic.

And that this attitude toward the disabled seems to imply that being born into social disadvantage is in your mind the exact same as being born with a mental or physical disadvantage and so an equal race between the disadvantaged and advantaged is impossible because the advantaged are physically and mentally superior. So in your mind the only way to ‘level the field’ is to ‘cripple’ the superior advantaged because it would be impossible to help the disadvantaged and that seems like a very Social Darwinist viewpoint.

To me someone born into disadvantaged could have the same potential as a person born into advantage, it just that in a race one has the advantage over the other.

 

Indie

I don’t think of myself a disadvantaged, but during my life I have been thankful for such things as unemployment benefits and the NHS for example. As a human being I’m thankful for the regulatory system that means I live in a mainly healthy environment (e.g. clean air and water regulation). But I’d prefer an economic system that was geared more toward helping everyone than one that seemed geared toward helping a few.

In what way does a child born into advantage personally achieve that position?

Again - Is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they might not go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

Are you claiming there can be no advantages in being born into advantage? And self serving example that cannot be checked or verified is not evidence that problems of disadvantage can always be overcome.

Can you actually supply an example of ‘my’ supposed con game?

I’m already a member of a community and the problem is that the neoliberal ideas that have dominated its policies over the last 30 odd years or so are the main reason why most people in it have experienced a reduction in their real term incomes while a few have gained hugely a situation that seems to have been mirrored in the US.