HuffPo: Ron Paul recieves Medicare benefits

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I just came across a rather blatant smear job on HuffPo that has me torqued off.


After all, how bad can it be. The grandfather of the tea party movement, libertarian Ron Paul, receives government Medicare benefits.

Republicans and Teabaggers Finally Embrace Big Government (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republicans-and-teabagger_b_564974.html)

Bob Cesca is correct that there are big government Republicans in the Tea Party movement. However, I question his statement that Dr. Paul receives Medicare benefits. Anyone know if this is true? If not, perhaps demanding a retraction from Mr. Cesca might be in order (not that this is likely to happen).

[bobbyw24]

So??-he's probably paid tens of thousands of dollars in Medicare taxes over his career.

[TCE]

Dr. Paul doesn't take his Congressional Pension if I remember correctly.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prjan30.htm

I am guessing he doesn't take Medicare benefits either.

[specsaregood]

Well by law you are automatically enrolled in Medicare when you turn 65.
And because of that, no insurance companies will act as your primary insurer only as secondary -- but not 100% positive about that.

So basically, if I understand it correctly, he doesn't have a choice, by law.

[TCE]

Well by law you are automatically enrolled in Medicare when you turn 65.
And because of that, no insurance companies will act as your primary insurer only as secondary -- but not 100% positive about that.

So basically, if I understand it correctly, he doesn't have a choice, by law.

He can pay with cash, but the way the system is regulated, I can see why that isn't an option.

[specsaregood]

He can pay with cash, but the way the system is regulated, I can see why that isn't an option.

And get double screwed in the process. Pay into medicare for years. Then pay retail rates for service.

[devil21]

That's about as vague and lacking in any sort of grounded fact as any article I've seen. Not that I read much of it.

I say prove that Ron Paul uses Medicare. I'll hold my breath...

[dean.engelhardt]

I doubt that he receives Medicare. As a member of congress I think he has full medical coverage as one of his benefits.

Besides that point, why shouldn't he be able to participate? He has paid taxes for programs he spoke out against. He had no choice.

I've been involuntarily paying Social Security taxes for decades. I protest because I could invest that money and have a more finanically secure retirement. Does that mean I should give up the benefit I have paid dearly for?

[TCE]

And get double screwed in the process. Pay into medicare for years. Then pay retail rates for service.

Yeah, that's where I was going with that. After you're 65, the government controls you, social security, medicare, it really is sad.

devil: That's the Huffington Post for you, they don't need huge articles filled with facts, they can post general, vague stories and get tons of comments. Read them at your own risk.

[furface]

The criticism is legitimate, although the claim that Ron Paul uses the Medicare system is unverified. He has Congressional health care, doesn't he? It's more valuable than Medicare.

The problem with people bashing the idea of state sponsored health care is that there are very few examples of people without insurance doing anything other than essentially stealing medical services when they come to need them. A good example is Ron Paul's Presidential campaign manager who died without insurance and about $1/2 million in unpaid medical bills.

There are plenty of "libertarians" on Medicare, plenty on VA, plenty on disability or government pensions, plenty of firefighters and police officers who claim to be libertarians fighting for more union benefits. These are among the people fighting against state sponsored health care, or should I say a more inclusive state sponsored health care system. There's a lot of hypocrisy among the critics of the idea of socialized medicine, although the actual Obamacare bill is an evil against the American people that never should have passed, but that's that particular bill.

[silverhandorder]

Fuck I would challange them with a so what. Give me my money back and I won't use these services.

[erowe1]

I am guessing he doesn't take Medicare benefits either.

Why would you guess that?

[erowe1]

The criticism is legitimate

No, it isn't.

Obviously, if we get our way and get rid of Medicare, then we won't be able to use it. That doesn't mean that, until we succeed at that, we need to live our lives pretending that that day's already here.

[Imaginos]

Ahh, good old Huffingtonpost at its finest.
One of their propagandists, Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote the article about Ron Paul a couple months ago.
He said Ron Paul is drawing certain non-mainstream elements including white supremacist element.
I wrote an e-mail to Hutchinson that since he found himself lack of intelligent argument skill, now he's using a racist card to undermine Ron Paul.
I told him he's using it because he's losing the argument on the real issues so he's yelling 'racist' to shut us all up.
Seriously, Ron Paul pandering to white supremacists? :mad:
My reply got censored (wtf? for what?) and it was not even posted on Huffintonpost.
According to people like Hutchinson, because I am a hard core Ron Paul supporter, I must have some sympathy for white supremacist sentiment?
A white supremacist? I am an Asian for the f's sake.
:mad:

[furface]

Obviously, if we get our way and get rid of Medicare, then we won't be able to use it.

So you or one of your parents is 70 years old. No Medicare and and insurance for a 70 year old with a previous medical condition (which almost all 70 year olds have had) is $2,000 per month.

You can't afford it, so you take your chances. You have a heart attack but no insurance. What do you do? Don't bother showing up at the ER because you know damn well you'll never be able to pay the bill? Showing up at the ER with a heart attack will cost you a minimum of $50,000. What do you do? Stay home and deal with it?

Unless you're really rich, not having medical insurance is the same as being on the public dole because that's what you're going to do if you get sick, skip out on the bill and let the few people who actually pay for their own medical insurance pay your bill as well.

[silverhandorder]

furface why has the 70 year old not saved for a rainy day? Where are his kids? Where is his community?

Nevermind the fact that no one is advocating taking medicare away from those who already paid into it.

[Keller1967]

No, it isn't.

Obviously, if we get our way and get rid of Medicare, then we won't be able to use it. That doesn't mean that, until we succeed at that, we need to live our lives pretending that that day's already here.

Yes it is, without principles it is simply a matter of "do as I say, not as I do", something that even children are bothered by.

If Ron Paul made it a public point that he was giving back his tax funding salary, and not using/giving back all tax funded services it wouldn't matter that he would never be able to give the money back to exactly who paid the taxes - the principle would be saved and because of that people would be far more willing to consider his views and support him. It would show that he is doing the best he can with what he has to follow his own principles, without doing that, it looks like he his telling everyone else what the should be doing while not bothering to apply it to his own life.

If you are already skeptical about something, you will look for the first sign of hypocrisy so you can then assure yourself that what that person believes doesn't make sense. You see this type of criticism applied to all sorts of different people, all professions, all walks of life - people do not like hypocrites and they love a chance to call one out when it is something they don't agree with.

[furface]

Nevermind the fact that no one is advocating taking medicare away from those who already paid into it.

Paid into it at 1970s medical costs. The current users, like with Social Security, paid way less than they're getting in return.

But you're wrong about people not advocating getting rid of it.


Obviously, if we get our way and get rid of Medicare, then we won't be able to use it.

[Keller1967]

Fuck I would challange them with a so what. Give me my money back and I won't use these services.

Try reading your own stupid sig and applying to this ffs.

[AuH20]

Gentlemen, I'm actually ecstatic that the honorable Huffington Post fixed their crosshairs on the good doctor. It's an encouraging sign.

[furface]

Gentlemen, I'm actually ecstatic that the honorable Huffington Post fixed their crosshairs on the good doctor. It's an encouraging sign.

But it's still an issue. The way I see it, before RP ever becomes a serious Presidential candidate, he's going to have to deal with his views on Social Security and Medicare. I can imagine him speaking to local Republican party groups about why he thinks we should withdraw our military from foreign countries. However, the very idea that he's going to go with a straight face and tell a group of predominantly aged 50+ local Republican activists that he wants to get rid of social security and medicare? You gotta be kidding me.

Say it should be handled by the states. Say that private organizations could do a better job handling it, but claiming it's completely unnecessary is a road to nowhere in politics.

[silverhandorder]

Try reading your own stupid sig and applying to this ffs.

So I am to blame for being looted? :rolleyes:

[dean.engelhardt]

fuck i would challange them with a so what. Give me my money back and i won't use these services.

yes

[V-rod]

Lol.. Bob Cesca..thats the guy that did those Metallica Napster Bad and those cartoons for VH1.

I remember he created a failed anti-Republican political blog years ago right when Kerry lost to Bush.

He has a genuine talent for being funny. Too bad that guy has been stuck in a total derangement for years.

[puppetmaster]

Paid into it at 1970s medical costs. The current users, like with Social Security, paid way less than they're getting in return.

But you're wrong about people not advocating getting rid of it.

a proper phase out is what is promoted...like phasing out the fed....man, pay attention or go home.

[puppetmaster]

And get double screwed in the process. Pay into medicare for years. Then pay retail rates for service.


"retail" rates are better than insurance rates and can be really really low if you pay cash.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Yes it is, without principles it is simply a matter of "do as I say, not as I do", something that even children are bothered by.

Bullshit. Let's say I force you to pay me $100 to mow your lawn. Are you going to mow it yourself after you've already payed me?

Why should anyone NOT use a service they have already paid for especially when not given an option?

[Pennsylvania]

Who cares?

He probably uses public roads, libraries, and post offices too.

That's just what people do.

[tekkierich]

Do any of you not use the Postal Service? I doubt it. Even though I disagree with the need for the government's involvement with letter and parcel service I use it, and i don't apologize for that.

For better or worse this society is configured the way it is. We all have to to the best we can with in those bounds. Regardless of his use of Medicare or not, Dr. Paul has made some principled stands with his personal compensation from his government employment. I cannot fault him for this, not in the least

[dean.engelhardt]

There are plenty of "libertarians" on Medicare, plenty on VA, plenty on disability or government pensions, plenty of firefighters and police officers who claim to be libertarians fighting for more union benefits. These are among the people fighting against state sponsored health care, or should I say a more inclusive state sponsored health care system. There's a lot of hypocrisy among the critics of the idea of socialized medicine, although the actual Obamacare bill is an evil against the American people that never should have passed, but that's that particular bill.

There's alot of libertarians bashing. Libertarions have a democrat for a president and a (D) or (R) for congressional representation. Libertarions do not get to opt-out of any taxation or any government mandates.

Libertarions just want a voice that limiting government and promoting self liberty/responsibility results in better personal life. They have to succumbed to the majority rule or face legal ramifications. The message should not be marginalized because they use government service they are forced to pay for.

[paulitics]

The problem is since Medicare exists, he is kind of forced into the system since no other senior citizens pay for their care. This makes the care much more expensive for everyone.


If he were to come off it, assuming that an insurance company would insure him, the rates for someone his age would be somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 per month. Of course, he could self insure but one major illness could wipe out his family's savings.

Does anyone know if he collects social security?

[erowe1]

Yes it is, without principles it is simply a matter of "do as I say, not as I do", something that even children are bothered by.


Anyone who has "principles" that make them believe that being against the existence of Medicare means one should forfeit its benefits while still being forced to pay into it when it does exist has ridiculous principles.

[erowe1]

Bullshit. Let's say I force you to pay me $100 to mow your lawn. Are you going to mow it yourself after you've already payed me?

Why should anyone NOT use a service they have already paid for especially when not given an option?

Bingo.

[johnrocks]

I don't think he does but if he does, no biggie, most Seniors don't have a choice and can't afford to be self insured.

[TCE]

But it's still an issue. The way I see it, before RP ever becomes a serious Presidential candidate, he's going to have to deal with his views on Social Security and Medicare. I can imagine him speaking to local Republican party groups about why he thinks we should withdraw our military from foreign countries. However, the very idea that he's going to go with a straight face and tell a group of predominantly aged 50+ local Republican activists that he wants to get rid of social security and medicare? You gotta be kidding me.

Say it should be handled by the states. Say that private organizations could do a better job handling it, but claiming it's completely unnecessary is a road to nowhere in politics.

This point is right on, but Dr. Paul needs to retune his message in more ways than one. Start off by ending usage of the phrase "foreign empire." Talk about the economy, the national debt, and free markets, nobody is talking about that stuff. Talking about our foreign empire, social security, medicare, etc is a losing battle. Just skate around the issue and do it when he gets into office.

Your other point is completely false. In a free market, we wouldn't have these skyrocketing prices. Even in other sectors of our regulated economy, when a technology has been out for a few years, the price goes down. Just look at iPods, cars, computers, etc. That is not the case with medical equipment and drugs. Why? Because the government is involved and propping up prices with the FDA, FTC, Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare, and Medicaid. Get rid of all those things, specifically the latter three, and prices will plummet to less than half of what they are, insurance companies will probably not be needed.

[RokiLothbard]

I heard he also uses roads and the post office.

[BuddyRey]

I love how HuffPo shifts the emphasis of the Medicare issue away from the gun in the room and the fact that we're all forced to pay for it, and instead focuses on how "unprincipled" it is to collect services one has already been robbed for the privilege of receiving.

[satchelmcqueen]

so what if he uses it.

[Icymudpuppy]

So you or one of your parents is 70 years old. No Medicare and and insurance for a 70 year old with a previous medical condition (which almost all 70 year olds have had) is $2,000 per month.

You can't afford it, so you take your chances. You have a heart attack but no insurance. What do you do? Don't bother showing up at the ER because you know damn well you'll never be able to pay the bill? Showing up at the ER with a heart attack will cost you a minimum of $50,000. What do you do? Stay home and deal with it?

Unless you're really rich, not having medical insurance is the same as being on the public dole because that's what you're going to do if you get sick, skip out on the bill and let the few people who actually pay for their own medical insurance pay your bill as well.

I'm 70 years old. The biblical 3 score and ten. I have lived a full life. Why am I so afraid to die? Why don't I tell my family members that I love them, but I am ready to meet death on my terms, and when he comes, I will accept it, and hope they do too.

[dean.engelhardt]

I'm 70 years old. The biblical 3 score and ten. I have lived a full life. Why am I so afraid to die? Why don't I tell my family members that I love them, but I am ready to meet death on my terms, and when he comes, I will accept it, and hope they do too.

Not that I feel good asking this question, but you are a 70 year old Iraq war veteran?

[sailingaway]

This goes to their ridiculous 'keep your hands of my medicare!' meme. It is stupid since once you pay for something you have a 5th amendment property right to it, which is wholly apart from the fact that the program was unconstitutional to put into place.

[bobbyw24]

This goes to their ridiculous 'keep your hands of my medicare!' meme. It is stupid since once you pay for something you have a 5th amendment property right to it, which is wholly apart from the fact that the program was unconstitutional to put into place.

I know- right?

[lester1/2jr]

I hate the argument that oh people don't want to get rid of social security. yeah, because they paid into it! If you've paid into it of course you want something out of it.

I want to not pay into it in the first place!

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I love how HuffPo shifts the emphasis of the Medicare issue away from the gun in the room and the fact that we're all forced to pay for it, and instead focuses on how "unprincipled" it is to collect services one has already been robbed for the privilege of receiving.

That's why this article pissed me off. Not that its because Dr. Paul may or may not use Medicare (and I somehow doubt it), its that this shitbag shifts the focus away from the actual threat.

[spudea]

"let the young people opt out" - RP

[Brian Defferding]

Medicare you're bound into by law no matter what, you're stuck paying into it.

This is like saying that everyone is accepting big government because we drive on public roads. In other words, it's really, really stupid logic.

[Danke]

"let the young people opt out" - RP

They can't really. As long as others are drawing from it, the government is paying for it. Taxes and inflation, which comes out of everyone's pocket.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Medicare you're bound into by law no matter what, you're stuck paying into it.

This is like saying that everyone is accepting big government because we drive on public roads. In other words, it's really, really stupid logic.


Need to post all these replies on HUFFINGTON to clear the the clouds from these Shallow thinkers and morons that type faster than they think anyway.

[erowe1]

They can't really. As long as others are drawing from it, the government is paying for it. Taxes and inflation, which comes out of everyone's pocket.

That's true. But there will also be future savings from not having to pay the people who opted out. We can't get away from having that transition cost, apart from kicking current Medicare dependents off the dole (which will eventually happen anyway if some kind of transitional way of getting them off of it isn't accomplished). So while the cost of that transition will be born by everyone to one degree or another, it will be born less by those who opt out of it (since the Medicare part of their taxes won't be there for them), and the savings in the federal budget that warrants their bearing that smaller portion of that transitional cost is the reduction of future liability that equals whatever their Medicare benefits would have been.

[erowe1]

Need to post all these replies on HUFFINGTON to clear the the clouds from these Shallow thinkers and morons that type faster than they think anyway.

The HuffPo answer to that is, "Well of course it's hypocritical for libertarians to drive on government roads!"