Dr. Paul on Health Care

[MarcMadness]

This is an interview with Dr. Paul on health care. Health care seems to be one of the tougher issues to explain his position on when I debate with people. Almost everyone I debate with is for 'Universal' health care and I've found it to be one of the most difficult topics to convince people on. This should help, from the man himself.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/health2008hc.cfm?&hc=2258

[TyTodd]

The universal medicine debate is very tricky, and I've never been completely satisfied with Dr. Paul's presentation. I agree with his policy 100%, mainly that we should move toward a free market approach and encourage individuals to take ownership of their own Dr. / Patient relationship, catastrophic insurance, and savings plans while transitioning those hooked on the entitlement system by changing our spending (foreign policy, etc.) But, his pitch is always muddled, particularly when condensed to 30 sec. sound bites. Even here, where he has an extensive, more open ended time frame to answer, he doesn't quite pull it all together for me...

I would like to see the following points made explicitly, obviously only in those media formats where he has this amount of time:
1) Our current system rewards the corporations because the government is meddling in health care via insurance and HMO's. (he needs to distinguish the free market approach from corporate / government largesse, which is where many get confused)
2) With external third parties (insurance companies, HMO's, government subsidies, government programs) intervening in the patient / Dr. relationship, it drives up prices for all. Historically, healthcare in the U.S. was much cheaper, before the government intervention that started in the '60's. Cite examples of free market: church hospitals, Doctors practicing for cash only, etc. States, local entities, and the free market are much more efficient at delivering services than big government.
3) Turning more of our health care system over to the government via universal healthcare programs will only increase prices, decrease efficiency, and could potentially collapse the system while eroding quality of care and personal choice. See: FEMA. The government can't manage anything on this scale efficiently, nor can we afford to pay for universal healthcare. And, government subsidies and inefficiency dramatically impact the supply demand curve, driving up prices while reducing choice and service quality.
4) Over the long term, only by returning to a free market system, where the patient has complete choice over managing their health care, will we reduce prices and improve care. We move toward the free market system by: a) removing the third party intermediaries, b) loosening restrictions on licensing (allowing nurses to administer easy cases), c) providing complete choice of insurance / Dr. visits / and savings plans to the patient and providing incentives for people to opt out of the current system (tax breaks, savings accounts, etc.) and d) changing the way people view insurance to return to the classic catastrophic insurance system, encouraging savings and direct pay for the smaller healthcare charges (via mechanism described above)
5) We currently have a government subsidized system of health entitlements. Although we would like to allow younger generations and those who are not tied into the entitlement system the opportunity to opt out, in the short and intermediate term, we need to take care of those who are dependent upon medicare / medicaid, etc.
6) The only way we can afford to ween those dependent upon the government entitlement programs off the system is to change our fiscal policy, foreign policy, and views of the role of the Federal Government. Fiscally, we need to stop inflating the money supply, which raises prices and redistributes wealth away from the poor. From a foreign policy perspective, we need to bring our trips home from the 140+ bases we maintain around the world, at a cost of $1 Trillion, saving hundreds of billions of Dollars to help with entitlement obligations. Finally, we need to change our belief that the Federal Government is capable of or constitutionally entitled to provide socialist programs that meet the needs of Americans.

Dr. Paul usually kind of makes a murky attempt at this structure, but it really should be addressed directly. His website would be a great vehicle to fine tune a pitch, which he can whittle down to 30 sec. sound bites and extrapolate out to larger setting filler.

Just my $.02 By the way, my dad is a physician, and I've seen all this mess first hand. It really is a nightmare...

[dude58677]

I just talk about how Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and tell them that inflation must be cut before anything else.

[foofighter20x]

Campaign sign:



Socialized Medicine!
Because FEMA proved how
government works so well!

[Texan4Life]

I had a hard time debating against universal health care, until I saw something on the net (can't remember if it was a post or an article) that likened it to the veterans govt. heath care.

So If they are having a hard time grasping the whole free market approach, just say

You know how the government veterans health care is in the dumps? Well imagine that, but on a larger scale with more bureaucracy - that's universal health care.

[ThePieSwindler]

Ron explains it fine - its pretty simple. The government stifles competition in the health care industry and favors the HMOs to the individual doctors, so prices go up, because the HMOs 1)receive welfare and tax breaks to run so they do not need to be help accountable to the consumer 2)they only take people who are insured, and since the insured people are not paying out of their own pocket, there is no incentive to lower prices, thus big pharma/HMOs win out with the jacked up prices and limited competition. Ron would make it so that free entry into the market would be promoted by getting rid of the legislation that favors those corporations. Thus, prices would go down on all but the most catastrophic and specialized of medical concerns. Those are where REAL insurance coverage would be needed. He brings up an excellent point about how the nature of insurance in the current system has been corrupted. In a truly free market insurance would not be needed except in the most catastrophic of cases, because both the providers and the consumers would have incentive to keep costs low. In those catastrophic cases, the real insurance plan would only be needed to cover just those potential unlikely events (much the way life insurance works), and not to cover every single medical need under the sun. I also likes how he ties in the war and inflation as making social security checks etc worthless because of the inability of the dollar to buy anything. He really understands the fundamental problems, and how everything ties in to our foreign policy and our debt-based house of cards.

I also love how she brings up the point of health care not being on his website... and now its on his website. The man listens to the people!

[cac1963]

Another quick sell is telling them that socialized medicine means everyone pays $400 for a vaccine, just like the military pays $600 for a toilet seat. When the government's behind it, companies charge the maximum prices.

[cac1963]

Just ask whomever if they've ever been on medicaid. If they say no, ask them if they'd want to go on medicaid. If they say no, ask them why not. Then it sinks in why socialized medicine is the worst thing for quality medical care we could ever hope for.

[austin356]

I had a hard time debating against universal health care, until I saw something on the net (can't remember if it was a post or an article) that likened it to the veterans govt. heath care.

So If they are having a hard time grasping the whole free market approach, just say

You know how the government veterans health care is in the dumps? Well imagine that, but on a larger scale with more bureaucracy - that's universal health care.



Well on a much much larger scale and 10x worse bureaucracy.

Also the Veteran hospitals still have the advantage of working within a free market system with free market pricing. They just adapt to what the free market is pricing, (albeit not nearly as efficiently as the free market itself).

If you lose the pricing structure you ALWAYS get these:


Shortages or overcharges.

[SeanEdwards]

The universal medicine debate is very tricky, and I've never been completely satisfied with Dr. Paul's presentation.

Just think about how widely available and inexpensive plastic surgery is these days. That's because it operates in a free market.

Even if you like some kind of government run health program, doesn't it make more sense to let the individual states form their own programs? Then there can be some competition at least between different health care delivery strategies. We don't need more huge national programs.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I try to get into complex debates with my family about this stuff. They are all a bunch of semi-socialist democrats who voted for Kerry because "He seems so presidential"

When I start talking about economic theory, everything just flies right over their heads. I usually have to go into Al Gore mode and demonstrate with crude drawings and simple "this line is going down" graphs.

This usually leaves me with nothing left but to pull out the FEMA card. Once I can get them to agree that the government cant take care of simple issues, I ask them "So why would you want to hand them over the entire medical industry?"

They still dont get it.


Sort of like Michael Moore:

Fahrenheit 9/11- "The government is full of sh*t"

Sicko - "We need to give the government more power"

.

[Man from La Mancha]

My folks are on medicare and my father had a simple test that was charged the 1st time at $400. A couple weeks later he got another bill for that same thing for $1600. And a couple weeks later it was up to $2500. When he tried to complain that wasn't right, they told him what was he worrying about he didn't have to pay the bill.
Where there is no insurance or government programs the pet owner pays drastically reduced charges for medicine, which is the same for people.

.

[freelance]

Socialized Medicine!
Because FEMA proved how
government works so well!

Priceless!

[TyTodd]

Just think about how widely available and inexpensive plastic surgery is these days. That's because it operates in a free market.

Even if you like some kind of government run health program, doesn't it make more sense to let the individual states form their own programs? Then there can be some competition at least between different health care delivery strategies. We don't need more huge national programs.

It would be interesting to identify those services that are outside insurance coverage and chart the decline in service fees and general costs as the market improves the offering. I would guess that plastic surgery fits into this model, in terms of trends for the underlying costs of breast augmentation and the like...

By the way, I am 100% behind Dr. Paul's position on healthcare. I just feel his presentation is always a bit rambling for my tastes. I'm hoping that the campaign team helps him fine tune his pitch. He needs a 30 sec. sound bite version and the ability to lucidly explain his concepts in depth. From my perspective, he isn't coherent enough in either format...

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I really think Michael Moore has the upper hand here. He can sell his poition so much easier than Paul can sell his. Paul has to talk about complex things that make people use their head. Moore just has to do his sad puppy voice and say "I just thing everyone deserves free health care"

[angrydragon]

It would be interesting to identify those services that are outside insurance coverage and chart the decline in service fees and general costs as the market improves the offering. I would guess that plastic surgery fits into this model, in terms of trends for the underlying costs of breast augmentation and the like...

By the way, I am 100% behind Dr. Paul's position on healthcare. I just feel his presentation is always a bit rambling for my tastes. I'm hoping that the campaign team helps him fine tune his pitch. He needs a 30 sec. sound bite version and the ability to lucidly explain his concepts in depth. From my perspective, he isn't coherent enough in either format...

Dr. Paul is probably the most critical person on how he articulates topics and his explanations.

[TyTodd]

Dr. Paul is probably the most critical person on how he articulates topics and his explanations.

No doubt. Even in the interview linked above, Dr. Paul mentions that healthcare isn't something the campaign has focused on in terms of energy, communications, and distinguishing the campaign from the other Republican contenders. I will add too, that if you watch the trail of speeches and appearances over the last six months, Dr. Paul's pitch continues to improve. The Google interview is pretty much historic, and I definitely think he excels in that format.

By the way, I think that healthcare will become a much more critical issue in the general election than in the primaries. Although I believe Dr. Paul's approach - and perspective as a doctor - distinguishes him from the other Republicans, the primaries are going to be won / lost on the major neocon issues: Iraq, Iran, big government conservatism (oxymoron!), Constitutional rights, etc. These are the issues that have split the Republican party and are the core areas where Dr. Paul differs from Giuliani, Romney, and the rest of the authoritarians. And, hopefully, these are also the issues that will galvanize primary support for Ron Paul from the Republican remnant, libertarians, and Democrat converts!