Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[Galleleo]

Ok, so this was too much to read for me about a subject that doesnt really affect me that much.

But I skimmed Epis post and I so did not get an answer if epi is a girl!!

Ow, and Heavensent contradicting himself was funny too.

I am out.

[Cops]

Reaver - You agree there's a problem in America as far as Health Care goes so what exactly is the answer? Universal Health care works in Canada, France, Britain, and most other major countries. If American's can't realize that Universal Health care doesn't mean rolling the carpet in for the reds than it's your fault you're in debt and that millions of people die, not anyone else's (not you specifically but the government of America). If your country truly believes in saving other people while letting your own die than somethings been backwards in America for the past 40 years. I just can't agree, and although this seems like a personal attack at you and your country I do not wish for it to come across that way but not adapting to some basic form of health care for the masses is unmoral, unethical, wrong and completely contradicts any positive action American foreign policy claims to make. I'm all for financial aid and abolishing some foreign debt but I can't believe the American people have stood for a system that completely screws them left right and center.

Propose a system that trumps Universal Health care, considering Canada, Britain, and most nations use this system and have not found an alternative solution that works better, especially for the middle class.

edit: don't give me one of those 20 page Jerome answers that basically requires America to not be America and the entire market to be changed because frankly that's not realistic and it doesn't help or solve the problem, at least in the short term.

[Galleleo]

Holy Crap, McChain is a retard. How can you seriously compare bringing the troops home to how WWII started..

And my god you have a lot of old, old, old, senile, old, old, republican candidates..

[Vatican Assassin]

Yes because my dear heavensent, mentally deranged means that his mind works differently than others and works so differently because it's in fact quite good at what it does. It's a complement indeed.

If he thought I meant 'idiot' then he needs to start reading about what I actually say, instead of what he THINKS I said.

gosh when you called me mentally deranged twice I THOUGHT it wasn't a compliment, what was I thinking? Oh, I get it, it was sarcasm! Calling someone deranged, then saying its a compliment, thats hilarious stuff!

btw, when ron paul says he won't vote on federal standards it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to do away with all of the current standards. When he says he wants to do away with income tax because he does not think it is Constitutional, it dos not necessarily mean that he wants to undo every change ever made to the constitution. When he wants to fight for the 2nd amendment it does mean he wants to make assault weapons legal. Please cite your source and tell us what Ron Paul actually said, instead of what you THINK he said. You may have noticed that Ron Paul refers to the "So-called" assault weapon ban bill, this is because of the broad range of weapons which were considered assault weapons, such as any weapon with a pistol grip, for instance. We're not just talking about AKs.

[HeavenSent]

Read, Look & Learn who's running AmeriKa :fear: :fear: :fear:
The Unofficial Biography:
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
http://www.tarpley.net/bushbook.zip

1997 "The Grand Chessboard" prophecies of 9/11 & the war on terror.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

http://fromthewilderness.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...25979024486145

"Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place... They revolted against much more mild oppression."
Congressman Ron Paul (R) Tx. Source- Washington Times Insight Magazine, Nov.,9th, 2001

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
-Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S.2 (1866)

[Epinephrine]

gosh when you called me mentally deranged twice I THOUGHT it wasn't a compliment, what was I thinking? Oh, I get it, it was sarcasm! Calling someone deranged, then saying its a compliment, thats hilarious stuff!

My response:

you don't care what he's talking about, you just voice your opinion to what you think most people tend to talk about, thats valuable input thanks.

QED

[Jerome Scuggs]

edit: don't give me one of those 20 page Jerome answers that basically requires America to not be America and the entire market to be changed because frankly that's not realistic and it doesn't help or solve the problem, at least in the short term.

OK... so you want him to give you a system that trumps the current system... but you also tell him that whatever system that is... it can't be different from your system, because "change" is "unrealistic". You sound like a Southerner in the 1960's, arguing against desegregation. You sound like George Bush when he try to explains his way out of why he's not doing anything about global warming.

And that's why I am not participating in this thread. Because you can't lay out 20 pages on this sort of shit. If you could, we wouldn't be debating, because you'd understand what you're saying. Hell, if you actually studied the systems of Britain, Canada, et al - not a google search, but kill a few hours in a university library - you'd be ashamed of yourself.

[Cops]

OK... so you want him to give you a system that trumps the current system... but you also tell him that whatever system that is... it can't be different from your system, because "change" is "unrealistic". You sound like a Southerner in the 1960's, arguing against desegregation. You sound like George Bush when he try to explains his way out of why he's not doing anything about global warming.

And that's why I am not participating in this thread. Because you can't lay out 20 pages on this sort of shit. If you could, we wouldn't be debating, because you'd understand what you're saying. Hell, if you actually studied the systems of Britain, Canada, et al - not a google search, but kill a few hours in a university library - you'd be ashamed of yourself.

There's no such thing as a free market and stop pretending like there ever will be one. Countries would never allow such a thing to take place. I'm not denouncing free markets but it's greatly inhumanly of us to forget that we impose our will on others for economic benefit, this is a moot point in your logic because your whole theory (which didn't make total sense to me or most people) was based on free trade. The world's complex and turning everything to a free market will make it easier for Jamaica's dairy industry to thrive or Haiti's rice farms to start production but power is used, given and taken away by implementing embargoes, tariffs and subsidies. This is how the world works Jerome, you know this, I know this and the world wont change because two teenagers want it to, let's make realistic solutions that are attainable, attainable is the key word.

So basically I spend half of what you do on health care and I receive far better treatment than you. I've lived in a Universal Health Care system my whole life and maybe if you actually lived here or knew reality outside some textbook written by some free trade radical that uses unrealistic goals to solve realistic problems. Bash my health care system all you want but 'millions aren't dying because of this' in fact we're making sure ALL that can be saved are saved. If you want to look at the real casualties of health care look to your own country that turns people away and buries people in financial debt.

[genocidal]

Was "The Pandora Prescription" thread not good enough?

[Jerome Scuggs]

There's no such thing as a free market and stop pretending like there ever will be one. Countries would never allow such a thing to take place. I'm not denouncing free markets but it's greatly inhumanly of us to forget that we impose our will on others for economic benefit, this is a moot point in your logic because your whole theory (which didn't make total sense to me or most people) was based on free trade. The world's complex and turning everything to a free market will make it easier for Jamaica's dairy industry to thrive or Haiti's rice farms to start production but power is used, given and taken away by implementing embargoes, tariffs and subsidies. This is how the world works Jerome, you know this, I know this and the world wont change because two teenagers want it to, let's make realistic solutions that are attainable, attainable is the key word.

So basically I spend half of what you do on health care and I receive far better treatment than you. I've lived in a Universal Health Care system my whole life and maybe if you actually lived here or knew reality outside some textbook written by some free trade radical that uses unrealistic goals to solve realistic problems. Bash my health care system all you want but 'millions aren't dying because of this' in fact we're making sure ALL that can be saved are saved. If you want to look at the real casualties of health care look to your own country that turns people away and buries people in financial debt.

A free market exists in Hong Kong, and in the past 20 years, China has been "expirementing" by taking small fishing villages and lifting all economic regulations, and several have become the size of NYC, if not bigger. As I stated in the Pandora thread, there was Somaliland in Africa, as well.

The fact that you consider our trade policies with Latin/South America "free trade" once again serves to show why I will not be participating: because when I painstakingly do the analysis, you just hit me back with "that's not the way the world works". Well bro, for the longest time, the the workings of the world didn't involve alot of talk about political freedom and human rights or even universal health care. For someone who's so overtly concerned and compassionate, you're really coming off as an ingnorant reactionary who is terrified of change - or even picking up a book.

Edit: and to clarify, this isn't an attack on your politics, this is from me to you, buddy. Hell, I know socialists who would criticize your poor perception of alot of the political-economic institutions that you discuss.

[Epinephrine]

A free market exists in Hong Kong, and in the past 20 years, China has been "expirementing" by taking small fishing villages and lifting all economic regulations, and several have become the size of NYC, if not bigger. As I stated in the Pandora thread, there was Somaliland in Africa, as well.

Just a correction on a minor point. Hong Kong is without a doubt the most capitalistic place on the face of the planet. It's been rated #1 by The Economist every year for so long I don't even know when it wasn't #1.

But the fact is, even in Hong Kong, people realize that there are limits to what the free market can bring. Medical care in Hong Kong is by no means completely free market, because in the end people recognize that it is just stupid.

Still there are a lot of private doctors out there, and people get their money's worth, by getting lots of unnecessary antibiotics for conditions that don't need treating, but of course if you go pay to see the doctor, you should be getting something right? Customer satisfaction.

(and yes I have authority to speak about HK, as well.. I'm born there, most of my relatives live there, and I have family and family friends who are doctors there).

[Kolar]

At the end of the day I gotta agree with Jerome. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what Epinephrine and others offered is a bad solution or wrong, I'm saying I agree with Jerome more and this is my opinion. You guys are arguing which is a better system when the truth about it is, they both have their problems. One system has better benefits in the long run and one is better in the short run.

Copying this from the other thread. I think Reaver is right, there are a lot of solutions to the problem. The point is when you're analyzing these systems you need hard facts, quantifiable results and overall a good ROI and assessments of care provided. All I have seen from Jerome so far is a lot of rhetoric and a few editorials from a website (give or take a flip out). While I've given information on independent studies and facts about our two systems, my own experience with a Universal Health Care system and Epi has given his professional opinion and experience from working within a public system. I don't want to make it personal or anything but if you have come to the conclusion as I assume most of you here have like Reaver then.... I don't know what to say.

[Pearl Jam]

So basically I spend half of what you do on health care and I receive far better treatment than you. I've lived in a Universal Health Care system my whole life and maybe if you actually lived here or knew reality outside some textbook written by some free trade radical that uses unrealistic goals to solve realistic problems.

And how is this different than you basing your opinion of our health care on the movie "Sicko", CNN and maybe a few American friends?

To avoid a big drawn out essay, the foremost factor to point at is population. About 35 million compared to well over 300. Hard to apply a universal concept on a much bigger audience. Is it possible? Sure, I wouldn't rule it out. Is it feasible right now? Not so much.

Edit: Shame on me for involving myself in the 1,234,632,213rd "America Vs. Canada" thread on this forum

[Mantra-Slider]

even I gotta admit I fucking love hong Kong.

[Cops]

A free market exists in Hong Kong, and in the past 20 years, China has been "expirementing" by taking small fishing villages and lifting all economic regulations, and several have become the size of NYC, if not bigger. As I stated in the Pandora thread, there was Somaliland in Africa, as well.

The fact that you consider our trade policies with Latin/South America "free trade" once again serves to show why I will not be participating: because when I painstakingly do the analysis, you just hit me back with "that's not the
way the world works". Well bro, for the longest time, the the workings of the world didn't involve alot of talk about political freedom and human rights or even universal health care. For someone who's so overtly concerned and compassionate, you're really coming off as an ingnorant reactionary who is terrified of change - or even picking up a book.

Edit: and to clarify, this isn't an attack on your politics, this is from me to you, buddy. Hell, I know socialists who would criticize your poor perception of alot of the political-economic institutions that you discuss.

I never considered anything with Latin or South America free trade. I'd like to see Haiti produce it's own rice, and Jamaica begin to start feeding it's own god damn people but these restraints on these societies will not be lifted any time soon. I'd love to see the benefits of a society where societies don't screw each other left right and center but this is done to control power and will continue to be done so for a long, long time.

Jesus Christ, I'm for change and attacking the fact that I don't read is pretty low, I'm not as educated in this area as Epinephrine but then again neither are you dude. You're a first or second year economics student who has no personal experience in A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM or personal experience working in BOTH systems. You quote rhetoric and use your debating knowledge to back up your arguments, just because you're in second year or first year economics and you debated in high school doesn't mean that you're more knowledgeable than Epinephrine, so fucking quit acting like it.

What I bring to the table, personal experience living in a Universal Health Care system with facts on spending per capita. What Epinephrine brings to the table, personal experience working in both systems and working in the fucking field. What you bring to the table, free trade rhetoric that should solve all the world's problems, yet it wont solve the fact that people in America need some basic form of health care.

And how is this different than you basing your opinion of our health care on the movie "Sicko", CNN and maybe a few American friends?

To avoid a big drawn out essay, the foremost factor to point at is population. About 35 million compared to well over 300. Hard to apply a universal concept on a much bigger audience. Is it possible? Sure, I wouldn't rule it out. Is it feasible right now? Not so much.

Edit: Shame on me for involving myself in the 1,234,632,213rd "America Vs. Canada" thread on this forum

I based it on my personal experience on living in a Universal Health Care system, as well as facts on how much each country spends per capita on health care. I've also listened very closely to what Epinephrine has said since he has the most experience working both systems. I've also reviewed general opinions surrounding health care systems which has been perpetuated through main stream media to convince Americans that Universal Health Care is a bad thing.

I'm not trying to say I'm the most knowledgeable person on this debate, cause I'm not but Jerome repeatably dismissed every fact Epinephrine myself and others presented him with. He fought back with rhetoric and getting bluntly rude with me, which sucked because he's always been a nice guy to me. His solutions involve us completely opening up free markets, but let's be honest it's not how the world works and it wont solve any health care problems in America. I'll agree with what Reaver said 'there's many solutions to this problem' but as far as realistic ones go I think he's got none.

Here's a post from another thread which follows your post.

How much is a community/society willing to pay for health care of those who can not afford it?

If it is 100%, does that imply that medical care becomes 100% 'equal'? Does a poor person receive the same cutting edge technological advances as a millionaire?

If it is 100%, what other mechanisms (other than current one of passing the cost through the insurance people) can be developed or used? (Thinking here that cutting out insurance companies/government from the middle and providing a more direct contribution from society straight to hospitals.)

Providing basic health care would be a start, as far as cutting edge
technologies and surgeries go I don't think that can't be changed overnight but you could possibly have a free system that does offer surgery to people and a private system where people with money can pay for better treatment. If a service is being offered free to the people then these doctors and surgeons can't keep their prices so high, they will be forced to keep costs low and cut profits to keep the amount of business high. I believe this to be true because if a person needs open heart surgery and can get it done for $200,000 or get it done free with a longer wait time and probably not as good doctors/technology then that person would realistically choose the free surgery unless that person is made of money. Private doctors and surgeons will be losing money to this free system which causes a huge benefit to the people who can afford $20,000 for an open heart surgery.


-Pearl Jam: As far as the societies and populations go it is a huge concern to implementing a Universal Health Care system, I will admit that it's easier for Canada to have one because of our population size but I'm not going to answer this question because I feel as though Epinephrine or someone else is better off answering this question. I do not have a degree in anything, I do not completely understand the health system in both countries and I would not fully understand the costs of implementing one. There's better people to answer this question. What I was saying though is that if you did implement on it would probably be a two tear system that had basic health care for it's people and still allowed people to buy better services as they see fit.