Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Should Ron Paul have written an alternative Health Care bill?

  1. #1

    Default Should Ron Paul have written an alternative Health Care bill?

    Thinking about it and watching the current debate. I know Ron Paul has been very busy, but sometimes I wish he brought up an alternative healthcare bill which would have brought the change we do need in our messed up healthcare system and gotten the government out of it. Even if it didn't win, it would be a good media show to show that big government isn't the only way to solve our problems.

    Your own thoughts?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    I thought he did, wasn't it like 10 pages?

    Yeah, heres the first hit from a google search
    This isn't it.
    http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-25/ro...lth-care-bill/
    Last edited by Dieseler; 11-14-2009 at 09:45 PM.

  4. #3

    Default

    Yep, he might have gotten interviewed about it, and maybe some newspapers or think tanks would have analyzed it, etc.

    I think it would have been a good idea.

    He has some legislation regarding health care, but it's not comprehensive.

  5. #4

  6. #5

    Default

    Oh sweet. I'm going to look over it now. I think he would have a lot of good say on it seeing as he is a doctor and all. He'd understand the system much more then most in Washington.

  7. #6
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,167

    Default

    Just starting with one of the first points listed:
    Give you a 100% refund from your taxes of every dollar you spend on medical care, including insurance premiums.
    The way this is written, if you owe little to no taxes you get little to no money back. Those who do not make enough and cannot afford health care still cannot afford it. It does not encourage people to seek out lower cost alternatives which help to control the rising costs. It sounds nice to taxpayers but it is a budget buster in a big way.

    According to Kaiser, US healthcare costs in 2007 were $2.2 trillion- it does not say that this includes the costs paid for insurance. http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.a...ntID=61&id=358 Even if it does, having the government refund every dollar you spend on healthcare would immediately add $2.2 trillion to the debt and probably more every year after that. You think Obama added to the debt- this would make his expenditures into peanuts in no time. It would be cheaper in the long run for the US to just take care of paying healthcare directly and eleminate insurance companies. Some 40% of expenses (made up this number for now but it is high) are related to paperwork like handling the thousands of different insurance plans and forms- that would knock down that expense significantly.

    The rest is just a basic health saving account plan. I see nothing about controlling costs which are crucial to the success or failure of any plan.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  8. #7
    Member ronpaulhawaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire (Kauai ex pat - FSP mover)
    Posts
    11,486
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1495/show

    We should be pushing this like 1207...
    Don't let others get you down. Not naysayers, not pretenders, not appeasers, not opportunists; none of em.

    What others do pales beside what YOU do.

    Press on! - The r3VOLution continues...

    "Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

    ~ C.Coolidge

  9. #8
    Member Bruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    19,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Just starting with one of the first points listed:

    The way this is written, if you owe little to no taxes you get little to no money back. Those who do not make enough and cannot afford health care still cannot afford it. It does not encourage people to seek out lower cost alternatives which help to control the rising costs. It sounds nice to taxpayers but it is a budget buster in a big way.

    According to Kaiser, US healthcare costs in 2007 were $2.2 trillion- it does not say that this includes the costs paid for insurance. http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.a...ntID=61&id=358 Even if it does, having the government refund every dollar you spend on healthcare would immediately add $2.2 trillion to the debt and probably more every year after that. You think Obama added to the debt- this would make his expenditures into peanuts in no time. It would be cheaper in the long run for the US to just take care of paying healthcare directly and eleminate insurance companies. Some 40% of expenses (made up this number for now but it is high) are related to paperwork like handling the thousands of different insurance plans and forms- that would knock down that expense significantly.

    The rest is just a basic health saving account plan. I see nothing about controlling costs which are crucial to the success or failure of any plan.
    outside of the free market, how do you control costs without price fixing?
    "I'm not just trying to win or get elected. I am trying to change the course of history" - Ron Paul

  10. #9

    Default

    Why would Ron believe that "health care" is a power of the Federal Government???
    "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."--Thomas Jefferson

  11. #10
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,167

    Default

    Under current and proposed systems, the consumer does not see what healthcare cost them. As far as most are concerned, it costs them little to nothing. They don't get a bill. This leads to over consumption and higher costs. If the consumer has to at least directly share in the costs, they will make different decisions as to what sort of medical care they want. Without knowing or facing the costs, people would like to have the best.

    Take one of my usual examples. A person gets the flu and goes to the doctor or emergency room and demands to be looked and and given medicines to feel better. Say the doctor visit cost $100. He looks at you and gives you three prescriptions. One a decongestant and pain reliever- prescription costs the insurance company $50. Second, a cough supressant $40. Third, a nasal spray for $60. The person has a copay of $4 on prescription drugs.

    Now if this person had to pay all of this themselves, they may be less willing to go to the doctor for this flu virus. The doctor visit and medicines will not make the virus go away until it has run it course- at best, they may ease some of the symptoms. Say they stayed at home instead with some soup and a few blankets. Instead of that $100 visit, they spent a couple dollars on soup. Send a friend or family member to the drugstore for some over the counter medicines. A bottle of asprin at $4 for the aches and fever. $9 for some decongestant and $3 for a saline spray for the sinuses.

    With insurance, the sick person is wiser to do the doctor route. This cost them $12 for their medicines. If they went to the drug store they would be out $17 plus the soup. But the actual cost of their treatment in the first case was not $12 but $250 plus the paperwork. The consumer had no reason to choose the less expensive option. They felt no better and got well no sooner.

    So just making the consumer share in the price of the real costs will encourage more financially rational decions on medical treatment. No price fixing involved here. Yes, I guess this is a free market solution. Without a consumer paying the full cost of things, they will over-consume and drive up the costs for everybody else. It is definately not a free market today.

    If somebody offers to buy you dinner- no cost to you, are you going to order the tuna salad or the lobster? If you are going to split the check, which will you order?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-15-2009 at 01:20 AM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •