Ron Paul Has International Support

[Sure Shot]

US Army	$24,503
US Air Force	$23,335
US Navy	$17,432

DUNN Capital Management $7,500

I found nothing on Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch or Morgan Stanley.
Can you cite a source?

 

[Parker]

Maybe you should ask Ron Paul why he's accepted campaign contributions from them while he was on the house committee on financial services. Maybe you could ask him why he took money from Dunn Capital while you're at it. Or ask him about why he took money from Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley in the last election.

Maybe you should ask why Ron Paul gets more individual donations from currently active military personnel than all the other candidates combined, including Obama.
Maybe you should ask yourself why Ron Paul gets his money from individuals and not the corporate elitists like Romney and Obama do.

Maybe you'll figure out what's important and the reasons why Romney and Obama are supported by the 1 percent and Ron Paul isn't. The people support Ron Paul that is why he has the most donators than any other Republican candidate. Real people not "corporations are people".

 

[canndo]

Yep, i agree, but not having money OR insurance doesn't mean you won't get care, it just means you are going to get a big bill. Also having insurance does not mean you are going to beat all the odds and are guaranteed to live to a ripe old age of 110 either because you go to the doctor every time you bump yourself or just don't feel "perfect". You can have great insurance and they can catch what ails you right away and you can still die, insurance is not the factor that determines your death. Anyone that says "he died because he didn't have insurance" is Dumb as shit. If you write that in the NY times or the Washington post then you are Dumb as Shit, and the readers who can't see it are also Dumb as shit..

Fine, we all agree to the obvious, having money won't guarantee a long life - I hope you weren't trying to make that a major point in this chain of argument. HOWEVER, If I don't have a way to pay, and that includes insurance I will not get advanced care. I will not get continuing cancer treatment, I will not get that liver transplant and I will not get dialisis. So NoDrama, If I die as a result of not getting that care (care that they will not continue to give you unless you pay) then I will die as a result of not having insurance. Hospitals will not turn down emergency patients but they will do no more than stabilize them. This fantasy that the right has, that hospitals will mae everything all better and then simply give away their care is typical of conservative thought process (I'm not saying you NoDrama, you know what I mean surely)

 

[canndo]

If the above comments were about Obama I hope to God that you were not attempting to imply that the numbers of lost jobs and alleged created jobs roughly equaled out since Obama became president.

On the day Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Until Nov. 2011 unemployment hovered right at about 9% and in Nov. 2011 it dropped to 8.6%. That means Obama is still in negative numbers, in the bucket, when it comes to job creation during his time in office. Many jobs that were created during Obama's time in office so far were short term temporary positions, like the large number of census workers that gave a short term better appearance to the unemployment figures, but then only ended up making the numbers go up in the end.

Plus if you add those who have fallen off the unemployment rolls due to time unemployed, who have given up looking, the actual unemployment rate is more like 16.6%. But then those numbers, the true unemployment rate figures, are never uttered by any administration.

When it comes to handling the economy, which is job creation, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster. Going by all past economic recoveries after recessions, by now the economy should have recovered a great deal and be much stronger than it is and unemployment should have dropped to levels below the 7.8% they were when Obama took office.

People can say what they will about President Bush, and admittedly the 2001 recession was not as bad as the last one, but the economy was on the verge of collapse when Dubya took office. All but two of the economic indicators that when they have all bottomed out say there is a recession had bottomed out prior to Dubya being elected. The last two bottomed out less than two months into his presidency, way sooner than he had any time to do anything to effect the economy in such a way, so he was handed a recession that just was not officially a recession yet, but through actions he took and asked Congress for the economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters.

The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984.

Under President Bush the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.

Yes, then the bottom did fall out, but that was largely due to policies that dated back to the Clinton years, and once Barry took over, with a 7.8% unemployment record things only got worse, compared to the 52 consecutive months of job growth under Dubya that only ended because of policies a decade old, or older, from the previous administration finally blew up in his face.

And event that Dubya and Congressional Republicans repeatedly asked and practically begged Congressional Democrats, starting in 2001 and right up until the implosion, to help them head off before it became disastrous, but of course Congressional Democrats refused to accept that there was a problem in the making and repeatedly refused to help head off the disaster.

So the terrible Dubya set an all time record for number of months in a row of job creation, and Barry took over with 7.8% unemployment and after it hovering around 9%, after three years in office, he's managed to get it all the way down to 8.6%.

That's the difference between having a president in the White House and having a community organizer in the White House.

What an incredable hash of self serving logic and convenient loss of memory. The short of this is:

1. The president doesn't create jobs in the private sector - NO president does that
2. On the one hand you blame the past for Bush's economic failures but on the other Obama created his own mess
3. You don't mention what policies Bush instituted in order to avert a major economic failure in his first term.
4. If he was such a genious during his first term then why did those or any additional actions fail him in the last part of his second?


Really Bricktop, Hate seems to be blinding you here, the contortions in this post are absolutely wild.

 

[NLXSK1]

• If I don't have a way to pay, and that includes insurance I will not get advanced care. I will not get continuing cancer treatment, I will not get that liver transplant and I will not get dialisis.​

  
  
  ​

So, you believe that a person who chooses not to have insurance should be covered for all of the above?

Again, who is supposed to pay for all of this incredibly advanced medical care?

Some people seem to believe that healthcare is a right when it simply is not and will continue to ignore the fact that economically it isnt feasible to spend the absolute top amount of money on every person that needs medical care. People talk about free healthcare in europe when it is about $12.00 per gallon of fuel. Why do you think gas is so expensive there?

Have you noticed the Eurozone is crumbling under the weight of its social welfare policies lead by greece and spain? Do you see how these policies are destroying the economies of nations?

If you wont give up the false notion that healthcare is not a right, why dont you look at the financial numbers and realize that if we go this way then our economy goes the way of Europe and the Eurozone. The numbers just dont add up, this is an entirely new welfare program for over 30 million people that we can neither support or afford.

 

[canndo]

So, you believe that a person who chooses not to have insurance should be covered for all of the above?

Again, who is supposed to pay for all of this incredibly advanced medical care?

Some people seem to believe that healthcare is a right when it simply is not and will continue to ignore the fact that economically it isnt feasible to spend the absolute top amount of money on every person that needs medical care. People talk about free healthcare in europe when it is about $12.00 per gallon of fuel. Why do you think gas is so expensive there?

Have you noticed the Eurozone is crumbling under the weight of its social welfare policies lead by greece and spain? Do you see how these policies are destroying the economies of nations?

If you wont give up the false notion that healthcare is not a right, why dont you look at the financial numbers and realize that if we go this way then our economy goes the way of Europe and the Eurozone. The numbers just dont add up, this is an entirely new welfare program for over 30 million people that we can neither support or afford.

Who is supposed to pay? we all are, pooling resources works. Beyond that, insurnace companies contribute NOTHING to individual health or the health of the nation and they sap resources.

This country has declared that no hospital will turn down a patient in need, there are exceptions to this but in that this was declared indeed we have stated that we have a fundamental right for our immediate health issues to be confronted. I am simply extending that already established right.

No healthcare is free, what europe pays for gas has no bearing here. Are we not America the exception? if so, can we not find a way that works? we needn't use any european model.

The numbers can add up when the health care and pharmaceutical lobbies aren't involved.

 

[NoDrama]

Fine, we all agree to the obvious, having money won't guarantee a long life - I hope you weren't trying to make that a major point in this chain of argument. HOWEVER, If I don't have a way to pay, and that includes insurance I will not get advanced care. I will not get continuing cancer treatment, I will not get that liver transplant and I will not get dialisis. So NoDrama, If I die as a result of not getting that care (care that they will not continue to give you unless you pay) then I will die as a result of not having insurance. Hospitals will not turn down emergency patients but they will do no more than stabilize them. This fantasy that the right has, that hospitals will mae everything all better and then simply give away their care is typical of conservative thought process (I'm not saying you NoDrama, you know what I mean surely)

No, you will die as a result of not having treatment for a malady which requires such, this cannot ever be spun into not having insurance as the cause of death, EVER!!

I know at least 2 people who got surgeries for non life threatening maladies and they didn't have insurance. In both cases charity paid for it. Hospitals do more than just stabilize patients who don't have insurance. Happens all the time, plenty of people getting cancer treatment who have no insurance including my neighbor who just got through a bout with colon cancer and lived. He has a huge bill to pay, but had no insurance. Had to go to Chemo twice a week, he lost 120 pounds in the process. He is all better now and gained all the weight back.


Now let me reiterate my point once again so no one gets confused.

Not having insurance can never be the cause of death. Death is caused by sickness, circumstance and poor judgement on the part of the patient.

People do not die becasue they don't have insurance, they die because they are sick, old, suicidal or got in a accident.

 

[NoDrama]

Who is supposed to pay? we all are, pooling resources works. Beyond that, insurnace companies contribute NOTHING to individual health or the health of the nation and they sap resources.

To say that then you must also believe that Insurance doesn't cause life. Because what you have been saying previously is that not having insurance is what causes death, therefore having insurance is what causes life and insurance companies are therefore selling life, which in my book would be the greatest product ever conceived.

But of course anyone with a brain can tell this isn't true becasue insurance does NOT cause life, it doesn't cause anything, its insurance which mitigates some risk, but not all.

Want healthcare to be better and cheaper? get government out of the way.

 

[canndo]

To say that then you must also believe that Insurance doesn't cause life. Because what you have been saying previously is that not having insurance is what causes death, therefore having insurance is what causes life and insurance companies are therefore selling life, which in my book would be the greatest product ever conceived.

But of course anyone with a brain can tell this isn't true becasue insurance does NOT cause life, it doesn't cause anything, its insurance which mitigates some risk, but not all.

Oh for god sake NoDrama.

No insurance = no money
No money = no treatment
No treatment = death

Therefore

No insurance = death

 

[canndo]

No, you will die as a result of not having treatment for a malady which requires such, this cannot ever be spun into not having insurance as the cause of death, EVER!!

I know at least 2 people who got surgeries for non life threatening maladies and they didn't have insurance. In both cases charity paid for it. Hospitals do more than just stabilize patients who don't have insurance. Happens all the time, plenty of people getting cancer treatment who have no insurance including my neighbor who just got through a bout with colon cancer and lived. He has a huge bill to pay, but had no insurance. Had to go to Chemo twice a week, he lost 120 pounds in the process. He is all better now and gained all the weight back.


Now let me reiterate my point once again so no one gets confused.

Not having insurance can never be the cause of death. Death is caused by sickness, circumstance and poor judgement on the part of the patient.

People do not die becasue they don't have insurance, they die because they are sick, old, suicidal or got in a accident.

That's nice, you have some anecdotal examples that a few people get extensive treatment without having to pay and somehow you are (again) extending these few anecdotal experiences to indicate that everyone can and will experience the same thing.

I have a friend who drowned but was revived almost 5 minutes later therefor no one need ever die of drowning.

 

[NoDrama]

Oh for god sake NoDrama.

No insurance = no money
No money = no treatment
No treatment = death

Therefore

No insurance = death

If no insurance = no money then Insurance = Money
if no money = no treatment then money = treatment
if no treatment = death then treatment = life

Kent Snyder got treatment but died anyway, so that proves everything you just posted as wrong.

FYI my dad does not have insurance, but he is still alive.

 

[NoDrama]

That's nice, you have some anecdotal examples that a few people get extensive treatment without having to pay and somehow you are (again) extending these few anecdotal experiences to indicate that everyone can and will experience the same thing.

I have a friend who drowned but was revived almost 5 minutes later therefor no one need ever die of drowning.

So then your friend had insurance? Cuz there is no way he could have lived without it.

 

[beardo]

No insurance = no money
No money = no treatment
No treatment = death

Therefore

No insurance = death

This is not true and your logic is flawed
Truth is, If we eliminated health insurance the people would have better health=eliminate insurance improve over all health and life expentancy of the general population

 

[fdd2blk]

Oh for god sake NoDrama.

No insurance = no money
No money = no treatment
No treatment = death

Therefore

No insurance = death

how the hell does no insurance = no money?

insurance is something you sign up for, not something forced upon you.

i need some dental work done. guess what i'm gonna do. i'm gonna pay CASH. from what i hear i can get the work done for a lot less money when paying CASH. something about less paperwork and whatnot.

 

[NoDrama]

insurance is something you sign up for, not something forced upon you.

I wouldn't be so sure about this part.

 

[beardo]

I wouldn't be so sure about this part.

I just came up with an idea for a new mandate
Everyone has to buy insurance, you will get an insurance ID card you must have on you at all times and be ready to show upon request.
If you do not have your card you will be taken to a doctor because not having insurance is a terminal illness which upon discovery leads immediatly to death.
This policy will help eliminate the uninsured and at the same time demonstrate the life saving atvantages of having insurance.
the insurance plan will also elimanate unemployment

 

[fdd2blk]

I wouldn't be so sure about this part.

everything you do is done by your choice.

there are consequences to every action. if you don't like those consequences then simply don't perform that action.

 

[NoDrama]

everything you do is done by your choice.

there are consequences to every action. if you don't like those consequences then simply don't perform that action.

LOL reminds me of this...

[video=youtube;bVVsDIv98TA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVVsDIv98TA[/video]

 

[canndo]

If no insurance = no money then Insurance = Money
if no money = no treatment then money = treatment
if no treatment = death then treatment = life

Kent Snyder got treatment but died anyway, so that proves everything you just posted as wrong.

FYI my dad does not have insurance, but he is still alive.

You know this is not the case. Everyone agrees that there are no guarantees that treatment = life, it is even possible that no treatment can result in life anyway. No one ever said anything other than that. I can't understand why you are being obtuse here.

You claim that insurance will not save lives which means that you claim that treatment will not save lives - this is easly proven false.

 

[canndo]

To reiterate again - your statement is as follows.

"Not having insurance can never be the cause of death. Death is caused by sickness, circumstance and poor judgement on the part of the patient.

People do not die becasue they don't have insurance, they die because they are sick, old, suicidal or got in a accident. "

This statement is a fact, HOWEVER, A man is in anaphelactic shock and cannot breath. The nurse next to him has a shot of (whatever they use). The nurse does not give the man the shot.
A man is behind bars and is deprived of water. The man dies. What is the reason for his death? was it because he could not get water or did he die of thirst? NoDrama, your arguments as of late are worthless.