-9 votes

Which is worse, one trillion for health care or one trillion for war with iraq?

Although both are beyond the scope of government authorized by the constitution, I would rather my tax dollars be spent on health care for americans than to blow up buildings and bridges in other countries and then rebuild them again. A lot of people are upset with obamacare right now, but I would like them to think about something. The money spent on the iraq war was a much bigger waste than obamacare will be. If romney is elected he will start a war with Syria and then Iran and spend another trillion dollars on war. As far as I am concerned romney will be worse than obama if he is elected. Money spent on health care is still better than money spent on war. Ron Paul is our only hope but if he is not the nominee and our only choices are obama, romney, and Johnson then I say vote for Johnson.Do not let the issue of obamacare sway you to vote for romney. Romney must be defeated at all costs.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

87% of retired people are against government run health care.

THAT speaks volumes.

These are people who quite likely received employment related health insurance (maybe VA too) all of their working lives and are now taken care of by Medicare. And yet liberals complain that it is the group most staunchly against what they call "Socialized Medicine".

BASED on that level of opposition you would THINK that retired people would be beating down the doors of their Social Security offices demanding that they be taken off this program that horrifies and repulses them so much, but strangely they aren't beating down those doors.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

Me thinks that false teeth sometimes allows one to talk out of both sides of their mouths.

death panels or death panels

death panels or death panels


One Trillion For War With Iraq = worse

Down votes mean peeps don't know how to play "would you rather".

Both weigh the same

Which weighs more, a ton of hay or a ton of lead?

Essentially that is what you're asking. The answer is obvious.

How about not choosing between the lesser

of two evils? Instead, how about using that money to replenish social security for those who were forced to contribute to it (and give others the chance to opt out of it completely) and totally revamping Medicare and Medicaid, for those who truly need it. Better oversight of those programs wouldn't be a bad idea, either, considering how much fraud and incredible waste there is with those programs. Don't even get me started on veterans benefits. That needs to be funded as well.

Free, rationed, medical care in a one size fits all package is a complete rip off and, despite the SCOTUS, is not what the Constituion (what's that?) allows.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Dr. Ron Paul seemed to have the best answer

re Obamacare. He said if he is elected president he would leave it in place for those who want it, and provide other health insurance alternatives for those who prefer private insurance. He felt if competition is provided Obamacare would die out on its own. He would NOT repeal it as Romney promises to do. This is in a recent video.

As a Canadian I have to say it has been nice to be able to walk into a hospital if you break your ankle, and receive care as long as you provide your health card. BUT, the entire medical-pharmacological system has deteriorated and no longer provides quality care.

In Canada there is talk of offering the option of private health insurance to cut down on government costs in trying to run a system that is rocketing out of control on costs.

I think Dr. Paul has the best way of dealing with this.

So many Cutesy Comments here.

Healthcare at least provides a service for the people. So that (hopefully) they can live and work and pay for themselves.

Our ridiculous Offense Department, doesn't do a THING about protecting anyone's freedom and only seems to leave spent weapons and spent bodies on foreign soil.

The answer is clear.

People who have been desperate in the past for medical help, as I have been, are not likely to answer this question out of embarrassment. And those who have NEVER had to worry about medical coverage really have no clue.

You have no clue about real freedom.

You're probably a progressive, who realizes that Ron Paul is the only way to end these awful wars.
But You can't be a libertarian, as you wish for me to buy insurance simply because you think it is responsible for me to do so.

This whole thread is useless. Ron Paul would NEVER support Obamacare or these needless wars.

Kindly change you name to "ridiculous assumption please".

I have NEVER supported ObamaCare... but thank you for jumping to conclusions.

I have NEVER supported the idea of one being forced to buy insurance, whether or not it is responsible to do.

This thread is entirely based on the idea that we DO need healthcare reform (the concept of which is entirely lost on those who have never had to worry about it) and whether or not spending a trillion dollars on our Offense Department is as wasteful as spending on healthcare.

Which is worse?

Death by cyanide or death by arsenic poisoning?

Telling the same joke over and over again, or telling the same

joke over and over again.

Which IS worse?

i am about as Conservative as I can be.

I don't think government should be taking money from us for ANYTHING excpet those things mentioned in the Constitution.

My son, age 35, is much like me. The only friction we have comes from the issue of health care.

I remember being 19 years old, married a month and with a young son (him). Yeah I made some foolish choices at 19. But when the pregnancy happened, I wasn't about to sentence my unborn son to death. We had been planning to MARRY in maybe two years when done with college. Instead we thought we were doing the right thing to get married immediately.

Times were much more simple then and healthcare was less expensive. Still since I had only worked a summer job, I didn't have enough "quarters" (three month periods) to qualify for any Medical Assistance. Some of the details of the programs are a little foggy, but I recall the desperation we had about how we were going to pay for the delivery, much less for the medical expenses of a new baby, mother and father.

Having been raised conservative, we were adamantly against welfare and foodstamps. To apply for Medical Assistance though, we were required to visit Social Services and fill out the universal application. It was difficult, when they told us how much welfare and what quantity of foodstamps we were eligible for, to sign a paper which stated that our eligibility had been shown to us but that we were refusing these benefits, but we did sign that paper.

Medical Assistance was another issue though altogether.

We weren't hippies. And we didn't know "nuthin about birthin no babies" in the living room. SO we needed a hospital. And I remember just how hard it was to qualify for Medical Assistance then and how desperate we felt.

Honestly - I don't know what the "safety net" is like today. But I do know that back then there were a LOT of holes.

The health insurance issue NEEDS to be solved. And its not going to solve itself.

Each state, county, city & village may address this need.

Each individual may pitch in to help. No United States guarantee need apply.

Birth is natural. Few births occur in hospitals. Even for humans, only in this last century or so has hospital birth been considered sanitary.

"The world owes you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Were you born in a hospital?

Were your children? Was your wife?

Do you realize that infant mortality rates are MUCH higher as are death rates for mothers, when infants are born on the street?

Do you really think that we shoul live in a country where only the privleged elite are born in hospitals and other die on the street?

According to the World Health Organization the US ranked around 37 when such factors as infant mortality and longevity were factored in. We were right around Costa Rica.

Do you think that 37 is too high? And that we need to be lower?

"Principles have no real force except when one is well-fed." MARK TWAIN.

No. I was not born in a hospital.

Mark Twain Birthplace Historical Park.

Nov. 20, 1962 (UPI) Mrs. Clara Langhorne Clemens Samossoud, the last living child of Mark Twain, died last night in Sharp Memorial Hospital. She was 88 years old."

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Wait now... by your post are you pretending to actually BE Mark


If so, let me assure you that the reports of your death are no longer exagerated.

And I am Richard Saunders, author of Poor Richard's Almanac, but you can call me Mr. Saunders out of respect as I am considerably older than you are and my contemporaries PENNED the Constitution.

Yeah - I read your blog. You came from a different "culture".

Are you planning to accept Medicare when your time comes?

I certainly hope that you won't be expecting the world (this culture or any other) to be providing you with public funds for your medical care. As Mark Twain mentions, the world was here first.

Are you implying

that the uninsured in 2008 could not use the hospital?
That is just not true.
Obamacare attempts to force private insurance on everyone.
It is NOW that hospitals will require insurance for care.

We never had a system where people were left to die in the street.

I am responding directly to the post above mine.

Where the poster calling himself Mark Twain, wrote "Few births occur in hospitals. Even for humans, only in this last century or so has hospital birth been considered sanitary."

If you have a question about something someone writes in a post - it is quite helpful to check the post to which he is responding, to find out the context of his comment.

That is the system this forum uses.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it.

But I should like to mention that I would be quite interested in hearing about whatever experience you have had paying for hospital services without insurance.

Rooms can easliy run you $1,500 per day with minimal services.


cannot solve it either. They created this problem to begin with.

Isn't it generally the responsibility of one who caused a

problem, to also solve it?


and in this case how the gov't solves it is to repeal all laws that have anything to do with healthcare and stay away from the market.

Not when they don't have the aptitude for it.

They don't even have a clue about how they caused it in the first place.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Individuals have aptitude.

Governments don't.

1, 2, 3, 4... What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't...

Friend or foe? But I digress. The subject has changed from Korea, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan... to Iraq? Must evil deeds go on & on? Funded by taxpayers?

Fighting is not for Iraq. It is against Iraq. It is not a declared war. It is a UN sanction. Taxpayers pay & pay.

Bush-wacked Prescriptions, RomneyCare, or ObamaCare is much the same. Tis misuse of appropriations, provisions, & prepositions. Taxpayers pay & pay. But I repeat myself.

Tis not for health care. Tis against health care.

As you study UN orchestrated Iraq sanctions & health care, you might ask different questions. See different villains. For whom doth the bell toll?

[Victrola: Country Joe & the Fish -- Vietnam song Woodstock, 1969]

[Victrola: Joe Cocker - A Little Help From My Friends Woodstock, 1969]

Find a better path forward.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

We will have both if either Romney or Obama

wins the Presidency. Our only hope is Ron Paul!


Your money or your life

Some choice.

Let me help...

1) No matter who is in office if the people behind the puppets (politicians), want a war we will get a war. It does not matter who is in office, Obama or Romeny. Stop listening to what they say, words are used solely to please their base. So Romeny uses war to please Repubs, but Obama is no better when it comes to war just a better trickster (i.e. Libya and Africa).

2) They are not spending a trillion on healthCARE. They are spending a trillion to control the healthcare system and centralized government control never results in a better system. Rather, it destroys the market/system. So in the end they are spending a trillion to destroy healthcare. So who cares if more have access to the market, if it's the ineffective then what's the difference. If millions more can now pay for a doctors visit but it takes a year to see a doctor and cost more, due to more administrative cost, how is that any better? And if the government tries to put in place price controls because the administrative, cost sky rocket, say bye bye to all the quality doctors.

At the end of the day, the government taking control of the healthcare market has a very similar effect as war - it destroys life and the quality thereof. Maybe the magnitude is not the same but the general effect is. Even worse, however, is that we are paying to destroy our own quality of life.

As long as an establishment candidate is elected we will continue on the exact same path - more serfdom (higher taxes), lower quality of life and less freedom. NOTHING will change.

Some, if not a majority, of people seem to have a real hard

time defining the difference between "war" and "imperialism". Appears, some, if not a majority of those very same people have an even harder time defining the difference between "freedom" and "slavery". I find you to fit nicely into the category of "some".