Ron Paul: “Make Love Not War” to Fund Health Care

July 23, 2009

left(ChattahBox)—Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul from Texas appeared on CNN on Wednesday extolling the virtues of making love instead of war and suggesting that the U.S. end the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for health care reform.

Rep. Paul wants the government completely out of the health care business, believing private insurers provide a better system, but acknowledged, “that’s not going to happen. I’m realistic.”

Paul provided few details on how the current broken system of health care, could be remedied by remaining with the same system of for-profit health insurers.

He suggested the government should cut costs to continue providing health care to the elderly and poor and cut the “trillions and trillions of dollars” expended for military operations overseas to fund the reform of our health care system.

He advocated a complete remaking of our foreign policy, by cost cutting and commended President Obama’s elimination of the F-22 fighter jet program. The savings he said, would “…tide us over until we come to our senses and believe that freedom can deliver medical care much better than a bureaucracy.”

Paul’s concept of “freedom” to choose health care is certainly not working in the current system to provide all Americans with quality, affordable health care.

*Paul discussed RonPaulSingles.com, a dating service for his supporters, which uses the slogan,” We put the ‘love’ in revolution.” So far, the singles group has 272 male members and only 70 females members. The female Paul followers will certainly have their pick of the crop, so to speak.

Source

* Correction: RonPaulSingles.com is an independent site.


Comments

12 Responses to “Ron Paul: “Make Love Not War” to Fund Health Care”

  1. Courtney B on July 23rd, 2009 2:45 pm

    A couple of things to clarify:

    1) Our current healthcare system is broke – we all understand that. What Ron Paul was trying to make a point of is that we do currently have government intervention within our healthcare system. I mean, hello… Nixon ring a bell? (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Moores_new_movie_traces_healthcare_crisis_0619.html). We are forced to use insurance to pay for minor doctor visits ($200 for my doc to shine a light on my throat and in my ears?!) Insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic health problems, like cancer or dismemberment or something equally as devastating.

    2) If we go to a government run Universal Healthcare system, we would be increasing the cost of healthcare across the board. In countries that currently have socialized medicine, people still need to purchase insurance to supplement the insurance provided by the government. That will be no different here and will put even more of a burden on our country’s poorest. Google inflation, government spending

    3) Ron Paul had nothing to do with the startup of Ron Paul Singles. It is not his latest “enterprise” and he has no more to do with the site except having his name used. He was not plugging it during his televised interviews and in fact, it was the interviewer who brought it up.

  2. Travis Peterman on July 23rd, 2009 2:57 pm

    “Paul plugged his latest enterprise, RonPaulSingles.com”
    I’m sorry writer but this is completely false. First, Ron Paul has nothing to do with the site itself and in fact in the interview acknowledge as much that he had heard from several people about it but hadn’t seen it himself. Kiran Chetry brought it up and asked him about it.

  3. Matt on July 23rd, 2009 3:29 pm

    You may want to check the facts in the article – to many to list

  4. Stan mcclain on July 23rd, 2009 4:37 pm

    Ron Paul is a Republican Congress member, not a Libertarian

  5. Sue on July 23rd, 2009 5:23 pm

    Thank you for all the comments. The piece was edited to note that RonPaulSingles.com is an independent site.

    Regarding Paul’s Libertarian beliefs, that is well documented. Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate and is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of libertarian-minded members of the Republican party.

    Courtney : “Insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic health problems, like cancer or dismemberment or something equally as devastating.”

    The fact is Courtney when people in our country suffer from a catastrophic health problem; they typically lose their jobs and their insurance, plunging many hardworking families into bankruptcy. A recent study showed that 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health costs from a major illness.

    “Freedom can deliver medical care much better than a bureaucracy,” is a catchy slogan Courtney, but it doesn’t offer a solution to the millions of people in our country without health insurance. America can do better by its citizens.

    Thank you,

    Sue

  6. jazelle on July 23rd, 2009 5:36 pm

    “So far, the singles group has 272 male members and only 70 females members. The female Paul followers will certainly have their pick of the crop, so to speak.”

    Why do you exclude the possibility that these male members and femaile members might be wanting to date other people of the same sex? Whats with the homophobia? I find this offensive. Do you think that being gay or lesbian or bi or transgender is somehow weird or unnatrual? your bigotry gives universal healthcare a bad name. We desparately need healthcare reform in this countyr, but please keep your prejudices to yourself.

    Let me guess. Your a racist too. you just must be jealous that its a black person coming up with all the healhcare solutions and trying to fix our country. Your type is a disgrace to our Democracy.

  7. Courtney B. on July 23rd, 2009 7:12 pm

    “The fact is Courtney when people in our country suffer from a catastrophic health problem; they typically lose their jobs and their insurance, plunging many hardworking families into bankruptcy. A recent study showed that 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health costs from a major illness.”

    Do you have a reference for these statistics – I’d like to see them.

    I understand what you’re saying here and my response is this: why should insurance have to be tied up with the employer? What are the benefits of such a union? From what you stated above, it appears that there is no real benefit of having one’s job tied to their insurance.

    So, what if we were able to purchase health insurance much like we purchase car insurance? Then we would be able to purchase coverage that is most fitted to our personal needs and not some generalized one-size-fits-all package. The people who then need help affording insurance could receive tax credits or something similar. They would still retain choices within their coverage and have more control over the doctors and treatments they would then receive.

    ““Freedom can deliver medical care much better than a bureaucracy,” is a catchy slogan Courtney, but it doesn’t offer a solution to the millions of people in our country without health insurance. American can do better by its citizens.”

    I agree that to try and pull government out of our health-care system would be a foolish and unrealistic thing to do. There are many people who depend on government programs like medicare to help pay their medical expenses — my mom is one of those people, she collects disability.

    Ron Paul, as far as his “make love, not war” is, at least in my opinion, the correct direction in solving our health-care problems. Instead of spending trillions of taxpayer money to bomb people in foreign countries, that money needs to be funneled back home to help the people already dependent on the system. Once we are able to take care of our current responsibilities, then it would be good to discuss on further modifications to the system.

    When I say that “Freedom can deliver medical care much better than a bureaucracy”, I’m not trying to be catchy or shill for a certain point of view. All that I mean here is that the best and most efficient decisions are made by the patient and the doctor. Think of the problems we have now with HMOs and insurance companies denying services to people who actually need them — do you honestly think that by creating a bureaucracy to oversee will help alleviate those problems?

    It seems to me that the problems we’re facing with rising health-care costs can be attributed to government intervention in the first place. So, if this is truly the case, why would I want more government intervention in health-care when they were the cause of the problem in the first place?

    “Ironically, as we’re moving toward having our government completely control health care, countries with government-run health care are moving in the opposite direction. Almost every European country has introduced market reforms to reduce health costs and increase the availability and quality of care.” (Source: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/taxes-trade-and-healthcare-europe-vs.html)

  8. Bryan Z. on July 23rd, 2009 11:10 pm

    “Paul’s concept of “freedom” to choose health care is certainly not working in the current system to provide all Americans with quality, affordable health care.”

    I think this statement is a good illustration of how the health-care “debate” is framed. It is to be assumed that our system is a free-market one born out of voluntary transactions and without government meddling. Both major political parties (both sides of the debate) effectively support this view. This is why republicans want to merely tinker with the system and denounce major changes, and why democrats are pushing for major reforms while denouncing anything similar to the current system.

    With these assumptions in place, it makes sense why I never find anyone in the mainstream news talking about exactly why prices for health-care have risen so much. Like most economic issues, it is safe to assume that the free-market is to blame. By safe I mean that few politicians and mainstream critics will question the assumptions.

    The problem is that these assumptions are not only wrong, but they effectively deprive the American people from even hearing about reform that is consistent with personal liberty. “We need to do something!” is the mantra, with the “we” being the government, and the “something” being coercion of the people to adopt the next agenda of central planners. This is what they’ve said about a whole host of things every election cycle, almost always accompanied by little or no long-term improvements. Then the process begins again with ever greater government violations of our liberties being proposed, with ever greater monetary costs.

    So, why have health-care prices risen so much? To clarify my earlier statement that mainstream politicians and news establishments ignore this question, I mean that they don’t go nearly far enough. They say that people are paying too much for care that provides too little. Well, why do they do this? They say that insurance companies are profiting too much and have a large role in rising prices. Well, how did they acquire this power over consumer demands?

    The answer to most questions such as these is found in the lack of competition in the health-care market, and over-abundance of restrictions on gaining entry to the market as a producer. Even President Obama is touting his plan as a way to supposedly increase competition in the market. However, he is mistaken in joining the popular assumption that the problem lies in the aggregate of people making voluntary transactions in an unhampered market. The real restriction on competition is ever increasing government licensing, regulation, and public spending. All of these policies have a cartelization effect on the industries they touch because they increase the cost of entry into the market. Big businesses and especially big-pharma love that the government is allowed to meddle with the market this way because they are in the best position to influence the legislation, and also to shoulder the burden while their smaller competition moves to another industry with less consumer demand but lower regulation and cost of entry.

    I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that government and big-business influence have steadily increased significantly over the past 30 or so years, indirect meddling going back to the 30’s. With the same flawed logic that short-circuits every problem as the free-market’s fault, often even what was claimed to be deregulation policy was in actuality increasing the government’s influence.

    Then add the factor of constantly increasing government debt and monetary inflation, especially since the 1970’s, and we come to the conclusion of why prices in the health-care market have risen so much. The new money that the federal government necessarily has to create to pay for the interest on its ballooning debt has to go somewhere. The health-care industry being heavily cartelized by the supposed good intentions of government intervention, the new money flows in. All the incentives are in place in this scenario to explain our situation today. So we need to curb needless government spending in order to tie over those dependent on the government so that we avoid any further inflation that robs the poor and middle class of wealth blind.

  9. Jeff Noel on July 24th, 2009 10:38 am

    I was going to post a rebuttal, but Bryan Z. and Courtney B. captured my sentiments perfectly. Especially Bryan’s point that our current health care system is anything but a free market. He explained it much more eloquently than I ever could.

    Bryan Z., can you run for office? Please?

  10. Sean on July 25th, 2009 8:08 am

    The nearly perfect refutation for the drive towards more government involvement in healthcare delivery is apparent in the plastic surgery and veterinary industries.

    Both of these examples are in the business of delivering healthcare, but compared to the human healthcare for illness, both have markedly less insurance corporation and government involvement. As a result, the providers are in a much freer marketplace, and they compete, driving prices down and quality of service up.

    If the government mandated free lasik surgery for everyone who wears glasses, the cost of the procedure would probably be 20 times what it costs the private providers to offer the same service. And in Canada, where medical care is “free”, patients can wait weeks or months to get access to an MRI. By contrast a Canadian can take their dog to a vet as a walk-in and get a doggy MRI the same day.

    The US healthcare system IS messed up, but a free marketplace is not the cause of the trouble.

  11. Sam Z. on July 29th, 2009 9:41 pm

    Ron Paul is a Republican with some libertarian ideals. He is not a registered Libertarian, he is a registered Republican.

  12. Latest catastrophic health insurance news – Ron Paul: “Make Love Not War” to Fund Health Care | Catastrophic Health Insurance Guide on May 2nd, 2010 9:28 pm

    […] Ron Paul: “Make Love Not War” to Fund Health Care […]

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.