2 votes

I'm voting for Ron Paul because I want mandatory-participation, taxpayer-financed healthcare...

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.

BUT

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!

Comment viewing options

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

socialized medicine fails people

my husband works in a hospital and we are close to Canada. there are SO MANY Canadians coming to US to get care bc they just cannot get TIMELY or QUALITY care in Canada! Some fear they can actually DIE if they wait for the care they need back home! They would rather come here & pay out of pocket.

Here is one of my fav stories to share about socialized healthcare - written by a Canadian who was a supporter of that system until he was involved in it:

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Healthcare (this article has been posted all around the web)
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

This is helpful - 5 myths of socialized healthcare:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

Here is an article about Canada's socialized healthcare... moving towards private / free market because it is so BAD (eg another woman died after waiting in ER 4 days!):
http://news.investors.com/Article/541129/201007211841/Rethin...

And this is also xlnt - testimony of Dr. Robert Berry to Congress April 2004 about the Free Market system & healthcare:
http://www.aapsonline.org/freemarket/berry.htm

Brief article by brilliant economist Walter Williams (a long-time friend of Dr. Paul's )
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2007/02/14/do...

I have read tons of horror stories about socialized medicine. We've seen what's happened to the healthcare system in US ever since govt got involved in the 70s and it will only get worse with more govt involvement.

Working for US policy in the mideast that serves AMERICA's interests http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/

you get it

I'm glad to see that you understand federalism! I, for one, don't want a mandatory anything system, at any level of government, and will always vote against such things as they are antithetical to liberty no matter how "nice" they might feel to some. However, I see no reason to attack Californians and put them in cages if they want to do that down there.

As long as the states are free to vary, good government (or, if that's too oxymoronic, "less bad government") can prevail over bad (or "worse"). Nationalizing policies kills innovation.

Just don't force stuff on me and we'll get along fine.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

Don't feel slighted

Don't feel slighted if the healthcare system you are speaking of doesn't happen here.

I don't carez why, I just carez that you will vote Ron Paul.

This would have the primary

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.

This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. I'm upvoting you because this is a good discussion to have, especially for Dr. Paul's progressive supporters.

If in this case CA's system is cheaper and more efficient while providing better care, you'll see people migrating to CA for a better quality of life. So the other states will see a brain and labour drain unless they implement a similar or just as effective system. The problem with a national system, even through an amendment is that it prevents this free market of competition between the states. A one-size fits all will remove the ability to gain efficiency through competition. I would imagine that states with similar systems could CHOOSE to join together to gain an economies of scale, but the states should have the right to remove themselves from such deals if it means poorer healthcare or more expensive services.

Korea is not the USA

It might work in Korea (does it really???)
But it doesn't work in the U.K.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/youownyou (quotes)
Website: http://www.own-yourself.com

no thx

I am not interested in anything that is mandated, liberty is about choice first and foremost. Choice trumps everything else bar none.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare