Ron Paul Has International Support

[canndo]

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

So you are claiming that without health insurance no one would ever need treatment that was beyond their capacity to pay. This is false.

 

[canndo]

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.

You are going to have to follow the entire idiotic thread. NoDrama claims that no one ever died from lack of insurance. He is splitting hairs and claiming that people die of natural cuases and such and insurance never saved a life. In that he is claiming that money has no bearing on longevity.

 

[beardo]

So you are claiming that without health insurance no one would ever need treatment that was beyond their capacity to pay. This is false.

I never said that
Are you claiming that insurance would never refuse to pay for a treatment that might benefit a patient ?

 

[canndo]

I never said that
Are you claiming that insurance would never refuse to pay for a treatment that might benefit a patient ?

" If we eliminated health insurance the people would have better health=eliminate insurance improve over all health and life expentancy of the general population"

This was your statement. How would the people have better health if insurance were eliminated? (I don't now how any of this would affect life expectancy)

and to answer your statement, insurance might refuse to pay for treatment but I don't think I said anything regarding that.

 

[beardo]

" If we eliminated health insurance the people would have better health=eliminate insurance improve over all health and life expentancy of the general population"

This was your statement. How would the people have better health if insurance were eliminated? (I don't now how any of this would affect life expectancy)

and to answer your statement, insurance might refuse to pay for treatment but I don't think I said anything regarding that.

If you have to pay for medical treatment like you do care repair you would shop around for a doctor who was very good and had compeditive prices, you would also take care of yourself because you would not want to have to pay money to the doctor.
You would get better treatment and better prices on that treatment and you would take better care of yourself

 

[canndo]

If you have to pay for medical treatment like you do care repair you would shop around for a doctor who was very good and had compeditive prices, you would also take care of yourself because you would not want to have to pay money to the doctor.
You would get better treatment and better prices on that treatment and you would take better care of yourself

While you may be right in some small level I can't agree that without insurance thing would be that much better. So sure, I shop around (if I can) for that double bypass surgery and find one price at $180,000 and another at $195,000. Regardless of the saving, I will not be able to come up with the money for my surgery without insurance.

Now let us look at what is really going on. I carry a PPO, which means that I know I will pay a percentage of whatever work I get done - this is huge incentive for what you are talking about. I can shop for meds - opt for generic, look for cheaper alternatives but doctors? do you really base your decisions on price?

so far as taking care of yourself, we are all taught to believe now that all of our health issues are self induced, while some are, a host of them are not.

 

[beardo]

While you may be right in some small level I can't agree that without insurance thing would be that much better. So sure, I shop around (if I can) for that double bypass surgery and find one price at $180,000 and another at $195,000. Regardless of the saving, I will not be able to come up with the money for my surgery without insurance.

Now let us look at what is really going on. I carry a PPO, which means that I know I will pay a percentage of whatever work I get done - this is huge incentive for what you are talking about. I can shop for meds - opt for generic, look for cheaper alternatives but doctors? do you really base your decisions on price?

so far as taking care of yourself, we are all taught to believe now that all of our health issues are self induced, while some are, a host of them are not.

A huge part of the problem and reason for high prices is all the insurance doctors and hospitals are required to carry and all the regulations they are required to meet along with the costs involved in processing and billing that go along with them accepting insurance as payment.
A surgery does not need to cost so much- You really don't need the machine that goes... Bing!!!
Yes some of your decision should be based upon cost, if a doctor will do your surgery for a quarter of what another will and he does good work that is the one most people should be going to, and if they did then the others would be forced to lower their price or improve their services.
[youtube]arCITMfxvEc[/youtube]

 

[canndo]

A huge part of the problem and reason for high prices is all the insurance doctors and hospitals are required to carry and all the regulations they are required to meet along with the costs involved in processing and billing that go along with them accepting insurance as payment.
A surgery does not need to cost so much- You really don't need the machine that goes... Bing!!!
Yes some of your decision should be based upon cost, if a doctor will do your surgery for a quarter of what another will and he does good work that is the one most people should be going to, and if they did then the others would be forced to lower their price or improve their services.
[youtube]arCITMfxvEc[/youtube]

The insurance doctors and hospitals wouldn't be affected if there were no health insurance. I am sure tht billing might be different. But the doctor isn't the only expense, are you saying you would shop for every portion of the operation? the anesthesiologist? the nurses, the room? And I am pretty sure you actually do need the Bing machine. This sort of mixing and matching and shopping for the cheapest price could very well increase the cost of malpractice insurance. Your doctor wants you to HAVE that machine that goes bing but you don't want to pay for it - and without it you wind up brain dead, the doctor is going to have to prove that you didn't want to pay and he wanted you to have it.

 

[laughingduck]

No I perceive a lot of frantic Ron the Paul spamming because you know deep down he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being President. You all walk around drinking the Ron Paul kool-aid and spouting shit you only half understand if at all. You glean your talking points and propaganda from Ron Paul attack sites and paste that stupid shit here. There are mirrors alright. Smoke and mirrors and that's what Ron the Paul is doing. His so-called policies will cripple this nation once and for all and warp until we no longer recognize what made this country great in the first place.

He is a naive little man with little ideas and grandiose fantasies that have no basis in reality or the modern world. It's saddening to watch you all preach and screech for someone that doesn't give a rat's ass whether you live or die. It's all about his purist ideology. An ideology so twisted that it allowed his campaign manager and so-called close friend to languish and die in a hospital. Which could have been prevented with health care which Ron the Paul did not provide for his staff yet every other candidate did. An ideology that allows racist and homophobic articles to be written in his newsletter and then lied through his teeth hoping you all would buy it. And you did. An ideology that would reduce us to the robber barons of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Social Securty, gone. Medicare, gone. Medicaid and unemployment benefits, gone. Minimum wage, gone. Public schools, gone. Everything this country has fought for to promote equality and secure a future for the poor and elderly other than starvation and death.

But keep drinking that kool-aid and voting against your own interests. In the meantime the rest of us are going to fix the nation and get it back on its feet.

Holy crap! Change the channel from msnbc!

 

[Carne Seca]

Holy crap! Change the channel from msnbc!

Holy Crap! I watch Current TV too... oh and Fox News... and my local news... and I read newspapers and books. Thanks for trying to stereotype me.

 

[NoDrama]

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.

I was using your logic and applied it to the exact reverse way to show you the error of your ways. You need to look up logical arguments and learn some of the rules to play this game. Because what you hypothesize as argument is really just conditional statements and have no logical purpose other than to throw people off the track. many people are not aware that they are doing this because it is human nature to be Subjective and not Objective. I can be guilty of it too, mostly when i feel very strongly in support of something and emotion overrides the left brain. Let me push you in the right direction http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

This is only to get you started, you can get pretty in depth with this stuff and I certainly do not claim to be any expert but I have done SOME study.

 

[NoDrama]

Holy Crap! I watch Current TV too... oh and Fox News... and my local news... and I read newspapers and books. Thanks for trying to stereotype me.

TV poisons your mind, it isn't covered by insurance.

 

[laughingduck]

Your welcome, I just find it hard to believe you do not like one single thing about Ron Paul without being an idealog, yea I miss spelled it!

 

[canndo]

I was using your logic and applied it to the exact reverse way to show you the error of your ways. You need to look up logical arguments and learn some of the rules to play this game. Because what you hypothesize as argument is really just conditional statements and have no logical purpose other than to throw people off the track. many people are not aware that they are doing this because it is human nature to be Subjective and not Objective. I can be guilty of it too, mostly when i feel very strongly in support of something and emotion overrides the left brain. Let me push you in the right direction http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

This is only to get you started, you can get pretty in depth with this stuff and I certainly do not claim to be any expert but I have done SOME study.

You are correct, I should have used implies and not equals.

But you know what I am saying and you are simply playing with at least in this case, no intention of reasonable debate.

 

[Dan Kone]

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?

http://watchdog.net/p/ron_paul/contrib-employers

 

[Dan Kone]

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".

You know what's funny? All that could have been said about Obama until he started beating Clinton in the primaries. Paul takes money from all the same people Obama did. The difference being that Obama was a more viable candidate, so the big companies gave him more money. If Goldman Sachs thought Paul would win, they'd be sending him a ton of money too. There really is no difference except Obama is more electable.

 

[NoDrama]

You know what's funny? All that could have been said about Obama until he started beating Clinton in the primaries. Paul takes money from all the same people Obama did. The difference being that Obama was a more viable candidate, so the big companies gave him more money. If Goldman Sachs thought Paul would win, they'd be sending him a ton of money too. There really is no difference except Obama is more electable.

Clinton? are you so confused that you can't tell the difference between the policies of Clinton, Bush or Obama, If so, I know exactly how you feel.

 

[Dan Kone]

Clinton? are you so confused that you can't tell the difference between the policies of Clinton, Bush or Obama, If so, I know exactly how you feel.

I was not confused. Obama did run against Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

 

[NLXSK1]

• Who is supposed to pay? we all are, pooling resources works.​

  
  
  ​

Ok, so you assume that everyone MUST pay into a pool for healthcare.

What if some people do not want to pay? What if some people are so rich they know they can afford the best care in the world and will never need assistance. Do they need to pay? And why would they need to pay?

What about someone so poor they cannot pay? What if they make money later and are rich? Do they pay for what they had before? What if someone was rich but is now poor. Do we deny them care because they should be able to pay for it themselves?

You are not talking about insurance anymore you are talking about compulsory social engineering through mandatory taxes.

And that is not freedom of choice, it isnt freedom at all.

Thomas Jefferson said, those who give up liberty for temporary security deserve neither. What you are proposing is that people give up their financial freedom for the temporary security of government mandated healthcare. And the bureaucrats are already deciding what procedures and treatments they will approve not based on the patient but based on the cost per treatment.

I dont want to be part of your health care program, I am happy to do what I wish with my life.

What if the government decided to no longer treat people who use drugs? I mean they are doing illegal things bad for their health. What if smoking a joint prevented you from getting healthcare? Who are you going to sue? Who are you going to complain to?

Just keep giving your freedoms away. Soon the government will have an iron clad case of why they need to set limits on the fats in food, portion sizes, etc. All for the health of the country. Because it costs money to keep you healthy. They will probably start doing drug and/or urine testing to make sure people are not doing unhealthy things. Maybe get progressive like China and start fining the companies that fat employees work for...

Yeah, fucking utopia...


Myself? I say get the government, lawyers and insurance companies the fuck out of medicine. They add nothing but buracracy, red tape, extra costs, fraud and a shell game about who is going to pay for all this shit.

I say put in torte reform (you pay for a lawsuit's costs if you lose). Institute the ability for doctors to directly offer health care plans similar to insurance to people who join their practices. Have up front pricing for procedures and allow competition in the industry with the state medical boards maintaining standards.

That would get prices down to where people could actually afford care, not total and complete care but a heart bypass wouldnt cost a million dollars.

 

[NoDrama]

I was not confused. Obama did run against Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Oh, i see , yeah your right i was just thinking presidential elections not Party.