Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy...R'N'R 'N' Paulitics...(Ron Paul)
-
Artist:
-
Album:
-
Track:
As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore - and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don't want to participate in the government's scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare. There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host.
Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up. The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough. It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60's and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system - making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government. Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment,
we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad. The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown. -Ron Paul-
Comments (10)
And why doesn't he actually discuss WHY? and how to fix the broken healthcare system. The whole tract seems loaded with fear..
Our taxes are low compared to many countries, so I don't really see a revolt there.
A government is not a household.
When he sez "take care of Americans at home" does he mean the government is going to be doing caretaking?
Mr. Paul wants to essentially get rid of the Federal Government (except for a few things),right?. He is actually calling for a revolution,right? I think he needs to get more support and make clear how large the changes are that he wants to make. When added together his agenda is as huge as Obama's really. It just seems like folks aren't revolution ready (en masse).
I'd love to see a positive message of change from Mr. Paul, instead of the sky is falling all the time.
It's not fear base for the being rear base. It's within the realms of reality. Our taxes are low compared to other countries, & they should lower.
When he sez "take care of Americans at home" does he mean the government is going to be doing caretaking?
Helping not taking care of, there's a diffrence.
"Mr. Paul wants to essentially get rid of the Federal Government (except for a few things),right?. He is actually calling for a revolution,right? I think he needs to get more support and make clear how large the changes are that he wants to make. When added together his agenda is as huge as Obama's really. It just seems like folks aren't revolution ready (en masse)."
He want's the Federal gov to do what it was intended to do & not over step it's bounds. He does want to get rid of the Federal Reserve.
Powers of Congress Main article:
Article One of the United States Constitution The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Federal_Government#Powers_of_Congress
Like I've said in the past, it's more of a return to what the framer's of the constitution intended more than change. I'd suggest to read his book to understand his mindset if you like.
"Ron Paul revolution manifesto"
So far his Health plan is sounding more like Corporatism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
BTW here's a pretty cool article to checkout.
‘REFORM’ AT SENIORS’ EXPENSE
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/08/03/reform-at-seniors-expense/#more-618
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the plan as it is..corporatism sounds like a good definition.
As to the Constitution..it may need to be modified a tad. Things have changed a bit since it was drafted. I know that won't sit well with some.
Still though, the Constitution gives the senate a lot of powers, How small a goverment do you think the Fed could be if it did just what you put there?
And if you shrunk the federal gov wouldn't you just be adding numerous jobs at the state level?
Why is the state level better than the federal?
The constitution was drawn up with a political mindset, giving much deference to the southern states in order to bring them aboard..it put the stamp of approval on slavery, so I don't think it's perfect.
Dick Morris s a guy who's opinion I don't really hold in high esteem..he's hyper political to me.
I don't want a return to Revolutionary times...things are too different now. I'm looking for a new direction.
"As to the Constitution..it may need to be modified a tad. Things have changed a bit since it was drafted. I know that won't sit well with some"
I don't think you would want that. You might ruin a lot of the basic principle's that are a benefit for the people.
"Still though, the Constitution gives the senate a lot of powers, How small a goverment do you think the Fed could be if it did just what you put there?"
It's suppose to limit Federal Gov, & give more power to the state. The Federal Gov twists thing's to their advantage. (It's not a perfect document)
"Why is the state level better than the federal?"
Because each state would know better what it needs are than the Federal Gov. One example I'll give you is the medical marijuana laws. Some state's see it fit to use Med MJ for certain illnesses. Even though the state allows it, the Fed law prohibits it, & make's it a Federal offense. That's just off the top of my head, don't know if it's the best example lol!
"The constitution was drawn up with a political mindset, giving much deference to the southern states in order to bring them aboard..it put the stamp of approval on slavery, so I don't think it's perfect"
No but it's the best we got. Those good principle's brought about the end of slavery.
"Dick Morris s a guy who's opinion I don't really hold in high esteem..he's hyper political to me."
I don't know much about him, but this is bad result if this is true. Reminds me a bit of medicare part D. It made people's live's tougher when it came about. It was really badly.
I don't want a return to Revolutionary times...things are too different now. I'm looking for a new direction."
I don't either, (if your reffering to the timeline). I think there is a decent direction in place that's being ignored.
Sorry correction:
"Dick Morris s a guy who's opinion I don't really hold in high esteem..he's hyper political to me."
I don't know much about him, but this is bad result if this is true. Reminds me a bit of medicare part D. It made people's live's tougher when it came about. It was really badly written.
Cool..In the end what I want most is engagement. I want people to get engaged. If more folks participated in their governance (watching FOX and reading move.org and acting off of that is not enough) then we'd really have something "of the people". Our elected officials may squabble, but most of them are working for the biggest lobbies and folks with access, not us.
I believe this is happening at all levels. Whether you think the states or localities should do more than federal is something for debate.
What the FLOCK is it with u people & your obsessive hatred of Fox News? Why Are You so friggin frightened of Fox News? I have noticed this for quite some time. I usually do not watch televised news broadcasts but you piqued my curiosity & i checked it out for a couple of week. WTF is the beef? I know their commentators are........right wing en extremeus....but their news broadcasts are just like they say....fair & balanced. Which CANNOT be said of the Big Three broadcast networks.
I'm u people now?
Why the FLOCK do you say I'm obsessing..where did I say I was frightened...
To be clear, I said an engaged person would watch more than just FOX or read more than moveon.org mail. I did not say anything about fear. FOX NEWS Channel is what it is, the leader in cable infotainment w/ some real news and a conservative ideology running through. On the flip you have MSNBC, w/CNN just an editorial mess, leaning more and more toward hardcore infotainment.
In the end, the networks, broadcast and cable are giving people what they want..not what they need.
Does anyone watch FOX News or the network's newscasts anymore?
Are FOX's or the network's newscasts driving any of the debate?
I think all the networks including FOX live up to journalistic standards on what they report..the ideology comes through in what they don't report.
Also Fox's shows that have commentary do not shy away from using the phrase fair and balanced (Mr.O'R.). The morning talk show for instance (and this is true for a lot of infotainment) has loads of commentary and some news. The lines get blurred.
I also think there are folks like ABC's John Stossel (forgive me if I messed up his name) who is pretty much libertarian is his reporting..I don't know if that makes ABC more or less liberal or more or less balanced.
My main news sources are the New York Times, NPR, and The BBC. Whether you think they have an ideological bent or not they still give in depth reporting on a wide range of events.
The major networks (including cable outlets) seem more concerned about political theater and sensationalism and their own image as a network.
"Cool..In the end what I want most is engagement. I want people to get engaged. If more folks participated in their governance (watching FOX and reading move.org and acting off of that is not enough) then we'd really have something "of the people". Our elected officials may squabble, but most of them are working for the biggest lobbies and folks with access, not us. I believe this is happening at all levels. Whether you think the states or localities should do more than federal is something for debate."
True
"The major networks (including cable outlets) seem more concerned about political theater and sensationalism and their own image as a network."
That's a good point, but you do have to take a lot of the info from there, & any type of media with a grain of salt. Not all of it is bad. People just need to educate themselve's on the issue's, and where many things stand.
"I also think there are folks like ABC's John Stossel (forgive me if I messed up his name) who is pretty much libertarian is his reporting..I don't know if that makes ABC more or less liberal or more or less balanced."
I think so also, it make's ABC the latter IMO. I don't clam myself as a Libertarian anymore. Ron Paul sounds Libertarian, but he's really an old school Rebublican. Libertarians have some great views, but they are too much of a mixed bag for me personally.