Ron Paul CPAC Speech

If we implemented what this man has in mind i dont think any of us would much like to live here...

robert wrote:

If we implemented what this man has in mind i dont think any of us would much like to live here...

Wrong. Not everyone wants a nanny government like you do. You could always move to Cuba or Venezuela. You'd be closer to the source of your medication.

He's about the closest thing to a real Constitutionalist with influence in Washington

Oh and robert.... Ron Paul as president might be your only chance in the next few decades to get some of the national laws against weed lifted.

Ratzilla wrote:

He's about the closest thing to a real Constitutionalist with influence in Washington

Oh and robert.... Ron Paul as president might be your only chance in the next few decades to get some of the national laws against weed lifted.

The states' rights based lawsuit against the federal government to nullify Oblahblahcare, brought by a group of 26 states including Kansas, might actually help with a states' rights case challenging federal marijuana laws. That's if the Supreme Court upholds the recent decision of the appeals court.

The Other One wrote:

robert wrote:

If we implemented what this man has in mind i dont think any of us would much like to live here...

Wrong. Not everyone wants a nanny government like you do. You could always move to Cuba or Venezuela. You'd be closer to the source of your medication.

which part of the nanny state specifically should we do away with?

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

He's about the closest thing to a real Constitutionalist with influence in Washington

Oh and robert.... Ron Paul as president might be your only chance in the next few decades to get some of the national laws against weed lifted.

The states' rights based lawsuit against the federal government to nullify Oblahblahcare, brought by a group of 26 states including Kansas, might actually help with a states' rights case challenging federal marijuana laws. That's if the Supreme Court upholds the recent decision of the appeals court.

excerpt:

....the health-care law will survive...

It is ironic, of course, that the requirement to purchase insurance has become the centerpiece of Republicans’ condemnation of the new law and their court challenge of its constitutionality. Insurers have no reason to worry, however, because they fare very well when the Republicans are in charge. Their profits soared—as did the number of Americans who are uninsured and underinsured—during the Bush years and Republican control of Congress.

The real reason insurers want the GOP leading Congress again is not to repeal “Obamacare,” but to try to gut some of the provisions of the law that protect consumers from the abuses of the industry, such as refusing to cover kids with preexisting conditions, canceling policyholders’ coverage when they get sick, and setting annual and lifetime limits on how much they’ll pay for medical care. Insurers also hate the provision that requires them to spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical care, as well as the one that calls for eliminating the billions of dollars that the government has been overpaying them for years to participate in private Medicare plans. (Be on the lookout for a death panel–like fearmongering campaign to scare people into thinking, erroneously, that Granny and Pawpaw will lose their government health care if Congress doesn’t restore those “cuts” to Medicare.)

Insurers are not waiting for all their new members of Congress to be sworn in to get what they want. They and their big-business allies are already pressuring the Obama administration to waive or delay the implementation of provisions they don’t like, all the while working behind the scenes not only to protect the individual mandate but to have the government enforce it with much greater gusto. The one thing the industry didn’t like about the mandate provision was that the penalties for not buying their overpriced products won’t inflict nearly enough financial pain.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/05/why-healthcare-reform-will-survive.html

robert wrote:

The Other One wrote:

robert wrote:

If we implemented what this man has in mind i dont think any of us would much like to live here...

Wrong. Not everyone wants a nanny government like you do. You could always move to Cuba or Venezuela. You'd be closer to the source of your medication.

which part of the nanny state specifically should we do away with?

Since You're questioning Ron Paul's stance, I'll quote him on that:

The big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets can't provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government's forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don't seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.

robert wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

He's about the closest thing to a real Constitutionalist with influence in Washington

Oh and robert.... Ron Paul as president might be your only chance in the next few decades to get some of the national laws against weed lifted.

The states' rights based lawsuit against the federal government to nullify Oblahblahcare, brought by a group of 26 states including Kansas, might actually help with a states' rights case challenging federal marijuana laws. That's if the Supreme Court upholds the recent decision of the appeals court.

excerpt:

....the health-care law will survive...

It is ironic, of course, that the requirement to purchase insurance has become the centerpiece of Republicans’ condemnation of the new law and their court challenge of its constitutionality. Insurers have no reason to worry, however, because they fare very well when the Republicans are in charge. Their profits soared—as did the number of Americans who are uninsured and underinsured—during the Bush years and Republican control of Congress.

The real reason insurers want the GOP leading Congress again is not to repeal “Obamacare,” but to try to gut some of the provisions of the law that protect consumers from the abuses of the industry, such as refusing to cover kids with preexisting conditions, canceling policyholders’ coverage when they get sick, and setting annual and lifetime limits on how much they’ll pay for medical care. Insurers also hate the provision that requires them to spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical care, as well as the one that calls for eliminating the billions of dollars that the government has been overpaying them for years to participate in private Medicare plans. (Be on the lookout for a death panel–like fearmongering campaign to scare people into thinking, erroneously, that Granny and Pawpaw will lose their government health care if Congress doesn’t restore those “cuts” to Medicare.)

Insurers are not waiting for all their new members of Congress to be sworn in to get what they want. They and their big-business allies are already pressuring the Obama administration to waive or delay the implementation of provisions they don’t like, all the while working behind the scenes not only to protect the individual mandate but to have the government enforce it with much greater gusto. The one thing the industry didn’t like about the mandate provision was that the penalties for not buying their overpriced products won’t inflict nearly enough financial pain.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/05/why-healthcare-reform-will-survive.html

It's Newsweek, bobby. They are obligated to help their boy Oblahblah. If the Supreme Court justices abide by their purpose, it's over for Oblahblahcare.

We need fair practices in insurance to be enforced. I do know that republicans are heavily endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies and that a few years ago over 80% of campaign contributions from them went to republicans. Other than that, the govenment controlling healthcare can only result in a bigger mess. And considering the dismal failure of some of the other democrat sponsored social legislation I don't care to see them do it on something this important.

The problem with Ron Paul's idea of Utopia is that it requires our neighbors to be kinder than we know ourselves to be...

Ratzilla wrote:

We need fair practices in insurance to be enforced. I do know that republicans are heavily endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies and that a few years ago over 80% of campaign contributions from them went to republicans. Other than that, the govenment controlling healthcare can only result in a bigger mess. And considering the dismal failure of some of the other democrat sponsored social legislation I don't care to see them do it on something this important.

To put it in terms that bobby can understand, Oblahblahcare is a sinking ship.

The big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets can't provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government's forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don't seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.

I actually wanted to know what you wanted to do away with. But if you like we can look at Mr. Paul's statement.

“The big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets can't provide the maximum good for the largest number of people.”

The free market doesn't work. It's a delusion. A fantasy based on a golly gee shucks society that never has; nor will ever, exist. It requires that Americans who own companies employ Americans and offer living wage paid jobs in safe environments. It would require them to stop hiring illegals and they won't. It requires employers to care about the health of their workers instead of the bottom dollar first based on the recognition that without employees there is no profit. We've not only seen the free market system fail itself and the American people but systematically set about to destroy them. We've even bribed the big bully “free market” to be kind to us with billions in subsidies and untold treasure in regard to their corporate right and still we are battered. They Take our money and run with the jobs and the loot overseas. Its sociology 101 that the worst humans are the ones taught to be motivated by the cold and intangible sense of humanity instilled by greed. But they don't stop with the people, do they? No they do not. They don't even care about where we live. The “free market” only expects our cooperate “friends” are good stewards of the Earth and thus has been met with resounding success as none of them pollute. See where this is going right? You are basically putting your life and the lives of your loved ones in the care of strangers, with a track record of trying to slide by anything they can.



“It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government's forcible redistribution of wealth.”

How irresponsible of Dr Paul. Either that or he has a somewhat shortsighted understanding of history. It wasn't long after the Civil War created a nation of causualties that this country ever really entertained the notion of concern for people with disabilities. “We the People” decided we couldn't tolerate watching them die in the streets. The sensibility of “Limited Socialism” creeps in. We promise to care for our vets. And what should we do? What is the “right” thing? The right thing for men to do is ensure human dignity at all cost. The right thing for business is to protect the bottom line. When the free market speaks we are treated to a hodgepodge of disabled begging for the mercy of strangers. But we tried that. After the civil war. Then we decided that it'd be better to do something else. Dr. Paul calls us all to the past with great fervor! Doesn't make him right. But I get the other side of the coin too. Where does it end? The answer is not so simple.

“Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency.”

What it assumes is that wealthy self interest wont thwart the will of the people via there duly elected officials. I don't even think I need to touch on this and I'm sure with not much looking we could find something on him about his financiers. We can't cry about the perks and bribes and quid pro quo for those are the whisperings of our dear friend the free market anyway.

“These assumptions don't seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.”

No. We have these systems, and they fall apart all the time. They need upgrades all the time. And like roads they need improvements. Abandoning it all is ludicrous, handing it over to the same “free market” system that has been battering us for years and hoping they'll do better this time seems insane and illogical.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

We need fair practices in insurance to be enforced. I do know that republicans are heavily endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies and that a few years ago over 80% of campaign contributions from them went to republicans. Other than that, the govenment controlling healthcare can only result in a bigger mess. And considering the dismal failure of some of the other democrat sponsored social legislation I don't care to see them do it on something this important.

To put it in terms that bobby can understand, Oblahblahcare is a sinking ship.

You seem incapable of "putting anything in terms I understand". Just insults and generalized dismissals. Go "free market" go "free market"!

robert wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

We need fair practices in insurance to be enforced. I do know that republicans are heavily endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies and that a few years ago over 80% of campaign contributions from them went to republicans. Other than that, the govenment controlling healthcare can only result in a bigger mess. And considering the dismal failure of some of the other democrat sponsored social legislation I don't care to see them do it on something this important.

To put it in terms that bobby can understand, Oblahblahcare is a sinking ship.

You seem incapable of "putting anything in terms I understand". Just insults and generalized dismissals. Go "free market" go "free market"!

You seem incapable of understanding common sense.

please "explain" what i don't get?

enjoy the sunshine... i will... and ill give you some time to come up with something that makes sense...

robert wrote:

please "explain" what i don't get?

Why? You wouldn't get it anyway.

I think Ron Paul understands that you can't just completely remove government supervision for everything. That's referred to as anarchy which I have never heard Ron promote. But if you play things right you can make the corporate elite jump through hoops rather than just giving them money, or completely cutting them off from tax breaks etc.

There are corporations that do treat employees well, produce in the USA, follow good environmental practices, etc. Government could define a set of policies based upon model companies that do look out for American interests and say ok, you do business like this you get lower taxes. You do business in a way that causes loss of jobs, or otherwise damages this nation either physically or financially and we raise your tax rates accordingly to cover the mess left behind.

It'd take alot of thinking, but solutions could be found that could put government where it should be and also allow a free market system.

The Other One wrote:

robert wrote:

please "explain" what i don't get?

Why? You wouldn't get it anyway.

douchebag....

Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC again!!!!!!!!