CBS GOP Debate tonite

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Ahh yes, I guess supporting private medicine and not wanting the govt to force our every move, makes him a self centered sociopath. Give me a break.

Btw, Ron Paul wasn't the one who shouted "yes!". Those were the twisted bastards in the audience we've been dealing with this whole time, don't you know?? Sheesh. It's surprising as knowledgeable as you claim to be, the first rule would be to deny ignorance of such things. Tonight's cheers for torture were a good example of the kind of crowds we've been dealing with. Guess who DOESN'T support torture either? Nah, you wouldn't care about that since Obama is the only thing that seems to resonate with you.

But whatever, you're gonna stick to your left wing partisan BS no matter what. I think most people have grasped that, so around here I don't really think anyone cares what you think.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


sigh...are you kidding!?

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Ahh yes, I guess supporting private medicine and not wanting the govt to force our every move, makes him a self centered sociopath.

Give me a break.

First off, put your straw man away. The private medical industry is in no danger of extinction from a public health care plan - though it IS in danger of losing its immense, pirate-style profits due to lower-cost competition with said public health service. Competition in a free market - the eternal bane of capitalism!

But yes, in fact it does make him - and I'll reiterate, you, as his ardent and unblinking supporter - a sociopath. Because the end result of total privatization has ALWAYS been that the poor in a society lose access to whatever was privatized - they end up unable to afford the profit-driven costs (because, you know, they're poor.) So when you advocate a policy that says the sick must suffer if they can't pay up, you are in fact an advocate of a socipathic system.

Further, maybe you should blink. Ron Paul is himself a member of the for-profit medical industry. Others in this industry make up his both his #1 and #3 largest donors (the retirement industry, and health care in general, respectively.) Were Herman Cain advocating the total deregulation of, I dunno, the pizza industry (just a handy example) I'm sure you'd see it for what it is - an interested and bought party trying to sway policy to his own profit. Further the fact that his other top contributors are the some of biggest bubble-blowers in our economy should tell you more (Real estate and computing / software)

Btw, Ron Paul wasn't the one who shouted "yes!". Those were the twisted bastards in the audience we've been dealing with this whole time, don't you know?? Sheesh. It's surprising as knowledgeable as you claim to be, the first rule would be to deny ignorance of such things. Tonight's cheers for torture were a good example of the kind of crowds we've been dealing with.

Okay, sure. Could have been any sort of goons in the audience. I'll grant that.

Now show me where Ron Paul proves the sentiment wrong. Show me where, and how, in Ron Paul's policy, the man in the example is not left to die for lack of ability to meet the profit-driven costs of the health care industry.

Guess who DOESN'T support torture either? Nah, you wouldn't care about that since Obama is the only thing that seems to resonate with you.

Actually, he doesn't resonate with me - it's just that he's not as bad as the other options. And for the record, I've frequently stated I DO support Paul's foreign policy, and think he might be a decent pick for SecDef or SecState. However, a man who is Gandhi abroad and Pinochet at home is not someone I am going to vote for.

But whatever, you're gonna stick to your left wing partisan BS no matter what. I think most people have grasped that, so around here I don't really think anyone cares what you think.

Spoken like a true adherent. "Stone the blasphemer, and do not heed his heretical words!"

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You act like competition in privatized heath-care is some terrible evil thing. Don't you realize that competition would not only lower the cost of health care, but also increase the quality of health-care? Personally, I'm tired the current health-care system. I avoid going to the Dr. at all costs for several reasons. #1 it costs too much. #2 doctors could give a crap less about their patients. They're happy just so long as the visit lasts no longer than 5 minutes and the cost of an Ibuprofen remains $20 a pill just so they can get a hefty check.

Ron Paul wants to restore the Dr./Patient relationship, and that's a hell of a lot better than what most people get now. I hardly see how that makes him a "self centered sociopath." The fact is, you have it wrong. More govt involvement has NEVER done us any good in any area. If you want to keep that fantasy alive, then by all means, go ahead. Making blatantly incorrect and insulting assessments because of your political affiliation doesn't do anyone any good. It seems that people might just be figuring that out.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


easy rp proved it wrong by being an actual doctor/physician and choosing to practice medicine on those who could not afford it. The wonders it would do if you'd actually look into his past and positions without trying to prove something.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

You act like competition in privatized heath-care is some terrible evil thing. Don't you realize that competition would not only lower the cost of health care, but also increase the quality of health-care? Personally, I'm tired the current health-care system. I avoid going to the Dr. at all costs for several reasons. #1 it costs too much. #2 doctors could give a crap less about their patients. They're happy just so long as the visit lasts no longer than 5 minutes and the cost of an Ibuprofen remains $20 a pill just so they can get a hefty check.

You're tired of the current health care system, because doctors charge too much for too little service. Okay. You complain that medication costs too much. You're absolutely right. You're someone who avoids seeing the doctor unless you're gushing arterial blood or something - I hear ya, man.

I've got a surprise for you.

Our health care system is completely privatized. The only government "interference" is subsidizing some costs for patients through medicaid / medicare. The system you are railing against... is the same system you're claiming to support. Oh, oh, and here's something else funny... all that "tort reform" that you're likely to try to bring up next? None of it has actually driven down (or even plateaued) medical costs. Anywhere. The "savings" gained through tort reform are simply transferred to profits - at a reduction of service and safety to the patient.

Do you want me to talk about drug patents and the for-profit, completely privatized pharmaceutical industry?

Here's the simple, easily-understood thing, Wookie. Adding "profit motive" does not make things cheaper.

Ron Paul wants to restore the Dr./Patient relationship, and that's a hell of a lot better than what most people get now.

Maybe he does. But his "solution" isn't going to accomplish that.

I hardly see how that makes him a "self centered sociopath."

it doesn't. His insane "screw the poor, they should die" economic policy does.

The fact is, you have it wrong. More govt involvement has NEVER done us any good in any area. If you want to keep that fantasy alive, then by all means, go ahead.

The irony of posting this statement to the internet makes me chuckle. But okay. So the rise of the middle class, the effective measures against poverty (especially among seniors), access for all income levels to education, regulatory processes intended to keep your food and drink and medicines from being the cause of your death are all bad and intolerable, but the gutting of the new deal policies and the resultant shrinkage of the middle class are good, the threat of throwing more seniors into poverty by abandoning social security is good, the removal of education from the public is good, and massive deregulation to increase your E. coli and arsenic intake... are good.

I'm afraid the only person indulging in fantasy is you. And the sad part is, it's not even your own fantasy - you're just hodgepodging the fever-dreams of Milton Friedman.

Making blatantly incorrect and insulting assessments because of your political affiliation doesn't no-one any good. It seems that people might just be figuring that out.

Oh, it's not because of my political affiliation. It's because Ron Paul really is a sociopath. But I'll change my stance on you - you're not a sociopath. But you do seem like a very confused person.

reply to post by eLPresidente


And how does this translate into policy? Is Ron Paul going to try for legislation to make doctors take patients who can't afford it? I'm making an easy guess of "no." Is he going to provide government supplements to make up the difference for doctors who choose to do this? Again, I'm guessing no. Is a President Paul going to personally roll up his sleeves and be the personal MD for people like Wookie and myself, who generally don't make enough money to afford treatment? Third time... No.

So. His "policy" if you can call it that, comes out to be "Well, just hope for a doctor to be charitable."

Truly inspiring.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm sure I you don't need a lesson in how government intervention + inflated currency = inflated medical costs.

Why pay tens of thousands for a visit to the E.R. when it can be done for a few hundred?

btw, look up hippocratic oath.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

I'm sure I you don't need a lesson in how government intervention + inflated currency = inflated medical costs.

No no. By all means. Educate me

Why pay tens of thousands for a visit to the E.R. when it can be done for a few hundred?

Profit motive.

btw, look up hippocratic oath.

I'm familiar. Are you aware that it's not a magically-binding geasa? That it can be broken on a whim? Sort of like oaths of office?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You may very well have some good points. When it comes to health care, I don't think there is any proposal on the table that is perfect. The one thing I do know, is that I don't want my govt FORCING me to buy anything. It's the same way I feel about auto insurance. When people start advocating more govt in to the decisions *I* make, and the $$ I spend from my pocket, it starts to bug me on an unprecedented level. If I'm forced to use our current health care providers, my govt can shove it.

From you:

it doesn't. His insane "screw the poor, they should die" economic policy does.

You may be somewhat educated on Ron Pauls policies, but I somehow doubt that you fully really are. When you start making accusations such as "he's a self centered sociopath" it makes my blood boil. It's the same kind of rhetoric our buddies in the media try to pull on a daily basis. Compared to other candidates on the right AND left when it comes to health-care, I feel it is totally unfair for you to make that judgment.


Here's a decent description of Ron Paul's Health-Care policy from Wikipedia.

Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families:[243] He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.[244]

* H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.
* H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
* H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.
* H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.[245]

Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes.[citation needed] He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973.[245] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[246] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation,[247] but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[248]

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.[249]

He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, observing that the Codex Alimentarius proposal would even require a prescription for basic vitamins.[250]

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see the whole "screw the poor they should die, Ron Paul is a self centered sociopath" comments being justified from what I see in that policy.

Edit: This is just the health care side of the house. This doesn't involve the entire economic spectrum. We agree on his foreign policy as you have stated. His foreign policy plays a big role in his overall economic policy you think is so sociopathic. If we take the billions saved from all the wars and other military bases over-seas coupled with his 1 trillion proposed federal cuts in a 1 year time frame, there is no other candidate on the table who can offer that kind of change. Not even Obama and all his broken promises.

Originally posted by Wookiep
You may very well have some good points. When it comes to health care, I don't think there is any proposal on the table that is perfect. The one thing I do know, is that I don't want my govt FORCING me to buy anything. It's the same way I feel about auto insurance. When people start advocating more govt in to the decisions *I* make, it starts to bug me on an unprecedented level. If I'm forced to use our current health care providers, my govt can shove it.

I agree - the mandate for insurance is insane. Know why it's there? because of profit motive. It's there because the insurance companies stood to lose their record, ever-increasing profits (think about it; this is an industry that makes its money when it DOESN'T provide a service!) So they leveraged their influence to insure that the proposal would not pass without their demands being met. And since the same people they leveraged were the ones voting on the mess, guess what happened?

All because the private insurance company is out for private profits, and is using private money to influence PUBLIC policy.

Now. You want reduced costs and improved service in the private medical field. And you're right, competition will achieve that. Now the problem is... they need to be competing against something. An untied, totally privatized system doesn't compete - it colludes. The only competion in the health care industry, is doctors competing to have bigger houses and shinier cars than each other.

An actual public option - that is, a system where government provides medical care for its people (but still allowing private medical care - thus the "option," rather than "mandate") - would force competition.Private doctors would have to cut costs to compete, but would also have to ensure their service is above and beyond that given by the government. Think Canada, where health care can be free... if you wait. or health care can be immediate... if you pay a reasonably-set price.

You may be somewhat educated on Ron Pauls policies, but I somehow doubt that you fully really are. When you start making accusations such as "he's a self centered sociopath" it makes my blood boil. It's the same kind of rhetoric our buddies in the media try to pull on a daily basis. Compared to other candidates on the right AND left when it comes to health-care, I feel it is totally unfair for you to make that judgment.

There are bigger things in the world that should make your blood boil than some dude on the internet badmouthing Ron Paul. Now. it's not just health care. it's his entire economic platform. Ron Paul is essentially just parroting the monetarist economic theories of Friedrich Hayek. These theories have been tested repeatedly in many places around the world - most spectacularly in South America during the 70's. Pinochet, Branco, Videla, Bordaberry... These names might be familiar to you. basically they forced Hayek's economics onto their nations (through violence, since the policies kept failing in votes). The policies exploded poverty and created a very small minority of investors who pillages the nations. The same measures were instituted (more peacefully) by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher... and resulted in sweeping unemployment, shrunken middle classes, and again, a tiny, fabulously wealthy class of investors. When Russia "went capitalist," they oo adopted Hayek's theories... leading to massive unemployment, the death of its nascent middle class, and - noticing a pattern - a clique of very, very, very rich investors.

Maybe Ron Paul's a really nice guy. But he's advocating an economic theory that is proven to bring ruin to a nation. either this makes him a very, very stupid man who just doesn't know, OR it makes him an advocate of the destruction this philosophy wreaks - essentially a sociopath. "I don't care who's hurt, so long as I feel good."

And for the record, this doesn't make his competition any better - as I've said lots, he's the BEST the republicans offer here. Nor are the Democrats shining paragons - most of them are Freemarketeer pirates, too.

Here's a decent description of Ron Paul's Health-Care policy from Wikipedia.

Tax credits. Tell me, Wookie. Do you think "tax credits" will work, all on their own? I don't. What I forsee happening is the medical industry simply realizing they have a cash cow on their hands - they charge more, the government gives them the money (though it does make a pit stop.) Might as well just use that money to pay for an actual public health care system - of course, Paul is a doctor, funded by doctors, so... again, profit motive is a factor.

I don't see the whole "screw the poor they should die, Ron Paul is a self centered sociopath" comments being justified from what I see in that policy.

That comes from the whole picture. What you've got here is a wealthy doctor looking for kickbacks for other wealthy doctors, and using the beleaguered patient as a facade for that.

So they collectively agree torture's cool...great bunch of people

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So they collectively agree torture's cool...great bunch of people

Ron Paul said it was illegal under international law and under our law, totally immoral, uncivilized, un-American and very impractical.

So he doesn't see torture as being cool.

Originally posted by neo96
After a decade of War the last thing Americans what is more of it we can not afford it in more ways than one.

Do you see the fallacy of your statement. Why have been so much war? The only way that the USA economic is sustainable is by doing war. You have a military industrial complex to feed, wining war mean you get to install puppet governments and get long term contract on those nations national resources but you get contracts for rebuilding what you destroy (with the benefit that you can selectively select what would be more profitable on target selection), you also get to test and demo your superior armament and this also returns as profitable contracts to selling them.

It is all about selecting profitable target states the USA is not ruled by morals but by economics. This is why a confrontation with China seems inevitable, if the USA continues to fail to balance the deficit.

In one part you are correct, if the war momentum is not continued, there will be a point the USA will not afford to pay for the military expenses, but that is a threat to your national security, hence the necessity to continual pursuit of conflicts.

I don't watch television here in the UK, and I certainly don't bother with American main stream media. I've got to say that GOP debate was sickening.

5 min mark: I can't believe the sh*t these people are talking. Almost everything they are saying is wrong - are they mad?
10 min mark: What kind of a twisted world do these people inhabit? Do all Americans think this way?... that the world is their f*cking playground? What is this madness?
15 min mark: Woaha, they missed Ron Paul? Why don't they do it in order? This is clearly rigged. Maybe they will go back to him. Wow, they are still talking total sh*t!
20 min mark: Okay, clearly they are missing out Ron Paul for a reason. This is getting tedious. They are starting to infect my brain. Michele Bachmann looks crazy, but I wouldn't mind seeing her naked.
22 min mark: I'm not wasting more time on this.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Wookiep

 

And that's a statement that I stand by 100%. I also extend that appelation to everyone who supports Ron Paul. Here's an example why:

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”

The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

"Let him die so I can save money and pat myself on the back about how 'free' I am!" - Ron Paul and his sycophants in a single sentence.

edit on 13/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

So if a person has a job, has the ability to purchase insurance, elects to not buy insurance, gets sick, our tax dollars should pay for his health care? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

Btw, that was the question presented to RP that you kindly left out. The cheers, like someone else mentioned came from a few idiots in the audience.

So that makes RP a sociopath? That's the reason you own a dart board with RP's face on it? I don't buy it. Pretty poor example to stand by 100%

I actually admired your first post, but again you prove to just look to hijack these threads in order to bash Paul and start conflict.

Moving on