Great HuffPo Article on Ron's Health Care Answer

[pauliticalfan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/ron-pauls-health-care-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html?ref=mostpopular

Paints a really appealing picture of Dr. Paul for having the convictions that he does.

[pauliticalfan]

bump

[LinuxJedi]

I have been a tad disturbed reading all the comments from people on health care, because it is clear they just don't get the issues.

First, health insurance is insurance. It is a product. Ron himself has said this in his book, insurance is a gamble by companies. It is incorrect to say "I have a right to insurance" because you are saying "I have the right to a commercial product". Insurance companies are corrupted by the monopoly they have been granted (afaik this is true), and there is no incentive to give consumers something of value for their money. Hospitals, in the movies, are there to help patients "get better" and "be saved", but in reality there can be little trolls in the hospitals who only want some cash. The goal then becomes to milk the money from the insurance company, and give it to the hospital business. The patient is just a consumable, something running through the system. This is fine in a free market, but we do not have a free market here. The central issue is that prices would come down with competition, and this is something people don't realize. Yes, if we had to pay $700/pill nothing would change... but what if we could change that $700/pill to $10/pill or $2/pill?

I believe that what most people are saying, is that they want a "universal healthcare" and I think this is quite fair to say. If your state, or even municipality wants to take on the burden of ensuring everyone gets good health coverage, this is a fine and noble goal. But this is not insurance, this is a collection of citizens coming together and saying "we want better for our people". My issue is the federal government role, because they are making an assumption about what works best for the entire country.... rather than what might work best in California, Michigan, and so on. I am all for universal healthcare, I think there are traps to it, but I think it has to be done at the state or municipal level. The problem has been the shift of power to Washington, and assuming that President/King will "take care of the people" rather than working with your local hospitals to see what can be done.

I think we all have to remember that if something is important to you, you should deal with it locally.

[RKoho]

Well it helps a little. Not a lot though. Particularly very little with the Huffington Post crowd. They annoy me almost as much as the Neocons. Honestly, I was pretty angry when Paul chose to answer that question with freedom philosophy. Just read the comments. We're not going to convince people about personal responsibility when it comes to healthcare. They're just not going to bite. Paul needs to dig into his Austrian economics knowledge to answer these questions and quit with the philosophy.

[RKoho]

I have been a tad disturbed reading all the comments from people on health care, because it is clear they just don't get the issues.

First, health insurance is insurance. It is a product. Ron himself has said this in his book, insurance is a gamble by companies. It is incorrect to say "I have a right to insurance" because you are saying "I have the right to a commercial product". Insurance companies are corrupted by the monopoly they have been granted (afaik this is true), and there is no incentive to give consumers something of value for their money. Hospitals, in the movies, are there to help patients "get better" and "be saved", but in reality there can be little trolls in the hospitals who only want some cash. The goal then becomes to milk the money from the insurance company, and give it to the hospital business. The patient is just a consumable, something running through the system. This is fine in a free market, but we do not have a free market here. The central issue is that prices would come down with competition, and this is something people don't realize. Yes, if we had to pay $700/pill nothing would change... but what if we could change that $700/pill to $10/pill or $2/pill?

I believe that what most people are saying, is that they want a "universal healthcare" and I think this is quite fair to say. If your state, or even municipality wants to take on the burden of ensuring everyone gets good health coverage, this is a fine and noble goal. But this is not insurance, this is a collection of citizens coming together and saying "we want better for our people". My issue is the federal government role, because they are making an assumption about what works best for the entire country.... rather than what might work best in California, Michigan, and so on. I am all for universal healthcare, I think there are traps to it, but I think it has to be done at the state or municipal level. The problem has been the shift of power to Washington, and assuming that President/King will "take care of the people" rather than working with your local hospitals to see what can be done.

I think we all have to remember that if something is important to you, you should deal with it locally.

I agree with you. I'll add that onto my last comment. I think Paul should argue these cases through Austrian economics and by state's rights. I'm taking an environmental politics class and I debate my nearly 100% liberal class with federal and constitutional arguments. That wins them over. Same deal with healthcare.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Tweeted.