I'm voting for Ron Paul because I want mandatory-participation, taxpayer-financed healthcare...Submitted by common on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 03:23
No, I'm not as confused as you probably think I am based on the title...
During my time in South Korea, I got to experience taxpayer-financed healthcare firsthand. It was remarkably efficient, inexpensive, and well done. But what does that have to do with Dr. Paul?
Well, personally, I'd vote for a Constitutional amendment which would allow the United States to set up a mandatory-participation national healthcare system. I think it would work very well.
It would be unconstitutional unless that happened and, naturally, many States would fight tooth and nail against it. So what we COULD do is eliminate federal subsidies to pharma and other regulatory benefits and establish State-by-State mandatory-participation healthcare systems.
This would have the primary benefit of actually being possible (and Constitutional), but the secondary benefit of allowing people in one State to see how well other States are able to provide healthcare. Ex: Texas chooses not to establish a State-wide program, but California does and it's gloriously effective. Texans would see how well it works in California and demand it from their politicians.
Under President Paul, this could actually happen. So even though it's counter intuitive, voting for Dr. Paul is the only way that supporters of a single-payer healthcare system could get what they want!