Go Ron ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
ViRedd
New Member
So Vi, you have been wowed by RON PAUL as well? Whats your thoughts about him?
Parker, I thought your answer was going to be epic or something... I thought Seamaiden was hinting at something bigger than that..........
I've been a Ron Paul fan for years ... ever since I read his book titled "The Money Book." He's one of the very few in a high government position who has dared to tell the truth about our scam, slave money and tax system. Ron Paul is a true America patriot. He is a constitutional scholar in the first degree. He doesn't just talk the talk, he walks it too. In fact he struts the shit out of it.
Ron Paul has brought a new dimension to the thinking of young people in this country. These are people who have been indoctrinated in our government monopolized school systems where the principles of freedom and liberty are not taught anymore. That right there is the major importance of Ron Paul running for president ... and still hanging in there. I heard him say the other day that he will be in it until the end.
With that said, sadly, he doesn't stand a chance of being elected. He has faced an almost total media blackout ... and when he is mentioned, its with negative comments.
I'm gonna vote for him anyway.
Vi
</IMG></IMG>
When you have a competitive market the costs to consumers goes down. The technology field has shown us the cost of products goes down over time in a competitive market. Computers, and before that calculaters and televisions.
Although well intentioned, I don't want the government to take care of my medical needs. I've learned they are not capable from their past history. Plus it's not their job.
I believe, over time, people will gather more information on errors and successes as well as what caused them in order to avoid mistakes. A mistake is an error not corrected. Hopefully the information age lessons the role of our government dependancy.
So Vi, you have been wowed by RON PAUL as well? Whats your thoughts about him?
Parker, I thought your answer was going to be epic or something... I thought Seamaiden was hinting at something bigger than that..........
None of the over 4000 babies delivered by Ron Paul were Anthony Quinns'. What are the odds!!
Last edited:
ViRedd
New Member
Originally Posted by medicineman 
Your copay and out of pocket with universal health care would be ZERO. Higher taxes for sure but the overall cost of medical would come down as soon as the profit was eliminated. Profit and health care seem like an oxymoron to me.
To quote P.J. O'Roark ... "If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait until its free!"
Vi
Your copay and out of pocket with universal health care would be ZERO. Higher taxes for sure but the overall cost of medical would come down as soon as the profit was eliminated. Profit and health care seem like an oxymoron to me.
To quote P.J. O'Roark ... "If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait until its free!"
Vi
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
I think the fundamental problem with all of the systems that are not purely privatized or purely governmentally funded is this: The consumer of the product does not truly have the option of choice that drives the competitive market spoken of when advocating privatization.
It is the government that chooses at best a few options for those that require health care, based on bottom-line cost. The consumer then ends up with a few options that are all weak. The problem is that in order for the market forces of privatization to work, the consumer cannot be a third-party recipient of services. This is exactly what has happened to the prison system - the corporation that runs the service simply wants to make more money, and will do whatever it can to slight the consumer to do so, as it is in its best interest ... more than that, it is the sole function of a corporation to make money. You can easily see this in health care - doing the least possible for health care recipients, while billing erroneously to the insurance companies. It's a joke, but the system is simply structured that way. It's simply a conflict of interest that can only be resolved by separating them. This could happen one of two ways:
1. Complete elimination of all government involvement in health care. Completely privatize the system, giving total power to the consumer, who is responsible for direct costs.
2. Make the system completely run by the government, ala Nader's single-payer system.
You can argue the merits of either, and I can see both, but anything between is just a farce.
It is the government that chooses at best a few options for those that require health care, based on bottom-line cost. The consumer then ends up with a few options that are all weak. The problem is that in order for the market forces of privatization to work, the consumer cannot be a third-party recipient of services. This is exactly what has happened to the prison system - the corporation that runs the service simply wants to make more money, and will do whatever it can to slight the consumer to do so, as it is in its best interest ... more than that, it is the sole function of a corporation to make money. You can easily see this in health care - doing the least possible for health care recipients, while billing erroneously to the insurance companies. It's a joke, but the system is simply structured that way. It's simply a conflict of interest that can only be resolved by separating them. This could happen one of two ways:
1. Complete elimination of all government involvement in health care. Completely privatize the system, giving total power to the consumer, who is responsible for direct costs.
2. Make the system completely run by the government, ala Nader's single-payer system.
You can argue the merits of either, and I can see both, but anything between is just a farce.
medicineman
New Member
The single payer system is the best with the option of having your own private medical and getting a tax break, But when that $200,000 medical bill comes due, no jumping on the single payer bandwagon.
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
Quite the opposite. I think that only an extreme will work. Otherwise, you have private corporations doing what they do best: serving their stockholders by making as much money as possible. I'm not trying to demonize them, but that's just what they do. Any system of the government subsidizing or otherwise paying private industry will result in private industry being very efficient, that much is correct. But being efficient is taking as much money as they can to perform the service, billing out as much as possible to insurance, and providing the absolute minimum necessary to patients in order to satisfy some system of standards or to keep them from firebombing the clinic.
The fundamental disconnect between the payer and the recipient of the service is the problem.
Many would argue that these are public services that should be run at a loss. Why should health care be a profitable business? It really shouldn't - it's a public service! What if I complained about how much money we wasted on the national park system, and that we should hire private companies to run it at a profit or at least possible cost? Do you think that would improve park service? My bet would be no.
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
I live in California where many of our parks are being shut down due entirely to government fiscal failure. So.. my perspective is a wee bit different.
I'm also in Cali, but I did get an email recently that the Governator reversed his decision on those shutdowns. I sent an online letter to my Congressperson about it. Apparently they had an impact.
Your perspective is pretty much my point. It shouldn't be a situation where we're stuck between shit service and nothing ... which is what situation you're in if you've ever had to use an HMO like Kaiser.
As far as the parks are concerned, if you were offered a privatized service that would be indefinite, but shit, you would def take it over nothing, right?
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Hmm.. I've got to think about that. Part of the reason is that I get tired of how people treat the natural areas that I'd like to see remain pristine. This is why I don't go out of my way to visit places like Yosemite, I think that they're actually better served by no one being there. Does that make sense?
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
Hmm.. I've got to think about that. Part of the reason is that I get tired of how people treat the natural areas that I'd like to see remain pristine. This is why I don't go out of my way to visit places like Yosemite, I think that they're actually better served by no one being there. Does that make sense?
Yeah, i get you. One point is that by localizing traffic to particular natural areas, we can focus our efforts on minimizing the damage done in those areas, where people are more accountable for their actions - due to the fact that they're being socially policed (ideally, where you don't have that annoying diffusion of responsibility thing). Hopefully, the resources are there to teach people how to behave. That way, when they encounter wilderness outside of park personnel, they'll know how to. Again, that's wishful thinking.
Another deal is that without the park service personnel, all those beautiful places become illegal for people like you and me to visit. That would break my heart. I love the outdoors, and the thought of having to trespass to visit nature in its grandeur is just horrifying.
The restriction of those areas would probably affect the most responsible users the most. You think the dbags that run their four-wheelers, litter, and otherwise abuse nature give a shit if the gate is closed? Nope. They're breaking all the rules that keep nature pristine in the first place ... at least with rangers we can kick 'em out!
We TaRdED
Well-Known Member
My point exactly! The same thing is happening with gun laws. RON PAUL is simply trying to even the playing grounds, IMHO....
Regardless, it doesn't effect me because I live in the a little town where everyone hunts and owns guns. There is never any gun problems here, and there is no way anyone would give up their guns no matter what the law says.
.
Last edited:
ViRedd
New Member
Maybe the answer would be to privatize the national parks. We already do have private national parks where you can't find one beer can or a scrap of paper laying on the ground. They are called Disneyland and Epcot Center. 
I love Yosemite. My first trip there was in the Spring of 1949. It was like being one with The Spirit. I still go to Yosemite, but not when the crowds are there. I've found the most beautiful time is just as the snow is melting and the water is starting to flow in the Merced River again. Man, talk about God's Country!
Vi
I love Yosemite. My first trip there was in the Spring of 1949. It was like being one with The Spirit. I still go to Yosemite, but not when the crowds are there. I've found the most beautiful time is just as the snow is melting and the water is starting to flow in the Merced River again. Man, talk about God's Country!
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Redd, a lot has changed since 1949. Why would you want to privatize national parks so only rich people could enjoy them, oh, thats right, you're rich.Maybe the answer would be to privatize the national parks. We already do have private national parks where you can't find one beer can or a scrap of paper laying on the ground. They are called Disneyland and Epcot Center.
I love Yosemite. My first trip there was in the Spring of 1949. It was like being one with The Spirit. I still go to Yosemite, but not when the crowds are there. I've found the most beautiful time is just as the snow is melting and the water is starting to flow in the Merced River again. Man, talk about God's Country!
Vi
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
I'm sure that there's history here I'm not privy to, but - in case you're not aware - these sorts of comments are totally useless and don't make people want to listen to what you have to say.
Personal attacks and the "you don't agree with me, so you're stupid" mentality ruin political forums.
medicineman
New Member
Well, he is rich and only the rich would be able to enjoy the national park system, so wouldn't that be one reason he would like to privatize them?
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's just me, but the post reeks of "of course you'd say that, you're rich", implying a lack of consideration for another tax bracket.
This is not the first post of that nature I've seen from you. It's frustrating, because I can tell that you know something about these issues ... but people close their ears when the signal to noise is too low ... or when the arguments turn to more or less than the issues themselves.
