-9 votes

Ron Paul response to breast cancer surviver...I'm concerned

Hi, this is my first time posting here, although I've supported Ron Paul since 2007. This morning, while looking for Ron Paul stories to comment on, I came across this one:


Here's the part that worries me:
"Confronted by a tearful breast cancer survivor on how he would ensure health insurance companies did not discriminate on the basis of a pre-existing condition, Paul suggested she rely on churches and charitable hospitals to ensure her continued care.

"You can't say to the insurance company, 'You have to insure me no matter what I have, I've had a prior disease,'" Paul said. "It's like me being on the Gulf Coast and not buying wind insurance until the hurricane's right off the coast."

Can we please ask Ron Paul to come up with a better answer on this one? Churches and hospitals do not currently have the funds or infrastructure to suddenly provide long term care for millions of cancer survivors and others with major medical issues. And imo, people should not have to beg for help from churches and hospitals when they've been paying $$$$ in insurance premiums until their insurance company dumps them. In any case, he needs to show a lot of compassion and have a real plan for enabling churches and hospitals to help, if he's against reigning in insurance companies. I'm concerned that bad publicity on this topic is going to much more damaging than the newsletter slandering that's been going on.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Ok..here is my take on this...

For ease of typing let's call the two options "Obamacare" and "Paulcare".

If/when Paulcare takes over the Insurance Companies of the world will once again need to become competitive inorder to stay in business. (they won't have the cartel they have now) So, seeing an untapped market, they will open an insurance to cover that market. In this case it would be folks who maybe have a family history of (XYZ) Cancer. Would the rates to be in this insurance be high..yeah, probably...but....

Keep in mind that it's very possible that you'd see so many "young, healty" folks opt out of insurance...and Doctors opting out of accepting insurance...that prices for certain things would go down. (again a result of the free market)

Now I don't think that the price of new and modern technology will go down...so yes, getting a PET Scan for your cancer will still be expensive..atleast until it becomes as common as the CAT scan is now...but the reality that you have to remember is that whether you are paying for the test on a "as needed" basis or "everyday in the form of premiums established by cartels" you are going to be paying for it one way or another.

To keep this post to the point, I'm going to stop here...but will comment on my own post.

My Father...

Was "old school" born in 1923. There wasn't insurance like there is today. He worked at Westinghouse Turbines and was making a good living. Because at that time you paid your Doctor HIS rate per visit Medicine was like a "cash and carry" type of deal unless you had to go to the Hospital for something tramatic. (things like tonsils or appendix were still considered "cash and carry" so think serious car accident or cancer) Westinghouse..as a PERK to Employees offered to pay for "Catastrophic Insurance"...knowing that this perk would bring them better dedicated workers. Catastrophic Insurance covered things like serious or terminal illnesses. But ya know what...since it wasn't a government mandated thing..premiums were low enough that Westinghouse felt the cost was worth THEIR gain. If you went to your Family Doctor (or heaven forbid he came to YOUR house)for regular treatment your payment was worked out between you and the Doctor. (who still wants to eat and make a decent living) No insurance forms to fill out, no restrictions and rules on what tests you could have, where you had to go for those tests..and so on. This is an example of "Paulcare".

But now, what we have are a few Insurance companies dictating to Employers on what group rates they will get and Employers trying to figure out how they can pay those companies and still make a profit. The company I work for...a company that dates back to 1908 and is HUGE and WORLDWIDE is a perfect example of this. When I started there in 1990 I paid ZERO for the benefits the company gave me and I was non-union even!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had a baby in 1991. I got all my prenatal care, cesarean birth, and follow up care and only had to pay $100 to the Hospital. (in hind sight..I'd give that up to be in Paulcare...but at the time I was over the moon) I paid nothing for perscriptions, $30 for specialists...could go anywhere I wanted without referrals. It was amazing. Fast forward a few years..the company said they couldn't afford that kind of coverage anymore (and in hindsight I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did) so we became HMO. Ok...still was great benefits only now I had co-pays..but they were low so it was all good. Ok..a few more rules and restrictions...but still...Fast forward a few more years and now I'm paying weekly in my check to cover a portion of those benefits plus the co-pays. Forward to today...NOW I pay roughly $50 a week, have a $250 deductible, then 80/20 coverage..and have to go to certain Doctors and the benefit standards are so low that alot of things I need arent' even covered anyway. This is the path of "obamacare" and you know what really sucks? The Insurance companies don't care because they know they have me in a rock and a hard place. They don't have to be competitive so they can fix prices to whatever they want and I just have to lick their hand..as does my Employer. Ok sure, my Employer can switch from Aetna to Cigna or USHealthcare, Liberty Mutal...whatever..but the plan never gets better AND since they raise the price to my Employer...I feel that in my paycheck as well.

So in a nutshell...I know it sounds harsh..but in order to break this "legalized extortion" we have to understand that it's going to be awful before it gets better...but...it's got to get better because otherwise we will eventually be working for our medical coverage instead of a wage. Some folks do that already.

The real answer

is if we keep allowing more and more government intrusions, you won't have to worry about being a breast cancer survivor -- no one's going to survive something like that.

Government intervention has caused the prices of healthcare to skyrocket. If we removed government regulations, removed government subsidies that increase unnecessary usage of the healthcare system (when you make something artificially inexpensive, it gets over-utilized), and removed artificial barriers to practicing medicine (licensing, etc. that keeps nurses or other professionals from practicing health care), the costs of health care would drop dramatically.

the insurance company won't dump you

they can't it's illegal. Now if you don't have coverage for a period of time and have an issue that is considered pre-existing under the definition of a pre-ex condition then they don't have to cover it. But, even then, the coverage is only restricted on that particular issue and generally for a year before they will cover you. BUT, if you had coverage before hand they can't dump you.

The issue occurs when you leave your job because of being under treatment and out of work for more than 12 weeks (FMLA max limit). Then your employer can terminate you. Once terminated then you can continue with your same group plan under the COBRA provision. This simply allows you to receive the same exact benefit on the same group plan but you pay the full premium for said insurance. This has an 18 month limit (this can be extended under certain situations). However, the cost is high, which many people don't realize. The employers generally pay a LARGE chunk of the monthly premium.

So, what do a lot of people do, not sign up for it because everything is fine. Well then if something does occur or it takes them 8 months (or whatever) to find a new job now they have a break in coverage.

The above is regarding someone in an employer plan.

There are variances with how plans operate under an individual plan. Like you went right to the insurance company and signed up for a plan. But, even then, there are rules that must be met.

So, this means that a person could have a few things happen to not be eligible for coverage at their hospital.

1. They didn't have a group plan or weren't on one for the time of the cancer diagnosis and issue. Thus the pre-ex MAY apply and the rules for this can vary from plan to plan carrier to carrier.
2. They didn't have coverage at all. and though many hospitals will take a person in to stabilize as an emergency they don't as often as they used to simply continue to cover someone indefinitely or through a massive procedure/process like chemo. Just until they are stabilized and then are able to release the person.

But, here's the deal. If someone loses their coverage and doesn't continue with COBRA because it's too expensive this is where it can go two ways. Is it too expensive because they have made poor choices in where they spend their money and are unable or willing to pay for this. IF so, well just like we are asking through RP's plan the spending has to be addressed. Likewise, if they are actually unable to afford to continue with COBRA there is a threshold for medicaid benefits to begin based on financial status. Someone has to take action and reach out to their state to see what is available and how it works.

Not to sound heartless but I see this ALL the time in the brokerage industry (work with employers and insurers to design and implement their group plans). many people, don't understand how great it is to have insurance and feel it's a hindrance because it costs them money to have. WEll, they often run into situations like this because they opted out of their employers' plan and instead had no coverage. So, when trouble comes it's now important to get insurance but they can't or have the pre-ex clause apply.

But, generally in no way, will an insurance company dump you off the plan. It's illegal and they can't do that unless you don't pay the monthly premium.

In no way though, can the opposite be good, where as you require insurance companies to engage in a form of price fixing. Where, they must accept all risks and if they overcharge or simply have a healthier person or group than the actuarial tables and underwriting would suggest, they have to give that money back to the employer through a rebate. Likewise there are now rules that say, there are penalties for companies charging too much in contributions for employees to be on their employers plan. But, if the group doesn't offer insurance at all there will be penalties too. Then the individual mandate requires else a penalty. So, the insurance company must not charge more than a threshold than are paid out in claims, companies must offer a plan but not charge too much in contributions else face a litany of fines and a person must sign up for a plan else pay a fine. This is not good. What is needed is more competition, which RP has indicated, allowing insurers to sell across state lines. In philadelphia, there are really 3 insurance companies and only really 1 that people want. IBC. Everything else is a drastically lower plan (the public perception). If there were 5 or 6 or 7 carriers from which to choose from competition would be high, hospitals would be forced to reduce costs, insurers would be forced to cut cost and be more efficient and people would be more able to choose a plan based on price not .

Thats a start, there you go. Ron is generally right though. get govt out of the way, get more competition and let alternative medicine be received more easily. Reduce the inefficient and tedious state licensing process instead allow for a private group to take up the licensing and accreditation. Also, the contract b/w doc and patient to help alleviate the incredibly costly insurance prices for protecting docs from tort/litigation.

very intelligible run-down.

very intelligible run-down. thumbs up.

Of course, i dont disagree with the OP that the percieved lack of compassion or understanding of the complicated nature of healthcare with such an answer would be concerning to many folks.

Great explanation!

Great explanation!

the answer is not to find a pretty answer

we're facing 20 years of hell.

it's coming.

we need to educate and prepare people to brace themselves, and take action.

by the end of 2020, 24 trillion in public debt, and i don't even want to speculate the countless tens of trillions the private debt will be.

we are truly screwed.

our jobs of educating will get easier as things get worse.

and if we don't educate, there will be a transition to broken government and chaos, then from there to a full police state.

Logan's Run

My wife is in the same boat

She got sick and the fired her 1 week before her long term disability kicked in. She will never be able to work again and now its the medicade nightmare for her ... BUT ...

Bad crap happens to good people all the time ... life is not fair ... you just have to step up and take the bad with the good. It stinks but until we get all this excess money out of the medical system prices will remain sky high.

Same goes for college ... I believe someone is gonna start practical work training schools where people will get the training they need for a fraction of the price and put out far better trained people then university party houses.

Its all really a mute point anyway as the entire financial system is about to break down ... damn now I have gone and made myself depressed. TEOTWAWKI

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

The thing is Paul dosen't

The thing is Paul dosen't pander.. so if your expecting him to change his view that's not going to happen.. however he may be able to find a better way to explain his view..

He is right on this.. but how do we get to the point where charity works again.. maybe if people didn't pay such huge taxes we could do it.

Rebekah, don't be discouraged

Rebekah, don't be discouraged by the down votes. Your concern is valid. The down-votes come from fanatical conspiracy idiots who don't think you're a real Ron Paul supporter unless you have been registered with 'Daily Paul' for at least a year...

oh, DEAR!

Someone in our family has a 'medical' condition for which there is no 'cure'; there is no insurance policy that will help.

To state that those who disagree with the OP (I didn't vote it down, btw) are 'fanatical conspiracy idiots' is not only collectivizing and untrue, it is as unkind as *you* claim DPers are being to the OPer.

There ARE conditions that aren't covered by the 'system', things that are ignored by the medical 'establishment', by the insurance lobbyists and that are 'fed' by the PTB.

A lack of compassion goes both ways.

In our family we have born the burden of health care costs for our loved one with the illness for which none of the 'experts' have a cure--

we have done it ourselves, no government help, and we haven't buckled, yet. True, things have been difficult--

but . . . there is a good feeling that comes from being independent. We aren't wealthy; we aren't even middle class anymore (way below that!)--

there are other answers; it's not all 'black and white'--

I'm not asking for help in our situation, but I certainly don't appreciate the idea of paying for health care I:

--don't believe in

--have no access to *myself*

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

You seem to be seeking some 'middle ground'...

There are plenty of other candidates that offer it. They are all wrong.

Pull government out of the health insurance business and let the market decide. Sure, she may have to pay more for her health care as a cancer survivor but the suggestion of seeking church or charity is how it used to be done before the government meddling.

Also, catastrophic health insurance was not tied to employment or used for routine health care in the past so they are, in fact, creating problems and selling us poor solutions.

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

Why are we commenting on what someone in the media

"said" happened. We all have seen the media do some serious hatchet jobs on what Paul supposedly said.

I would like to see video or hear audio before I take this report at its face value.

Everyone else should too.

Tired of people assuming the media is being fair when conveying what someone actually said. I know how badly I've been misquoted in the prints. How do we even begin to judge the tone of his response?

Let's use our brains people.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Alternative Health Care

Alternative Health Care option is not readily available and is restricted in this country. There are other options, but people have to travel to Mexico or Canada or overseas to obtain "natural" treatments beyond what our present medical system offers.

Our present medical system works on treating symptoms, not what caused it or preventative medicine. So we have to choose from what is offered or go out of the country to resolve it.

We are being poision thru our air, water and food. Look at the grocery stores filled with boxed food loaded with all sorts of ingredients that we would never cook with or be found in our kitchen cabinets. Yet we buy that cheap food for our convienence.

How is it that the things bad for you are cheap and a frickin' apple costs a $1?

This is a huge issue that would take more time than a simple answer here. But Ron Paul as President would help to repeal legistlation that stops us from choosing to drink raw milk, for instance.

The people are already demanding organic health foods, so you are seeing things like that pop up on the shelves. People are going to natural and holistic medicine over conventional medicine.

All this would take time to sort out and phase out of traditional conventional medicine. Give people more of a choice. Free markets... ah, what a concept, eh?

good points . . .

made here.

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

Susie 4 Liberty's picture

Distilling my water to get the flouride out

And you should SEE/SMELL what's left in the cooker. Brownish-yellow/NOXIOUS ODOR.

And the Sierra Club - in cahoots with SOMEBODY! - never acknowledges what's happening to us every day.

And YES, Dr. Paul will be knowledgeable about these issues! Whereas others seem to not realize or flat don't give a flip...

Susie 4 Liberty

Simple distillation...

does NOT remove fluoride...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Susie 4 Liberty's picture

And I was told by mfgs of OTHER machines

That distillation was the only process that DOES... as well as by a Homeopathist AND a PHD Nutritionist...

The process itself takes over 3 hrs with much heat produced as the secondary container collects the 'steam' from the cooker...and the literature with it makes that claim very openly...re the flouride.

Susie 4 Liberty

Related natural health info you might enjoy

You might be interested in this article of mine:

"Safely Avoid and Remove Dangerous Man-Made Fluoride"


Based on your other posts, I think that you and other natural/alternative health oriented readers also might enjoy:

"Modern Medicine: How Healing Illness became Managing Illness for profit"


The multi-part series which begins with

"The American Cancer Society: Running WITH the Money and AWAY From the Cure - Part 1"


FYI, I am a natural health author and advocate whose articles often appear at Natural News and many other venues and perhaps am best known in my author role here at this site for the following article:

"Why Ron Paul is a 'natural' choice for supporters of health and food freedom"


"Common Sense Revisited - America at a New Crossroads"


Check out my new site to help promote and fund Ron Paul: http://www.bestronpaulvideos.net/

Susie 4 Liberty's picture


And I so appreciate having a link to your work! If I can live through New Year's Houseful, will thoroughly enjoy the info!


Susie 4 Liberty

That answer will not be considered "weak" in a few years..

Before the Nixon era healthcare reforms (and the costs associated with them), we forget that a huge portion of medical treatment was provided at no cost by non-profits. Pretty much every church and major charitable organization had hospitals that people could go to for free. When you see hospitals with religious names, it is partially because churches and religious organizations built hospitals to give indigent patients free medical care. Later on, many of these hospitals became for-profit and others started taking insurance and collecting from uninsured patients because healthcare costs had become too expensive for free care. However, if healthcare were to be placed in a true free market system it would necessarily be priced realistically. Insurance would then be cheaper and free care for the poor could be made available through charitable donations. It will take a while to transition back to this system, but it can certainly be achieved.

Up into the 1980's...

many docs were still taking chickens, homemade goods and promises of work for payment. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

This is my take

#1 I guess he could have said something a little "Kinder."

#2 He should have said we need to stop funding the pharm and insurance industries with our hard-earned tax dollars so we can get some REAL medicine for cancer. The #1 and #2 lobbyists in the country are pharm and insurance. You think they have our interests at heart? Think again.

#3 I am a woman and I am so surprised at people who think that someone out there owes them something just because they have breast cancer. Yes, it is an AWFUL disease but it is no one's fault that it happens and they should not HAVE to be responsible for paying for toxic therapies to "cure" it. I would take responsibility for my own destiny and do the homework required to find out what may have caused it and what can be done to REALLY CURE it. And I would expect to be responsible for paying for it, not expecting someone else to pick up the tab. There are great alternatives. Ecuador has a great cancer doctor in Quito, an American who could not practice here because his therapies actually heal. There are a lot of options and I would do my homework.

#4 I am currently uninsurable because of a health condition I had years ago. YET, I am one of the healthiest people I know at 55. I take responsibility for my own health and the people I know that rely on insurance don't tend to but expect their insurance to take care of them. What a joke.


The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22

amen . . .

agree with everything but the 'no one's fault'--

chemicals are hugely responsible for breast cancer (chemicals that include hormones in food, pesticides on food, etc.)--

and that is the fault of . . .

as you said so aptly, "big pharma" and the government that is 'in bed' with it--

supporting it by nationalizing insurance isn't the answer, but you know that already--

I agree with everything else you say; *we* are in a similar 'boat'--

it's so good to read that so many are 'awake'--


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

after my response below...

I realized that Dr. Paul can SLAM BO on this issue in a debate. BHO has painted himself into a corner when it comes to healthcare. Taking healthcare out of the government's hands opens up a whole new world of possibilities in the area of nutrition and prevention and provides people with a vast array of options. It also opens up new commercial opportunities and entrepreneurial options...

The big problem is that it is taking on an industry that rivals the oil industry for profit and has numerous politicians enmeshed in its infrastructure... In fact, it is interesting to note that a search on pharmaceuticals, especially vaccines will also bring up security and paramilitary organizations... This is big folks...

YES!! its the WHOLE system

and that is why "the system" is pulling all its got against Ron Paul.

stealing is wrong

and having the State do it on one's behalf does not make it any less so.

The bigger problem is...

The Way the West approaches healing, treatment, and the view of what causes cancer. FDA regulations hinders viable alternatives. Govt regulations make treatment expensive. EPA friends pollute the environment. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Its about Rollback

Dr.Paul is saying that, after the Rollback, the market will be able to withstand these problems because the outrageous price of healthcare will come down and be more affordable.

There first has to be a period of Rollback, but he deals with that.

"Freedom Is A Road Seldom Traveled By The Multitude." - Frederick Douglass