[DrStale]

This is probably one of the best reasons yet. Although, I wouldn't describe him as a "hardcore creationist." I could be wrong about this but I think what he actually said was "Evolution is just a theory" or some shit like that. That being said... virtually everyone that has ever run for President in the last 150 years believes "Evolution is just a theory."

He said eveolution was a theory, and one he didnt accept then proceeded to ramble on about our "creator." Also you can't use the "everyone who runs for President says that" if your principal argument is about how different he is from our past presidents and how thats one of his main draws.

[JohnGalt2341]

He said eveolution was a theory, and one he didnt accept then proceeded to ramble on about our "creator." Also you can't use the "everyone who runs for President says that" if your principal argument is about how different he is from our past presidents and how thats one of his main draws.

If everyone else running against Ron Paul were Atheists that believed in Freedom, and Liberty and The Constitution then I probably wouldn't be voting for Ron Paul. However, none of them are even remotely close to that. If I could resurrect Thomas Jefferson and vote for him I would. Compared to everyone else running... Ron Paul IS different.

[Cuse0323]

Don't agree with a lot of things he says but he still seems like the best option to me. The other repubs besides maybe Romney are all worthless.

[Iced]

I'm an atheist but I don't give a shit whether or not Ron Paul believes in evolution or creationism. His job as President would never have to deal with such subjects. He's not a statist so he would never tell schools which one to teach.

[Cuse0323]

I'm an atheist but I don't give a shit whether or not Ron Paul believes in evolution or creationism. His job as President would never have to deal with such subjects. He's not a statist so he would never tell schools which one to teach.

Yeah if two of the biggest things I disagree with him on are his beliefs on creationism and abortion, I can live with that.

[andywend]

Countries around the world are all self-destructing due to overwhelming debt that they can't pay.

Governments around the world are all spending far more than what they take in via tax revenue.

When you take all of the political spin and bullshit out of the equation, THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Lets focus on medicare in the U.S. as that government program all by itself will bankrupt this nation. You can raise taxes on the rich to 90% and it won't come close to paying for this government liability.

When conservatives talk about ending medicare, liberal democrats immediately fire back about "death panels" and say conservatives want to kill seniors.

Liberal democrats believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING IN THE U.S. should have unlimited medical care at their disposal whether or not they have the ability to pay for it. When asked about how its going to be paid for, liberals reply back to either raise taxes on the rich or have the government take over the handling of our entire medical care system. These are the only 2 responses they ever give and both won't come close to solving the problem and the latter will make the situation much, much worse.

For the most part, the democrats tell people EXACTLY what they want to hear while republicans tell the truth which is social security and medicare are both absolutely unsustainable.

All of these young liberals who are being brainwashed by their college professors are burying their futures.

The entire socialistic Eurozone is falling apart at the seams with the more socialist nations (Greece and Italy) being in the worst financial condition. Right here in the states, California has the worst financial rating of all 50 states even though the Golden State brings in more state tax revenue than any other state.

I understand why the welfare collectors continue to support the democratic party as they only care about themselves and what they can get for doing nothing. What I don't understand is how hard working Americans can support what the democratic party is doing to this country.

Socialism just doesnt work as evidenced by the world-wide financial destruction of the socialistic Eurozone. Why do liberal democrats want the U.S.A. to go down that very same road?

[jarvol]

For the most part, the democrats tell people EXACTLY what they want to hear while republicans LIBERTARIANS tell the truth which is social security and medicare are both absolutely unsustainable.

You might want to cool your jets just touch on that load of BS. Republicans have NEVER, EVER attempted to meaningfully reform, phase out, or make voluntary the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare. NEVER. And they have had the opportunity. Even very small reforms to Medicare like what has been proposed by Paul Ryan isn't supported by the GOP. They spew their propaganda just like the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt as hell, played an equal part in destroying this country, and are held hostage by the lazy, greedy senior citizens in America.

[andywend]

You might want to cool your jets just touch on that load of BS. Republicans have NEVER, EVER attempted to meaningfully reform, phase out, or make voluntary the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare. NEVER. And they have had the opportunity. Even very small reforms to Medicare like what has been proposed by Paul Ryan isn't supported by the GOP. They spew their propaganda just like the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt as hell.

Jarvol, you're absolutely right. I have a problem dealing with the fact that the republican party of today is no longer conservative.

played an equal part in destroying this country

This I disagree with. At least, there are some republicans out there like Paul Ryan that are willing to talk about possible solutions to our country's problems. I don't see anyone on the democratic side that is willing to do the same.

[Salmon Steak]

Presidents are not decided by who would be best for the country (Ron Paul)

Presidents are decided by money, and who looks and talks most presidential. I am still voting for Ron Paul anyway. The guy would shake things up at least.

[Pokerjoe]

I can't support him because his supporters are the kind of idiots who think polls like OP made are intelligent. They think the choices in the poll are real choices, and will be a good way to find out what we should do.

I mean, the options allowed in your poll are stupid. Ron Paul has a few good ideas. I'm not grossly anti Ron Paul. But his Tea Poseur supporters are morons, and their responses ITT are good evidence.


But let's just focus on this for now:
"Lets focus on medicare in the U.S. as that government program all by itself will bankrupt this nation. You can raise taxes on the rich to 90% and it won't come close to paying for this government liability.

When conservatives talk about ending medicare, liberal democrats immediately fire back about "death panels" and say conservatives want to kill seniors.

Liberal democrats believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING IN THE U.S. should have unlimited medical care at their disposal whether or not they have the ability to pay for it. When asked about how its going to be paid for, liberals reply back to either raise taxes on the rich or have the government take over the handling of our entire medical care system. These are the only 2 responses they ever give and both won't come close to solving the problem and the latter will make the situation much, much worse."

First, "death panels" is a conservative Repub rallying cry. Sarah Palin made it most famous.

Second, yes, EVERYONE should get health care. Everyone. You're a hypocrite. Easily proven: if you were injured and needed help, you'd want care. And you'd want it even if you didn't have money. If you were bleeding and broke, if it came to it, you'd even lie and promise to pay later, for treatment. So don't deny that help to anyone else who needs it but doesn't have the money.

You might lie here, though, and tell us what a tough guy you are and how, even if your own child was sick, if you didn't have the money you'd agree to let your child die. Right. And then you'll give us a speech about how you'll always have the money or the insurance to pay for it, sure you will, you'll never be unlucky enough to be broke or uninsured, that only happens to others.

And as to the our inability to pay for health care? Who the hell do you think is paying for it now? We are! We're just doing it in a monstrously inefficient manner.

We either pay for it, or deny it. You want to deny it to people? You're such a diseased human being that when a child is sick and needs treatment, you'll say fug you, die? Of if an elderly person needs treatment, fug you, too, die? IOW, if anyone other than you needs care, fug them, they can die. But if you need it?

We pay for health care, or we don't. If we don't, we're socially diseased anti-Christian pigs. If we do, we should do it intelligently. And single-payer health care is massively cheaper than the crap system we have now. If the government provides everyone's health care, we'll save so much money the budget will be balanced. We pay much, much more for health care than any other nation, and for all that extra money we spend, we're something like 37th in the world in health care. We SUCK at health care. Our system sucks. We suck. At health care, the US sucks because morons like you won't let us fix this stupid system.

And where will it come from, the money to have the government provide everyone with health care? Where is it coming from now! Employers, and individuals. It's getting paid for, and the cost is crippling US business ability to compete in this world. By having the government take over the cost, and raising taxes enough to cover it, the corporations save money, small business saves tons, and they'll be able to earn more. It's win win win.

And yes, when it comes to health insurance (not health care, no one's talking about having the government provide the care, that will still be done by individual doctors and hospitals, for profit), the government will do it better than the insurance companies. The only people who think the private sector does all things better than the government haven't worked for a major corporation. Like Enron, BP, etc.

[Masu485]

I'm surprised he's pro-life... Doesn't that go against libertarianism?

What happened to Bob Barr and Wayne Root?

[Iced]

I can't support him because his supporters are the kind of idiots who think polls like OP made are intelligent. They think the choices in the poll are real choices, and will be a good way to find out what we should do.

I mean, the options allowed in your poll are stupid. Ron Paul has a few good ideas. I'm not grossly anti Ron Paul. But his Tea Poseur supporters are morons, and their responses ITT are good evidence.

Lol. The poll was meant in good fun. So instead you stereotype all Ron Paul supporters as morons. And you dislike Ron Paul because of his supporters, I don't really see the logic there. Did you dislike Obama because all the sheep believed in hope and change?

But let's just focus on this for now:
"Lets focus on medicare in the U.S. as that government program all by itself will bankrupt this nation. You can raise taxes on the rich to 90% and it won't come close to paying for this government liability.

When conservatives talk about ending medicare, liberal democrats immediately fire back about "death panels" and say conservatives want to kill seniors.

Liberal democrats believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING IN THE U.S. should have unlimited medical care at their disposal whether or not they have the ability to pay for it. When asked about how its going to be paid for, liberals reply back to either raise taxes on the rich or have the government take over the handling of our entire medical care system. These are the only 2 responses they ever give and both won't come close to solving the problem and the latter will make the situation much, much worse."

First, "death panels" is a conservative Repub rallying cry. Sarah Palin made it most famous.

Sarah Palin =/= Ron Paul

Second, yes, EVERYONE should get health care. Everyone. You're a hypocrite. Easily proven: if you were injured and needed help, you'd want care. And you'd want it even if you didn't have money. If you were bleeding and broke, if it came to it, you'd even lie and promise to pay later, for treatment. So don't deny that help to anyone else who needs it but doesn't have the money.

Where's the hypocrisy? There's a difference between wanting care and stealing money to pay for care.

You might lie here, though, and tell us what a tough guy you are and how, even if your own child was sick, if you didn't have the money you'd agree to let your child die. Right. And then you'll give us a speech about how you'll always have the money or the insurance to pay for it, sure you will, you'll never be unlucky enough to be broke or uninsured, that only happens to others.

Irrelevant rambling.

And as to the our inability to pay for health care? Who the hell do you think is paying for it now? We are! We're just doing it in a monstrously inefficient manner.

With Medicare, Medicaid, and all the regulations evolved in the medical insurance industry, the inefficiency shouldn't be a surprise.

We either pay for it, or deny it. You want to deny it to people? You're such a diseased human being that when a child is sick and needs treatment, you'll say fug you, die? Of if an elderly person needs treatment, fug you, too, die? IOW, if anyone other than you needs care, fug them, they can die. But if you need it?

Appeal to emotion.

We pay for health care, or we don't. If we don't, we're socially diseased anti-Christian pigs. If we do, we should do it intelligently.

Ad hominem.

And single-payer health care is massively cheaper than the crap system we have now. If the government provides everyone's health care, we'll save so much money the budget will be balanced.

Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single-payer programs and they're the two most expensive entitlements in the entire world. How would adding another single-payer entitlement that multiplies the size of government spending and entitlements reduce the deficit?

We pay much, much more for health care than any other nation, and for all that extra money we spend, we're something like 37th in the world in health care.

Indeed. Let's see what you think the cause of this is...

We SUCK at health care. Our system sucks. We suck. At health care, the US sucks because morons like you won't let us fix this stupid system.

Astute causal analysis.

And where will it come from, the money to have the government provide everyone with health care? Where is it coming from now! Employers, and individuals. It's getting paid for, and the cost is crippling US business ability to compete in this world. By having the government take over the cost, and raising taxes enough to cover it, the corporations save money, small business saves tons, and they'll be able to earn more. It's win win win.

This must be the worst logic in your entire tl;dr block of rambling. I think you forgot in your math equation who pays the taxes. Corporations and people do.

And yes, when it comes to health insurance (not health care, no one's talking about having the government provide the care, that will still be done by individual doctors and hospitals, for profit), the government will do it better than the insurance companies. The only people who think the private sector does all things better than the government haven't worked for a major corporation. Like Enron, BP, etc.

More unfounded claims and straw men. Are you willing to provide any evidence for the statement that "the government will do it better than the insurance companies"? I suspect not. Your entire post was just like that. It followed the form of: The government will do X better than private companies because I said so.

[rsnnh12]

I can't support him because his supporters are the kind of idiots who think polls like OP made are intelligent. They think the choices in the poll are real choices, and will be a good way to find out what we should do.

I mean, the options allowed in your poll are stupid. Ron Paul has a few good ideas. I'm not grossly anti Ron Paul. But his Tea Poseur supporters are morons, and their responses ITT are good evidence.


But let's just focus on this for now:
"Lets focus on medicare in the U.S. as that government program all by itself will bankrupt this nation. You can raise taxes on the rich to 90% and it won't come close to paying for this government liability.

When conservatives talk about ending medicare, liberal democrats immediately fire back about "death panels" and say conservatives want to kill seniors.

Liberal democrats believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING IN THE U.S. should have unlimited medical care at their disposal whether or not they have the ability to pay for it. When asked about how its going to be paid for, liberals reply back to either raise taxes on the rich or have the government take over the handling of our entire medical care system. These are the only 2 responses they ever give and both won't come close to solving the problem and the latter will make the situation much, much worse."

First, "death panels" is a conservative Repub rallying cry. Sarah Palin made it most famous.

Second, yes, EVERYONE should get health care. Everyone. You're a hypocrite. Easily proven: if you were injured and needed help, you'd want care. And you'd want it even if you didn't have money. If you were bleeding and broke, if it came to it, you'd even lie and promise to pay later, for treatment. So don't deny that help to anyone else who needs it but doesn't have the money.

You might lie here, though, and tell us what a tough guy you are and how, even if your own child was sick, if you didn't have the money you'd agree to let your child die. Right. And then you'll give us a speech about how you'll always have the money or the insurance to pay for it, sure you will, you'll never be unlucky enough to be broke or uninsured, that only happens to others.

And as to the our inability to pay for health care? Who the hell do you think is paying for it now? We are! We're just doing it in a monstrously inefficient manner.

We either pay for it, or deny it. You want to deny it to people? You're such a diseased human being that when a child is sick and needs treatment, you'll say fug you, die? Of if an elderly person needs treatment, fug you, too, die? IOW, if anyone other than you needs care, fug them, they can die. But if you need it?

We pay for health care, or we don't. If we don't, we're socially diseased anti-Christian pigs. If we do, we should do it intelligently. And single-payer health care is massively cheaper than the crap system we have now. If the government provides everyone's health care, we'll save so much money the budget will be balanced. We pay much, much more for health care than any other nation, and for all that extra money we spend, we're something like 37th in the world in health care. We SUCK at health care. Our system sucks. We suck. At health care, the US sucks because morons like you won't let us fix this stupid system.

And where will it come from, the money to have the government provide everyone with health care? Where is it coming from now! Employers, and individuals. It's getting paid for, and the cost is crippling US business ability to compete in this world. By having the government take over the cost, and raising taxes enough to cover it, the corporations save money, small business saves tons, and they'll be able to earn more. It's win win win.

And yes, when it comes to health insurance (not health care, no one's talking about having the government provide the care, that will still be done by individual doctors and hospitals,
for profit), the government will do it better than the insurance companies. The only people who think the private sector does all things better than the government haven't worked for a major corporation. Like Enron, BP, etc.

I'm only going to address one point here. We don't have the 37th best care. We have, by far, the best health care in the world. Everything included, its not even close. Best doctors, best schools, best research, best technology. Overall, we have the best of the best for these things. Its not debatable, but if you'd like, I can pull up some stats/information.

That being said, our current system is bad. We need to find a way to keep the quality of care high, while making sure the most vulnerable in society aren't left for dead. It is not an easy solution, and personally, I think the govt would just screw it up.

[Mr KLC]

Paul cannot win. The majority of independents will never embrace him. They would either hold their nose voting for Obama, or just stay home.

[AribaAriba]

[Emily_Haines]

If Paul don't win, you can kiss your future good bye.

[jw]

We have, by far, the best health care in the world.

As someone who has used 4 separate countries healthcare systems .. I strongly disagree.
The cost alone puts the US system to the very bottom of my list of four.
I would rather use any other system than the one I am currently using.

In terms of service etc .. I would say that most other countries are at least on par. The UK system (which I have most experience with) is at least as good .. (wait times, transparency, level of care, access to providers/specialists) when you factor in the cost aspect .. it blows the US system out of the water in my opinion.

Ask anyone currently using any kind of national health service if they would prefer to keep the system they currently have (where they are covered 100% for any and all treatments) or would they like to switch it to a service where thier employer pays around $12k per year, they pay around $3k per year, then they pay a deductible of a couple of thousand if they ever use the service, then they are only covered 80% up to to several more thousand out of pocket each year, then it is impossible to find out how much a routine operation might cost until after the procedure ... and you will find at least 95%+ would keep the service they have right now .. FACT .... this is not a made up number .. as someone who has moved to the US from the UK .. I know at least a couple of hundred people over here that have made the same move - and every single person I know would go chose the UK's National Health Service over the current US system ... every .. single .. one of them.

[AribaAriba]

Ì like him but "Paul Cannot Win" same quote mantra that media uses to overcome the weak minded sheeps, so public would vote for the so called "winners" by the media to make the weak minded feels like a "winner"

[rsnnh12]

As someone who has used 4 separate countries healthcare systems .. I strongly disagree.
The cost alone puts the US system to the very bottom of my list of four.
I would rather use any other system than the one I am currently using.

In terms of service etc .. I would say that most other countries are at least on par. The UK system (which I have most experience with) is at least as good .. (wait times, transparency, level of care, access to providers/specialists) when you factor in the cost aspect .. it blows the US system out of the water in my opinion.

Ask anyone currently using any kind of national health service if they would prefer to keep the system they currently have (where they are covered 100% for any and all treatments) or would they like to switch it to a service where thier employer pays around $12k per year, they pay around $3k per year, then they pay a deductible of a couple of thousand if they ever use the service, then they are only covered 80% up to to several more thousand out of pocket each year, then it is impossible to find out how much a routine operation might cost until after the procedure ... and you will find at least 95%+ would keep the service they have right now .. FACT .... this is not a made up number .. as someone who has moved to the US from the UK .. I know at least a couple of hundred people over here that have made the same move - and every single person I know would go chose the UK's National Health Service over the current US system ... every .. single .. one of them.

I wasn't talking about the system... I was talking strictly about quality of care. The US has the highest quality care in the world. As I said in my post, the US SYSTEM is bad and needs lots of work. As far as the quality of care goes, you wont find anywhere better than here

[NYSportsGuy210]

[rsnnh12]

[jw]

I wasn't talking about the system... I was talking strictly about quality of care. The US has the highest quality care in the world. As I said in my post, the US SYSTEM is bad and needs lots of work. As far as the quality of care goes, you wont find anywhere better than here

ok, ... even though your quote was "We have, by far, the best health care in the world." ... rather than "The best quality of care in the world" .... how many other systems have you personally tried ? I would assume that someone who is so confident in the claim that the US has a better quality of care than any other country on the planet will have at least tried more than one of them ... right ? ... and what is your definition of "quality" in this case ?

[rsnnh12]

ok, ... even though your quote was "We have, by far, the best health care in the world." ... rather than "The best quality of care in the world" .... how many other systems have you personally tried ? I would assume that someone who is so confident in the claim that the US has a better quality of care than any other country on the planet will have at least tried more than one of them ... right ? ... and what is your definition of "quality" in this case ?

Did you read my whole post, and what I was responding to?? I even said in my post that our system is bad...

And its impossible to base quality of care on a few different experiences in various systems. I'm in school for physical therapy and have done so many research papers, case studies, and general reading about this that it makes my head hurt a bit. The US has the best doctors, best research facilities, best technology, etc. Obviously other countries have stuff on par and slightly better than the US, but no other country comes close for the overall package. I am defining quality of care as getting an ailment treated, properly, with minimal risk to the patient.

Let me ask you this. If you had cancer (God forbid), where would you rather be treated? The US, Canada, England, somewhere else? Forget about cost. Which country will give you the best chance of not only surviving, but the best chance of detecting the cancer early (because that's obviously key in stopping it)?

Again, I know our system needs a ton of work, because it is tremendously inefficient, but the quality of care (that is, keeping people alive) is unmatched.

[jw]

Let me ask you this. If you had cancer (God forbid), where would you rather be treated? The US, Canada, England, somewhere else? Forget about cost. Which country will give you the best chance of not only surviving, but the best chance of detecting the cancer early (because that's obviously key in stopping it)?

Again, I know our system needs a ton of work, because it is tremendously inefficient, but the quality of care (that is, keeping people alive) is unmatched.

Forget cost ?

You are funny .. My wife is an ICU nurse in a cancer hospital.

A very large majority of the people that she sees on a daily basis (even if they have insurance) chose to simply give up fighting when they lean of the cost involved of fighting the cancer.

If I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow (depending on the type and stage at diagnosis) .. i'd probably fly back to the UK for treatment. I would chose to leave my wife without crippling debt hanging over her head rather than see her give up every single thing she has worked for for her entire life and watch her have to hand it over to an insurance company.

The problem is .. you are telling me to forget cost - when cost is the number one problem with the care here in the US. .. if the first thing you worry about when your doctor tells you that you need to have a procedure is how much this is going to cost .. then "quality" really does not matter. If you cannot afford to have the procedure ... the fact that the best doctor in the world could have done the procedure is neither here nor there.

As to your question of which country would detect the cancer first .. I would say anywhere but the US ... in most civilized countries you can go in and see a GP whenever you want and it costs you nothing .. here in the US 60% of the population will spend at least one year living below the poverty line at some point between the ages of 25 and 75 .. lets just hope that the cancer does not chose THAT year to start growing .. as not too many people that live below the poverty line are going to be able to spend the $80 or $100 it costs to see a doctor ....

Didn't i read the other day that 60% of Americans would be unable to get their hands on $1000 if it were needed in an emergency ? Do you think that those people are going for regular check-ups at the doctors office ? I don't .. and they certainly are not going to be able to pay any kind of co-pay on treatment for cancer ... those are the people that just give up and die.

[Pokerjoe]

I'm only going to address one point here. We don't have the 37th best care. We have, by far, the best health care in the world. Everything included, its not even close. Best doctors, best schools, best research, best technology. Overall, we have the best of the best for these things. Its not debatable, but if you'd like, I can pull up some stats/information.

That being said, our current system is bad. We need to find a way to keep the quality of care high, while making sure the most vulnerable in society aren't left for dead. It is not an easy solution, and personally, I think the govt would just screw it up.

We don't have the best health care, not even close. We have the best care available for those with money. But no matter where you are, if you are rich, you can get first class care. You could always fly here and get it.

[AribaAriba]

Dan hardy know`s his shit

[Cap dat 4ss]

Every year around this time the RP train fires up. Thesetypes of threads are usually rhetorical in nature as the OP has his mind made up entirely evidenced by how he attacks tooth,claw and nail threxact rhings he asked for, others opinions.

If you seriously want to learn more about why the LP works better in theory or where Ron Paul will likely fail, find a politics forum

[Pokerjoe]

Lol. The poll was meant in good fun. So instead you stereotype all Ron Paul supporters as morons. And you dislike Ron Paul because of his supporters, I don't really see the logic there. Did you dislike Obama because all the sheep believed in hope and change?


Sarah Palin =/= Ron Paul

Where's the hypocrisy? There's a difference between wanting care and stealing money to pay for care.

Irrelevant rambling.

With Medicare, Medicaid, and all the regulations evolved in the medical insurance industry, the inefficiency shouldn't be a surprise.

Appeal to emotion.

Ad hominem.

Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single-payer programs and they're the two most expensive entitlements in the entire world. How would adding another single-payer entitlement that multiplies the size of government spending and entitlements reduce the deficit?

Indeed. Let's see what you think the cause of this is...

Astute causal analysis.

This must be the worst logic in your entire tl;dr block of rambling. I think you forgot in your math equation who pays the taxes. Corporations and people do.

More unfounded claims and straw men. Are you willing to provide any evidence for the statement that "the government will do it better than the insurance companies"? I suspect not. Your entire post was just like that. It followed the form of: The government will do X better than private companies because I said so.

This is going to be tedious, but I'm up late and bored, lol.

Sarah Palin =/= Ron Paul Brilliant observation. And irrelevant. He didn't say RP made the statement about death panels, he said "liberal democrats" did, when really it was a Tea Party favorite.

"Where's the hypocrisy? There's a difference between wanting care and stealing money to pay for care." You really can't see the difference between demanding that you get care when you need it, but being willing to deny it to others when they need it? Really? If you can't see the hypocrisy, I'm surprised you can spell the word. And YOU (yes, miserable you) would steal money to pay for care, if you had to.

"Irrelevant rambling." Neither irrelevant,not rambling. It was on point, about the hypocrisy of those who cavalierly would allow (and in fact DO allow) others to die from lack of health care.

My post holds true enough that you didn't refute it, you didn't address it, you merely ran away from it: If your own child was sick, if you didn't have the money, you'd agree to let your child die? Or, you'll always have the money or the insurance to pay for it, there's no chance you're life won't change for the worst?

"With Medicare, Medicaid, and all the regulations evolved in the medical insurance industry, the inefficiency shouldn't be a surprise."
There have to be regulations. The private sector has regulations, every major health care provider in America has tons of regulations, why shouldn't Medicare? Why the double standard? You're the kind of goof that will spend half the time whining about regulations and their cost, and then spend the other half of his time whining about abuse and corruption that can only be fixed with ... regulation. Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, Anthem, all have regulations coming out of their ass. And massive, massive inefficiencies.

"Appeal to emotion." LOL, you don't even know the difference between an appeal to emotion and a recognition of emotion. Saying "a woman will be emotionally crushed by rape, therefore don't do it" is not an appeal to emotion. I said "You're such a diseased human being that when a child is sick and needs treatment, you'll say fug you, die?" That's an attempt to get you to admit your hypocrisy. We all notice you didn't have the guts to come here and say "Yes, you'd let the child die." Again, you hide from the ramifications of your thinking.

So deal with the issue, stated broadly: A fellow human is going to die unless society picks up the health care tab. You let them die?
At least be man enough to say yes, you'd let them die.
Then answer this: if it was you?
Be man enough to again say yes, you'd prefer to die.
Then let us all laugh at you for being a liar and a hypocrite.

You asked "Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single-payer programs and they're the two most expensive entitlements in the entire world. How would adding another single-payer entitlement that multiplies the size of government spending and entitlements reduce the deficit?"
All the money now being spent by employers and individuals for health care, if paid as taxes to the government, would pay for Medicare for everyone with trillions to spare. I don't have the energy to look up the stats, but consider how much more we pay privately for health care compared to Canada, say. The difference, yes, would cure our budget problems.

IOW, if a corporation now spending X dollars on health care instead paid that in taxes, the government could use, say, .5X to provide health care and pocket the rest.

Thus also do I deal with your childish: This must be the worst logic in your entire tl;dr block of rambling. I think you forgot in your math equation who pays the taxes. Corporations and people do.
I didn't forget. I specifically remembered. YOU, otoh, forget that health care is paid for, if not in taxes, otherwise. By corporations and people. It doesn't come out of the air.

I said "We SUCK at health care. Our system sucks. We suck. At health care, the US sucks because morons like you won't let us fix this stupid system."
You said: "Astute causal analysis."
You got something right. Our system does suck and it is because idiots won't let us fix it.

In case you didn't humiliate yourself enough, at the end you said, "Are you willing to provide any evidence for the statement that "the government will do it better than the insurance companies"? I suspect not."

Child, please: study. Learn that, in the advanced nations of the world, where the government does provide the insurance, not the private sector, the cost is much, much less than here, where the corporations do it.

There's all the evidence in the world for it. Read. Learn. Grow.

Or even, just think. Which would be greater: the cost of health insurance, or, the cost of health insurance PLUS the profit corporations need? Hmm, that's a toughie.

As far as your feeble attempt to use "ad hominem" in a sentence, I stand by the statement: "We pay for health care, or we don't. If we don't, we're socially diseased anti-Christian pigs. If we do, we should do it intelligently." We are socially diseased for refusing to cut costs and provide health care for the people. It costs us so much money not to, and so much humanity. It would cost LESS to just provide it to everyone. Less money, and less pain.

You'll say "You have no proof, and the fact that all the other advanced nations do it isn't proof." Then, what is? If the example of our peer nations providing better health care for less money isn't proof, what could be? And how, indeed, can there be "proof" in advance of doing it? You don't have any proof, btw, that national health care wouldn't work.

Grow a set of balls, man up, help people.

And research. Not with your usual bigotry.

I admit to this mistake: I was bored enough to get involved in a forum debate with morons. Moron, me, LOL, no doubt. Not my biggest mistake of the night, though. I earlier called a $700 river bet with ... ah, I don't want to talk about it.

[andywend]

PokerJoe/JW are classic examples of why those that don't pay any income taxes should have NO SAY in how our government is run.

If he's calling a $700 river bet, then the chances are good he is trying to support himself by playing poker. If so, you can bet he doesn't declare his wins or losses and pays little to no income tax and probably never will.

Therefore, its no surprise that he wants the government to play an expanded role in the delivery of health care being disbursed in the U.S. because he won't be contributing one red cent to pay for it but expects others to foot the bill.

Medical care is NOT an unlimited commodity. If the U.S. goes to a single payer system, the wealthy will continue to get the same quality of care they are currently receiving as they have the money to go outside the government run system PokerJoe is proposing. The problem is the middle class who works their ass off 40-50 hours per week and pays THEIR FAIR SHARE OF INCOME TAXES (unlike the PokerJoe's/JW who pay no income tax whatsoever) is going to get absolutely screwed on the deal because PokerJoe wants his medical care for free.

Social security, medicare, postal service, education are a few large programs run by the government and they are all an absolute disaster. Allowing the government to run health care will NOT change the quality of care that the poor or wealthy receive one bit. Its the middle class that will see their medical care shift from having access to our current system to having to get stuck with a piss poor government run system which will include medical rationing and having to have special connections to get complex, complicated medical care.

People like PokerJoe who contribute NOTHING to society and pay no income taxes are an absolute MENACE. Its oh so easy for someone like him to say everyone should get unlimited free medical care as he is probably younger, never been real sick and simply doesn't want to pay for medical insurance. He is more than willing to sacrifice the high quality medical care that 85%-90% of the nation receives solely to benefit himself and to ensure that his slimy, greedy self can get medical care for free if he ever needs it.

The only bright spot is when the time comes where the PokerJoe's of society need medical care, the single payer system will fail them miserably and many of these greedy non-productive bums will NOT be saved when they might have been saved by the system currently in place.

The fact of the matter is if you work full time, you can get medical coverage either on an individual basis or through a group plan through your employer. Normally an employer will pay for a decent portion of the premium and if you ever get sick, having medical insurance will ensure that a serious medical problem will NOT bankrupt you. Yes, with deductibles and co-payments, some policies require maximum out of pocket expenses of $5,000-$10,000. While that might sound like a lot, if your life is ever threatened, you will realize that the cost is a minor issue as you're looking for the highest quality medical care you can find which is exactly what the current system provides.

[milwaukee mike]

the #1 reason not to vote for ron paul is he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
he knows israel controls the us and that 9/11 was an inside job but he won't come out and say it.

that said, he's still MUCH better than the rest of the sellout scumbags that keep getting voted in

[crustyme]

Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single-payer programs and they're the two most expensive entitlements in the entire world. How would adding another single-payer entitlement that multiplies the size of government spending and entitlements reduce the deficit?

congressional budget office has said obamacare would decrease the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. meanwhile, repealing obamacare would increase the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years.

but im sure you'll ignore the facts and have a canned neocon response that you heard on rush limbaugh.

[crustyme]

PokerJoe/JW are classic examples of why those that don't pay any income taxes should have NO SAY in how our government is run.

do you always think people with empathy for the less fortunate are poor themselves?



you are a giant douche.

i hope you get cancer and your insurance company denies you coverage. maybe then you'll understand how corrupt our current system is.

[icancount2one]

I hate arguing with Ron Paul nuts. Even after you clearly articulate your difference of opinion, they do this weird madlib.

(Insert point you disagree with) is a states rights' issue that Ron Paul wouldn't have any power over anyway. You should vote for Ron Paul anyway because of his stance on (point you agree with).

Then it's the ranting about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket and "statism" and the gold standard and "taking government out of schools" and natural law, and the rest of the shit we disagreed with you about in the first place.

It wouldn't bother me if the Ron Paul/libertarian crowd didn't act so "above it all". You support a different candidate and style of government. Some people have carefully thought about your ideas and rejected them anyway. Deal with it.

[icancount2one]

PokerJoe/JW are classic examples of why those that don't pay any income taxes should have NO SAY in how our government is run.

Or maybe just the landowners should vote.

Thanks for the honesty though, most conservatives won't come out and say it.

[BigdaddyQH]

Ron Paul is a babbling idiot. This fool actually thinks that it is no big deal for Iran to have neuclear weapons. He believes that it is no big deal to raise a generation of druggies. Ron Paul has lost any respect from the mainstream Republicans. He should be committed to an asylum for the depraved old politicians. He is now HATED my many Republicans. Only the least educated social outcasts like him. In here, we have many of them. If you fools think that he is electable, you should join him in some institution.