Inconsistent Views (Health Care)

[7rans]

I'm right there with Ron Paul when it comes to Freedom and upholding the Constitution. However, when it comes to details, he has some inconsistent views. Health Care is a particularly important issue to me. And here are bills Ron Paul says would help fix health care in this country, however....

"HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable."

There are serious problems with this. First of all Ron wants to get rid of Income Tax. What are you going to deduct you health care expenses from if there is no income tax? Talk about an obvious oversight. Moreover, offering tax credits to the wealthy, is a defacto tax on the poor. This does nothing for those who can't afford insurance, and it gives a free ride for those who can.

"HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill 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 can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost."

Another tax credit!? While the idea of Negative Outcomes insurance has potential, why isn't it already common place? I fear Ron forgets his economic fundamentals. Why would an insurance company offer Negative Outcome insurance when they can milk doctors for Malpractice insurance? Giving tax money away to cover insurance is no better then socialized medicine --in fact it's worse, b/c the insurance companies can just raise prices and further milk the tax payer.

"HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It 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. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar. "

More tax credits!!! Plus a "do it for the children" argument. How about doing it for everyone including the children? I'm all for showing some compassion and offering some help to those with life and limb problems, but lets be fair and offer it to everyone. I'm willing to pay some taxes for that. It's fair and treats everyone equal. Anything else is plainly unconstitutional.

I really want to support Ron. Almost all the other candidates are in far left or right field. Ron is in the infield, for sure. But I want someone on home plate!

[jblosser]

It's just a form of pragmatism. When you can't get people to vote away the IRS outright, tax credits for everything you can think of are a way to nickel and dime it to death.

[Brandybuck]

Let's say you currently pay $5000 in income tax, and have $1000 medical expenses.

With the tax credit you pay $1000 less income tax. That is good.

Abolish the IRS and you pay $5000 less in income tax. That is also good.

It would be great if we could get congress to abolish the income tax, but it's not realistic. Even with Ron Paul as president, it's not going to happen without a major sweep of congressional seats. A tax credit is at least feasible.

[Matt Collins]

It would be great if we could get congress to abolish the income tax, but it's not realistic. Even with Ron Paul as president, it's not going to happen without a major sweep of congressional seats. A tax credit is at least feasible.Actually it's real simple.

RP could ask Congress to eliminate the IRS and all unconstitutional programs within a given time frame. If they don't, then he will simply get on TV and tell Americans that he will not enforce the (income) tax code and anyone prosecuted for not paying their taxes will be pardoned.

That would effectively be nullifying the IRS and the majority of the US federal government without the help of Congress. :D


It raises the hairs on the back of my neck just to think about that scenario.

[Spirit of '76]

Are these bills that Paul has authored, bills that he has sponsored, or simply bills for which he has voted?

[jblosser]

Actually it's real simple.

RP could ask Congress to eliminate the IRS and all unconstitutional programs within a given time frame. If they don't, then he will simply get on TV and tell Americans that he will not enforce the (income) tax code and anyone prosecuted for not paying their taxes will be pardoned.

That would effectively be nullifying the IRS and the majority of the US federal government without the help of Congress. :D


It raises the hairs on the back of my neck just to think about that scenario.

He has explicitly said he would veto any budget that included unconstitutional spending. How's that for the hairs on your neck. Yeah they'd manage an override but they'd have to compromise to get there.

[Bradley in DC]

No inconsistency at all. After a Paul administration, we'll get rid of the income tax and everyone can afford health care. Until then we deal with the current reality.

[USPatriot36]

What you describe is not inconsistent views by Ron Paul. His view is that individuals ought to keep their own earning and spend it as they think best to meet their needs and wants. He is willing to take many different paths to achieve that goal and that is what you describe. What you see are two (of many) different paths Ron Paul is willing to proceed along to achieve the goal of you keeping the fruits of your own labor.

One reason health care is such a problem is that Americans are becoming poor and indebted. As we fix that problem, Health care costs become less of a problem. So look at what Ron Paul's dream of America in 30 years would look like.

Because there is not an overflowing flood of cheap labor into the American economy, employers have to pay a decent wage and provide good benefits to get employees to work for them.

Because people are able to keep most of their wages, they are able to afford to buy a house and quit paying rent which is a huge financial benefit to them throughtout their life. Why should a 25 year old be forced or financially encouraged to save for retirement in an IRA, Social Security or Medicare when he believes the best way for him to secure his financial security is to purchase a home with that money instead?

Because people have more of their own wages, they are able to buy a car or house without longterm loans but instead with short term loans or by saving up to buy it first. Because savings are no longer stolen by the Federal Reserve thru inflation people are no longer penalized for saving up to buy things.

In the long term, the financial benefits of a Ron Paul America to individuals gains momentum exponentially. Wealth begets Wealth. It takes money to make money. In a decade or two the general populace moves from the brink of poverty to financial independance. As this occurs the populace is more able to give to charities such as free clinics, the red cross, St. Judes, college scholarships, aid for new orleans recovery.

Once the world sees the benefits of a Ron Paul America, you can bet many countries around the world will begin to emulate it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let's say you currently pay $5000 in income tax, and have $1000 medical expenses.

With the tax credit you pay $1000 less income tax. That is good.

Abolish the IRS and you pay $5000 less in income tax. That is also good.

It would be great if we could get congress to abolish the income tax, but it's not realistic. Even with Ron Paul as president, it's not going to happen without a major sweep of congressional seats. A tax credit is at least feasible.

What if you don't pay that much to income tax anyway?

[7rans]

What if you don't pay that much to income tax anyway?

Exactly! That's why I can't understand supporting tax credits for health care, even as a stop gap measure. It disproportionally favors the wealthy.

[7rans]

No inconsistency at all. After a Paul administration, we'll get rid of the income tax and everyone can afford health care. Until then we deal with the current reality.

Government still needs to be funded. So taxes have to be paid somewhere along the line. Yes, Ron Paul will slash Federal spending. But the majority of the budget will still be intact. So where is that money going to come form? One way or the other it will come from our labor.

While reducing the tax burden certainly helps the financial strains on anyone who pays taxes. The essential problem of rising cost of health care will not be addressed by getting rid of the income tax.

[Matt Collins]

Yes, Ron Paul will slash Federal spending. But the majority of the budget will still be intact.Obviously you've never looked at our budget. If everything unconstitutional is eliminated......


http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif


So where is that money going to come form? One way or the other it will come from our labor. I am thinking perhaps tarrifs and import taxes, or maybe even direct apportionments from the States? But definitely NOT an income tax.


The essential problem of rising cost of health care will not be addressed by getting rid of the income tax.You are correct. But eliminating the FDA and other unconstitutional federal regulations on health care WILL help lower costs!

[Matt Collins]

Oh - and just off the top of my head, eliminating everything in the above list that is unconstitutional, would save the US $1.85 TRILLION dollars. That doesn't include the savings we will get from having a more conservative Department of Defense who actually practices defense and not offense. Those savings would probably put us just over $2 trillion per year. If we continue our current revenue, we are looking at paying off our $9 trillion in debt within 5 years, or less.

[austin356]

Exactly! That's why I can't understand supporting tax credits for health care, even as a stop gap measure. It disproportionally favors the wealthy.



Tax Credits dont favor the wealthy.

Tax Deductions DO favor the wealthy.

There is a distinct difference.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

tax credit : Tax credits include any special provision of law that results in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax liabilities that would otherwise be due. In some cases, tax credits may be carried forward or backward from one tax year to another, while other tax credits lapse if not used in the year earned. Tax credits may result in a reduction of tax collections or an increase in the value of tax refunds.

tax deduction : A reduction of total income before the amount of income tax payable is calculated.

I support no forced taxation at all. Problem solved.