1 vote

2 Ron Paul Issues that "Rational" Liberals have a problem with

Many "rational" Obama supporters/Liberals that have listened to Ron Paul agree with him on Foreign Policy, the drug war and the Bailouts. But two issues seem to stem out or scare them away. One is Universal Healthcare and the other is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Ron Paul said he would have voted against. In the following video from Adam Kokesh Kevin talks about how he agrees with Ron Paul on the Foreign Policy and war but disagrees with him on Property rights and Universal Healthcare,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FEucmW4yFE&feature=channel_v...

My opinion on the above two issues are the below:

Civil Rights Act of 1964/Property Rights:
If you think about it the same thing happens today. For example if you go to Chinatown New York or in Chinatown Philadelphia you see nothing but Chinese people working there. I have yet to see any blacks/whites/arabs working in Chinese Restaurants. Also in Jewish Synagogues, or Jewish only schools you don't see anybody from another religion there, and if I wanted to I can choose to be Racist and not let any one white in my house, after all isn't it my property, my fruits of labor?

Universal Health Care:
Now why would I want to pay for the health care of the guy that got away with rape, manslaughter? And If my grandmother needs help I can choose to voluntarily help out or a Community of people can assist with the funds maybe a company? This is all in the act of freely deciding to help out. There is no coercion by the government.

Any others just looking for advice and other opinions?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

ONE of the problems with universal health care is that . . .

it 'allows' the continuation of the monopoly of the medical industrial complex and agribusiness--

Does anyone who wants universal health care think for one moment that alternative medicine would be respected/supported?

Well, medicare is totally allophathic, as is medicaid--

I avoid allopathy where possible, and I certainly avoid the use of 'refined' drugs, so why would *I*, who pay cash to get alterntative health care when *I* need it--

be forced to pay for something *I* don't even believe in--

universal health care is much like public education; *it* assumes that we all believe that the same treatments work for everyone and that the same education works for everyone--

IF alternative health were not censored, maligned and persecuted in today's culture . . . there would be little need for any kind of insurance--

insurance perpetuates the medical industrial complex--or I should say the pharmaceutical industrial complex.

In *my* opinion allopathic physicians are at the mercy of insurance as much as natural physicians are--

but since insurance is geared towards allopathy, allopathic physicians make $$$,$$$, while a naturopath I know with only one year of education less than an allopath and a tremendous amount of clinical experience struggles to make rent payments on a modest clinic--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

We exchange our lives for property, hence they are equal.

There are many things I can do with my life. If I choose to exchange part of my life by working to acquire property, that property is equal to the part of my life I gave up to acquire it. As long as I do not commit acts of aggression, I have the right to use that property as I please, even if I open it to some members of the public and not others.

When someone else takes away my property or limits my peaceful, non-aggressive use of it, they are engaging in theft.

It may be viewed as reprehensible to some minds for a property owner to prohibit one racial group to come through the public doors of his property, but taking away his property rights is not the answer, and is even more reprehensible. Competition in the free market, not government force, is the answer.

So I totally agree with Ron Paul's view of the Civil Rights Act. Notice how the government uses the naming of Acts to disguise their true purpose, in this case the purpose being to destroy much more fundamental property rights.

As far as universal health care, it is nothing more than a scam with the government taking over another part of the economy, health care (disease care if you want to use a proper description). They forced a universal retirement plan on us in the form of Social Security and people are finding out what a screwing they are getting with that. Why do you think that government should bring us health care any more than bringing us food or mink coats?

First of all, if some people cannot afford to pay for their own health care, then for them to get it someone else must pay. In the past, virtually nobody had health insurance. People paid out of their own pockets and very few were refused care, even if they could not pay. There were many hospitals operated by churches. Doctors simply charged what people could afford to pay. Neighbors and friends chipped in to raise money for those in need. The system was voluntary and government was not involved.

Today government through its involvement through Medicare and Medicaid has driven up the cost of health care by both regulating and providing the money to drive up prices. Government has encouraged employers to provide health insurance by allowing a tax deduction for the employer while not taxing the employee on the value of the premiums paid by the employer. The medical insurance business itself stands between providers and patients which drives up costs to provide for their profits and administrative costs, and which allows for all sorts of distortions in what is allowed as treatment and what is paid.

Government at the State level has involved itself in licensing of medical professionals and hospitals, creating the "union wage" effect for medicine and baring competition for alternative approaches to disease prevention and treatment. The federal government through the FDA drives up the cost of drugs and prohibits many effective ones with the primary purpose being the interests of the drug companies which pull the strings of regulators.

And of course, the creation of money out of thin air by the Federal Reserve monetary system drives price inflation making medical care more costly. And the massive interference in the economy by government at all levels shifts wealth out of the pockets of the many into the pockets of the privileged few, creating poverty and making many goods and services beyond the reach of those at the bottom.

Universal health care is just a use of force by government to solve a problem they created. It won't work any more than any other government takeover of an economic function. It is just a collectivist scheme that appeals to those with a collectivist mindset.

If you want affordable health care, you should start on a personal level with understanding the causes of disease and living a lifestyle that encourages good health. Getting government out of licensing of drugs, medical professionals and doctors would bring back competition from outside the establishment approved medical theories and treatments.

And frankly, while it is too extreme for most minds, I even suggest that health insurance be made illegal, much along the same lines that tontine life insurance contracts were made illegal. If nobody had insurance the free market in medical care could truly thrive. People would be forced to deal with the consequences of their own poor life style decisions. There would be a lot more bargaining over price between patient and service providers. Charity instead of force would fill the gaps where service was needed but not affordable. And people would not run to doctors for the slightest thing, nor would the undertake treatments simply because they could get them for "free".

Again, I support Ron Paul in his efforts to bring us freedom, unlike the author of this thread who seems to approve of government force to solve problems. Yet we have created government and we cannot authorize someone else to do what we do not have the right to do. We do not have the right to use force against others except in self defense. Since we cannot force our neighbors to pay for the medical expenses of someone unable to pay for himself, we cannot authorize government to do that on our behalf; hence it is not permissible for government to force universal health care on us or even offer it to us.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Spot on!

Well said. Where in my post does it imply the approval of government force or is this a response to the comments below?

When the Government is Racist

Ron Paul is correct in supporting "equal protection" under the law, and in keeping government completely neutral, not picking favorites.

He would have supported repealing all the government mandates on segregation. The Civil Rights Act went too far: it is racist in itself, mandating racial distinctions and different treatment based on race.

It's complex, but not that complex to explain the difference.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

"Civil Rights Act of 1964

"Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Ron Paul voted against." Impossible, Ron Paul was not in the House until 15 years later.

As for the bill, it violated the civil rights of private property owners. It created a regulatory nightmare of Federal control.

Civil rights organizations wanted protection of peaceful protesters to assemble and speak freely. Protecting their rights would mean Federal prosecution of brutal police officers and groups.

Would the prosecutions the Civil rights leaders desired have had more direct effect than a bumbling federal bureaucracy?

As for Universal Health Care, it is nothing short of universal slavery and I reject it. Other may willingly voluteer, but I do not.

The claim to reduce costs can be achieved two ways. One is to demand more services for less pay from doctors. The other is to provide substandard, low quality and limited services to patients. The patients, being enslaved can only say, beggars can't be choosers. The only way to enforce the demands on doctors is through threats and force.

So doctors become slaves, patients become slaves and the immense costs will require huge debts borrowed from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve will profit from the interest on those loans.

Free includes debt-free!

Thanks for the Correction

Thanks I changed it to "Ron Paul said he would have voted against", to keep the post honest and accurate. Yes Ron Paul wants to encourage competition in health care and by doing so will reduce cost. I think we need more practical real world examples on the 2 issues above because to many Obama supporters the 2 issues might jump out and scare them.

Thanks again and my apologies.

reedr3v's picture

Ron Paul votes against many bills that have

unconstitutional parts in them even when the main part is valid. Had he been in office, he would not have been a passive observer, but would have taken a leading role in teaching and finding positive, constitutional solutions. He would not have simply voted no without offering good options.

On the healthcare bill, anyone who supports a tyrannical elite in control of personal care is not rational. The recent controls threatening medical marijuana patients and clinics is just one of hundreds or examples of ways federal medical monopoly reduces choice and funnels all approved treatment to the mega Pharma/medical-industrial complex; its licensing of only MDs to perform most medical procedures outlaws many beneficial treatments and competition so raises prices while limiting options; the coordinated assault on producers of natural and organic products to support health is squashed by the state to keep profits high for those who care for the resulting chronic illnesses that flourish when medical care is so narrow and belated.

I'm ok with

"universal healthcare" if I can opt-out. As long as I'm not forced to pay, then if state gov'ts want to participate in a nationwide healthcare plan, they should be the ones to decide base on their constituencies' wishes.

I could agree with you

as long as employees (or any free person, which we all are)- are also allowed to opt out of any offered employee plan or union plan or union due or joining a union or bargaining organization or being penalized if we DO join such organization or join any private group to take care of our own healthcare, etc.

It works both ways in circular fashion...and I believe people don't think this "process" through but become stuck that if they are not provided it by the government and there is currently a monopoly upon it, that they have NO OTHER options. This is the corruption of the corporatist/government system we have at the moment and WHY it needs to be stopped.

They are both detrimental to our freedom and to our wallets, livelihood.