Can someone explain Ron Paul's views on health care a bit more to me?

[TechnoGuyRob]

Because my mom likes him less when she found out he doesn't support universal health care.

And don't give me "if the government gets into it's bad!!!" How is it going to be universal (meaning available to everyone, for free if necessary; after all, if you're sick, it's hard to pay for health care since you probably had to quite or got fired from your job)?

Thanks!

[risiusj]

Ron Paul wants to leave health care up to the free market and keep the government out of it. In a truly free market the consumer wins, and isn't that what people that want universal health care want? They want the best for the people, not the big corporations.
An interesting thought is that health care is one of the very few industries where the cost has skyrocketed even though technology has made it easier.

[TechnoGuyRob]

So what about people who are completely broke but sick? Free market means other sick people will be able to offer more money to get cured, so will those poor people be left without any health care?

[paulpwns]

OK listen up

RP will still take care of the poorest people and the elderly.

He will begin a gradual phase of change, from Pure corporatism system of healthcare to a free market capitalist system.

The socialists want govt run health, what we have now is a combination of the two, which in my view is the worst.

Paul will still care for the poorest that cannot afford it, while gradually moving us into a free market health care system that will result in massive price drops for care and insurance.

[RonFan1776]

Before the government was involved there were free or very inexpensive hospital and treatment alternatives ran by faith-based or community organizations.

Ron also wants to make more competition for doctors by allowing RNs and other qualified people to prescribe medications, rather than having a doctor monopoly.

[KingTheoden]

Since the 1970s, we have had quasi socialize medicine in America; Medicare and various regulations of how medicine is to be defined, insured, and managed all have culminated in the colossal failure that is American medical care.

Laws are written to push the market into created HMOs and other management organizations AND insurance firms are not allowed to offer a la carte service. For example, as a young male in excellent physical condition with little risk factors, I still cannot freely contract with an insurance company to say 'all I want trauma coverage;' the insurer MUST, by law, provide various services that I neither want nor can ever benefit from. Remember how Clinton made it mandatory for insurers to cover Viagra as a benefit? Well I do not need that blue crap yet by law, if I want any prescription coverage, Viagra is on the list. The more required trinkets there are, the more astronomical the expense will be.

Instead of forced charity of Medicare, Ron Paul as a doctor would negotiate deep discounts or outright waive fees to needy patients. Part of the reason doctors are less inclined to do that today is because they have much less control over their practices; giant management organizations (protected by legislation) set policy. Further, a smattering of socialized medical programs are used to collect on the poor.

The key to remember is that health care is presently NOT a free market! It is very much a government regulated industry. We need to erase all of the usurpations of our liberty that have taken place over the past four decades, not totally give up our self determination to government.

[RonFan1776]

Also see:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=22

[risiusj]

Yes. But if there was a completely free market throughout the entire economy the unemployment rate would go way down, the cost of most every good and service would go down, and don't forget that people would be saving $thousands a year due to Dr. Paul's tax cuts.

[KingTheoden]

One thing I forgot: Ron Paul flat out said many times that he is NOT going to take away people's benefits if he comes into office. He said, rightly so, that there is a population in America that has been taught to be totally dependent on government and we have to accept that. But for younger people (especially those in their 20s and 30s), we should have the option to deal with our lives as we wish and be free from government dictats and directives.

[kalami]

Also a promise of universal health care isn't the same thing as providing it. Even in a universal health care system you'll have disparity of coverage. Rich people will still get the best treatment and poor people will get the worst treatment (if any). The best comparison I can think of is our public school system.

[Vonhayek7]

Because my mom likes him less when she found out he doesn't support universal health care.

And don't give me "if the government gets into it's bad!!!" How is it going to be universal (meaning available to everyone, for free if necessary; after all, if you're sick, it's hard to pay for health care since you probably had to quite or got fired from your job)?

Thanks!

I debate with my mother a bit too. I recently converted mine into changing to repub. to vote for him.

The main thing you have to look at is that universal healthcare is a misnomer. Under a free system, doctors compete and charge accordingly. There is already sites dedicated to reviewing doctors in your area and you could see which would best treat you. Usually clinics would provide flat rates for common ER situations. Everyone would have access to this and tax credits and health savings accounts would contribute to someone paying for these.

Under government mandated healthcare, the demand is infinite. For every situation, people will flock to hospitals and you'll see healthcare rationed accordingly. It will lead to ineffective care and tons of other byproducts such as unhappy patients, doctors, etc..

It's a complex issue that can't be summarized in a few paragraphs on a messageboard. Basically the government has created dependent generations that complain about government, but would like to see more of it.

[manuel]

Because my mom likes him less when she found out he doesn't support universal health care.

And don't give me "if the government gets into it's bad!!!" How is it going to be universal (meaning available to everyone, for free if necessary; after all, if you're sick, it's hard to pay for health care since you probably had to quite or got fired from your job)?

Thanks!
Rob,

The reality right now is that the government is involved plenty. Is the system working fine or is it broken? It is important to keep in mind what Dr. Paul is running on. He isn't running on eliminating every unnecessary government function on day one of his presidency. Granted, we would probably definitely move in that direction by simply not allowing all these agencies and programs to continue to grow.

Now, your question is very specific. What about the people that can't pay? When speaking about a truly free market system, there would of course be people that could not pay for medical services. People with disabilities and mental illnesses (with no family to assist), come to mind. Our answer in such circumstances sounds simple and it truly is, it is charity. Charitable organizations are reasonable solutions to that problem.

Keep in mind, that by reducing the government burden on people and by ensuring we have sound money we would all have more money. Or in reality, our money would go further.

You said not to mention the fact that getting government involved is a bad idea all together in regards to "universal healthcare", but is the solution really to add a whole new financial burden to the people/taxpayers? How would this be paid for? We already have a deficit, we have a huge debt, and we are facing the burden of more retired people than workers with social security and medicare. Could we seriously add more to the realm of the federal government?