Ron Paul advocates plan in-game WoW rally

i agree universal free health care isn't a good idea, but there should be some cheaper (possibly tax-deferred or whatnot) healthcare available for poor people who are deemed to deserve it. this does not include illegal immigrants, but it should be easier to become a legal immigrant. but if we get out of iraq, we could use some of that money to pay for cheaper healthcare

also, fuck walmart and gamestop. i guess that's about all my political stances in 1 post, lol

It's crazy to get rid of our current private health care system, but it's also crazy to deny health care to those who can't afford it. Any smart person would want a hybrid system - keep Big Health around for anyone that wants (can afford) it, but also provide basic health services to anyone that needs them. Sure, it would cost more, but it's important.

As far as tax rates go...don't try to tell me about the Laffer curve. High tax rates lead to less revenue? BS. In the 1950s, our country had some of the most explosive economic growth the world had ever seen. Want to know what the income tax rate was? 92%. In the 1970s, it was something like 65%.

Know why I think Ron Paul is a nut? He wants a confederacy, and that's nutty enough for me.

I call bullshit on 92% taxes. The only way that would have flown is if it was a temporary bill (like lasting 2 years) and the money was all used to pay for the war.

I agree LaughingTarget, people here are oblivious to Ron Paul's stances and are being fed their info from the biased main stream media. It is impossible to have a universal health system without violating the civil liberties of certain citizens.

"The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/

Britain had a simple idea after world war II

If we can spend all this money to kill people (i.e. the war budget), why not divert it and spend money to save people?

The same idea is applicable in America, to a very real extent. Our military budget ranks #1 in the world, but second place is so far away that we could afford to slash that by half and still be well ahead of the nearest competition (China, or Russia, I forget whom). That would go a long way towards paying for it

Plus, if you honestly believe that those brutal insurance companies are nicer than government handouts, you have to be rather naive. The insurance companies are here to make money, and money is the primary purpose of our current healthcare system

Those brutal insurance agencies were created via government mandate, which I know will surprise many people who don't follow political history. The HMO Act of 1973 effectively created Big Corporate Health. Up until that point, American health care was the envy of the entire world. Not only did we still have the same high quality we have today, it was incredibly cheap. Insurance was only needed for major operations, not annual checkups and you could pay for your doctor visit with cash that could actually fit in your wallet and not eat up multiple paychecks. Europe came up with the universal healthcare system to try and match the American system, but they've clearly failed miserably. Still, there were those who were unable to pay for it, as will always be the case. Starting in the 1970s, the US government began this "harmonization" kick that continues through today. The concept of harmonization is to bring American laws and regulations in line with the European standards. The assumption was there were more Europeans doing this than Americans, so they had to be on to something. Little did they know that the European methods are frequently the wrong choices. The EU has twice the population as the US but only roughly the same economy for a reason, the people are half as productive and it is government policy that created that. Same with the miserable healthcare systems. The problem is, the HMO Act mandated that every company with 25 or more employees (many of which are classified as small business) to offer HMO coverage. This created a non-competitive, regulated environment. As with every other regulated industry, the costs immediately started to spiral upwards since there was a complete lack of reason to lower the cost to the end consumer. The company had to foot the bill, the law said so.

This spiraling of health costs resulted in more and more people unable to pay for their health costs, and combined with other Federal legislation that states no hospital can refuse a patient for inability to pay, the costs only increased.

There is currently little competition in the American healthcare system, and like the universal systems of other nations, our costs are going out of control. Retracting the HMO Act will solve a significant amount of problems. Companies can start offering up in-house care options as the only source which will force existing insurance companies to become competetive. This means they will have to offer a broader range of services at a far lower cost.

The main reason for the rise in healthcare costs is not an increase in doctor fees or medical supplies, but because of the increasing bureaucratic costs required to keep the legal monopoly called the HMO running. Like every other deregulated industry, from long distance telephone and cable television to the airline industry, deregulation is the best choice for the consumer.

Military spending cannot simply be cut. We can clear out $40 billion from getting out of Iraq here and now and a few more billion by shutting down overseas bases (we have no business with overseas bases anymore, we have the technology to hit any threat in the world at a moment's notice from the USA), but the large bulk of military spending is actually focused on soldier welfare. The United States has the second largest military on the planet with just about 2 million members. The average salary for American soldiers is $50,000 a year. This is $100 billion of the existing $600 billion expense. Factor in health care costs and housing and you're looking at a third of the total cost to run the military.

Now consider that every top military power fell because they failed to keep up with military technology and tactics. The other $400 billion goes to keeping the American soldier the top dog on the battlefield which keeps America as, undebatably, the most powerful military force to ever walk the planet. This goes from R&D to logistics and intelligence. The only real issue is the forces should be concentrated in the United States, which would make this country an untouchable target. Britain can get away with this. If anyone is foolish to attack the UK, they'll have to deal with the US as well. The UK doesn't have to spend much on military when they've got the big guy on the playground to back them up.

In conclusion - big heathcare corporations and high healthcare costs are the direct result of government interference. Simply cutting military expenditures cannot be done nor will it free up enough to pay for large scale healthcare costs (nor does Congress have the Constitutional authority to do so).

Thats for damn sure.

Apparently you're new here.

I understand that he wants the government out of people's lives.
I understand that he wants to introduce competing currencies so people can choose to stick with a dying dollar or not.
I understand that he thinks that we spend too much money on federal departments and wars and tax too much.
I understand that he thinks that he thinks that wars should be backed by the people and that congress only has the power to declare war, not the president.

I understand, and I support the man. I don't see how he's worse than Bush, he seems to be the opposite.

"Libertarians are the mirror image of communists: that is, their beliefs are opposite, but every bit as extreme and crazy."

So for a real presidential showdown we'd need Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton.

Fascists are the mirror image of communists: that is, their beliefs are opposite, but every bit as extreme and crazy.

Case in point: The Nazis and the Soviets in World War II.

This probably isn't the place for a political debate, but I'll say I disagree.

Fascism and Communism have a great deal in common -- namely exalting the interests of the state over the individual, and a quelling of individual freedom to uphold those interests. In both cases, the state directly controls everything its citizens do. And like Communism, Fascism expects economic entities to work for the benefit of the state (Communists would say "for the people," but they mean the same thing).

Libertarianism is the opposite: it emphasizes personal liberty and private ownership to the extreme. In a pure Libertarian state, State ownership would be nonexistent. Everything that can be managed by the free market (and many things that can't be, like product safety regulation) would be left alone by the government. Libertarianism worships capitalism and the individual.

You could probably argue that Fascism is the opposite of idealized Communism, where there's no government and no need for one because everybody lives in peace like hippies, but it doesn't exist and never will.

In the real world, they're all crazy and none of them works except Fascism, and even that has never shown itself to be sustainable.