PDA

View Full Version : Congressman Ron Paul's Statement on Obamacare Ruling



JamesMUSCLE
06-28-2012, 01:34 PM
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1987&Itemid=28

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.


"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

Calhexas
06-28-2012, 01:41 PM
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1987&Itemid=28

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.


"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

And people don't want this man in the white house?

Goddamn this country sucks now.

lee4
06-28-2012, 01:43 PM
in other news, johnny cochrane says that doctors improperly performing textbook STD checks are inadvertently giving patients herpes.



i like a lot of things about ron paul, agree with him frequently, and i don't even mind his opinion here, but lets keep things in perspective. because something is asserted does not make it true.

wjs010
06-28-2012, 01:50 PM
Be right back he's a doctor he must not know anything about healthcare

MikeJones77
06-28-2012, 01:51 PM
who cares about Ron Paul what does Ja Rule think

PaulG
06-28-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm still on the fence about it being a violation of liberty. More regulation of freedom yes, but, liberty I still have to be convinced.

Rockchalk0420
06-28-2012, 02:05 PM
in other news, johnny cochrane says that doctors improperly performing textbook STD checks are inadvertently giving patients herpes.



i like a lot of things about ron paul, agree with him frequently, and i don't even mind his opinion here, but lets keep things in perspective. because something is asserted does not make it true.

Isn't everything an opinion though? Do you think all these old bastards who get in a room and make these laws are not doing so fundamentally based upon a contrived opinion? Opinions only ever matter if you have the power to enforce them. The problem is, corruption, and absolute power. In this case, the federal government wants absolute power over everything. With this mandate ruling, you HAVE to pay this tax, or else be fined, all for being alive. I think John Dalberg was right when he stated "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our federal government is a perfect example of this. We should all be incredibly weary of giving the government more and more of our hard earned money.

Healthcare costs are out of control, but coverage isn't really a problem. Over 80% of the US public is covered, and many are quite happy with their coverage. What needs to be done to lower costs are a few reforms that don't involve transforming 1/6 of our GDP over to more bureaucratic red tape. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and things like tort reform could go along ways in bringing down costs. But turning healthcare over to a government that can't even manage a "cash for clunkers" much less seem to do anything else right...seems incredibly stupid and counter productive.

Streetbull
06-28-2012, 02:10 PM
If you don't buy health insurance, you are interfering with interstate commerce.

So...forcing you to buy insurance or be 'taxed' is fine.

:rolleyes:

faxanadu
06-28-2012, 02:19 PM
Told my coworker today that he above all is getting screwed. He's middle class but chooses to opt out of our employer health insurance. Now:

1. He's lost the freedom to choose
2. He is subject to a fine
3. His middle class taxes will pay for those people that can't pay the fine
4. He risks going to jail if he still chooses to not pay because you're now dealing with the IRS. Who'm Obama recently expanded by was it 30k jobs?

Land of the free???

MiKey4
06-28-2012, 02:20 PM
"Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens."This free market nonsense is pretty weak. Why on earth would a free market restore independence of doctors that Obamacare takes away? Firstly, why would a GOOD doctor neglect the Hippocratic oath, secondly why would a BAD doctor be disinclined to treat a patient if the government pay his wages rather than a private company?


Stuff like this makes me mad. It's a mantra which people hold blindly, as if every Econ 101 student reads about the invisible hand and has their own personal eureka moment, thinking "the free market always works". Guess what, sometimes it DOESN'T WORK.

Tekkendo
06-28-2012, 02:22 PM
Told my coworker today that he above all is getting screwed. He's middle class but chooses to opt out of our employer health insurance. Now:

1. He's lost the freedom to choose
2. He is subject to a fine
3. His middle class taxes will pay for those people that can't pay the fine
4. He risks going to jail if he still chooses to not pay because you're now dealing with the IRS. Who'm Obama recently expanded by was it 30k jobs?

Land of the free???

he can just pay the fine, which is cheaper, and then wait till he gets sick to buy insurance.

I am going to do that too. Cheaper. I will be a leech too, thanks to obama.

Tekkendo
06-28-2012, 02:24 PM
This free market nonsense is pretty weak. Why on earth would a free market restore independence of doctors that Obamacare takes away? Firstly, why would a GOOD doctor neglect the Hippocratic oath, secondly why would a BAD doctor be disinclined to treat a patient if the government pay his wages rather than a private company?


Stuff like this makes me mad. It's a mantra which people hold blindly, as if every Econ 101 student reads about the invisible hand and has their own personal eureka moment, thinking "the free market always works". Guess what, sometimes it DOESN'T WORK.

Competition increases the quality of goods and services provided. That is the golden rule.

MiKey4
06-28-2012, 02:34 PM
Competition increases the quality of goods and services provided. That is the golden rule.Good recall, what comes next? These should be collected and put into a book, sort of like an economic gospel.

otisthebat
06-28-2012, 02:36 PM
Good recall, what comes next? These should be collected and put into a book, sort of like an economic gospel.

so do you or do you not agree that competition increases the quality of goods and services?

MiKey4
06-28-2012, 02:38 PM
I'll answer that if you answer me this. Do you or do you not agree that all dogs have white fur?

otisthebat
06-28-2012, 02:39 PM
I'll answer that if you answer me this. Do you or do you not agree that all dogs have white fur?


i dont know, i havent researched that.

now that we are done with the childish games with completely unrelated issues, i expect an answer.

ZenBowman
06-28-2012, 02:40 PM
Be right back he's a doctor he must not know anything about healthcare

By that logic we should only take doctor's opinions into account, non-doctors should not have any say in the matter.

Wouldn't mind that actually, there'd be a more intelligent debate.

Take a look at what the AMA has to say:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page


Statement attributable to:
Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD
President, American Medical Association

The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.

“The AMA remains committed to working on behalf of America's physicians and patients to ensure the law continues to be implemented in ways that support and incentivize better health outcomes and improve the nation's health care system.

It appears that most doctors disagree with doc Paul.

ZenBowman
06-28-2012, 02:46 PM
Competition increases the quality of goods and services provided. That is the golden rule.

I think this is true, the question is whether there is genuine competition in healthcare at all.

I don't disagree that competition increases quality, but I do disagree that what we have now represents competition.

It's a case of wrong-vs-wrong which is why its so contentious.

I agree with you that forcing people to purchase a service is wrong. But I believe that people getting sicker and/or losing their lives due to inability to afford healthcare is also wrong. And people relying on the goodness of others and opting not to buy insurance when they can afford it, then relying on hospitals offsetting costs to insured patients is also wrong.

There are a bunch of wrongs all trying to compete for who is most wrong.

The statement made by some people is that forcing people to do something against their will is wrong. I agree with that.

But the assumption made by many of these people is that forcing people to do something is always the most wrong option - that's where I disagree.

PaulG
06-28-2012, 02:54 PM
I think this is true, the question is whether there is genuine competition in healthcare at all.

I don't disagree that competition increases quality, but I do disagree that what we have now represents competition.

It's a case of wrong-vs-wrong which is why its so contentious.

I agree with you that forcing people to purchase a service is wrong. But I believe that people getting sicker and/or losing their lives due to inability to afford healthcare is also wrong. And people relying on the goodness of others and opting not to buy insurance when they can afford it, then relying on hospitals offsetting costs to insured patients is also wrong.

There are a bunch of wrongs all trying to compete for who is most wrong.

The statement made by some people is that forcing people to do something against their will is wrong. I agree with that.

But the assumption made by many of these people is that forcing people to do something is always the most wrong option - that's where I disagree.

There isn't competition, that is the problem with Heathcare. The Healthcare industry has more cash flow than the people who actually offer care, and ultimately have a grip over those in the medical field.

Obama wanted to initially offer government healthcare to all people(option of social healthcare for all and a merger with medicare and medicaid). To have free market competition, similar to how the US mail is a social program in competition with capital mail services. Which is ultimately a more preferable method of healthcare to have free market competition. But, that was defeated very quickly by Healthcare lobbyists. Obamacare is just a step in that direction which obviously big interest in Healthcare may not really want.

ZenBowman
06-28-2012, 02:57 PM
There isn't competition, that is the problem with Heathcare. The Healthcare industry has more cash flow than the people who actually offer care, and ultimately have a grip over those in the medical field.

Obama wanted to initially offer government healthcare to all people(option of social healthcare for all and a merger with medicare and medicaid). Similar to how the US mail is a social program in competition with capital mail services. Which is ultimately a more preferable method of healthcare to have free market competition. But, that was defeated very quickly by Healthcare lobbyists. Obamacare is just a step in that direction which obviously big interest in Healthcare may not really want.

Well, the fact is that if we had people with common sense, we'd adopt a two-tiered system.

A public health system for the everyday man, acknowledging that care in this system is rationed and not so great, and the focus is on low-cost care.

A private system for those who can afford it.

But liberals would oppose this, because the public system would be of a lower quality than the private system, and they'd complain about inequality. While conservatives would bleat their same old "taxation is theft" argument and cry themselves to sleep. So unfortunately we have this incredible mishmash of a system because everyone is an ideological nut.

PaulG
06-28-2012, 03:01 PM
Well, the fact is that if we had people with common sense, we'd adopt a two-tiered system.

A public health system for the everyday man, acknowledging that care in this system is rationed and not so great, and the focus is on low-cost care.

A private system for those who can afford it.

But liberals would oppose this, because the public system would be of a lower quality than the private system, and they'd complain about inequality. While conservatives would bleat their same old "taxation is theft" argument and cry themselves to sleep. So unfortunately we have this incredible mishmash of a system because everyone is an ideological nut.

Of course that is what syncretic politics are all about. They never gain favor by the right or left. But, I assure you people have plenty of common sense. The desire to implement common sense or vote for common sense for the people is not desirable however.

PaulG
06-28-2012, 03:12 PM
But, however, on the flip side. Companies will want the best healthcare plans possible. People in general are incompetent, and big companies more likely to choose better programs than individuals can. Companies will have opportunities to create healthcare care businesses specifically for their employees, making healthcare more efficient for people and the companies. If you cannot compete socially, other corporations with the right incentives have the best chance remove monopolized assets.

TheOneArmedMan
06-28-2012, 03:28 PM
And people don't want this man in the white house?

Goddamn this country sucks now.

The people want him in office. It's big government and banks that don't. Mainstream media plays him to be a crazy old man.

JonZ
06-28-2012, 03:30 PM
The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse

Where's Stizzel?

faxanadu
06-28-2012, 05:01 PM
Of course that is what syncretic politics are all about. They never gain favor by the right or left. But, I assure you people have plenty of common sense. The desire to implement common sense or vote for common sense for the people is not desirable however.

Your average person has no common sense whatsoever. Hence why the vast majority of Americans use one credit card to pay off another ... just like the government does.

Calhexas
06-28-2012, 05:02 PM
I think this is true, the question is whether there is genuine competition in healthcare at all.

I don't disagree that competition increases quality, but I do disagree that what we have now represents competition.

It's a case of wrong-vs-wrong which is why its so contentious.

I agree with you that forcing people to purchase a service is wrong. But I believe that people getting sicker and/or losing their lives due to inability to afford healthcare is also wrong. And people relying on the goodness of others and opting not to buy insurance when they can afford it, then relying on hospitals offsetting costs to insured patients is also wrong.

There are a bunch of wrongs all trying to compete for who is most wrong.

The statement made by some people is that forcing people to do something against their will is wrong. I agree with that.

But the assumption made by many of these people is that forcing people to do something is always the most wrong option - that's where I disagree.

Is it always the most wrong option? No.

Can it be? Yes.

Is it in this case? Debatable. But the bottom line is I'm not going to be a fan of you forcing me to hand over money to pay for somebody else's healthcare. Especially when I already pay for my own and work my ass off to do so.

faxanadu
06-28-2012, 05:21 PM
Government waste. Good god.

The problem with health care is not people paying that are using the system. It's bureaucracy and too many sick people. Walk around... nothing but fat unhealthy people outside.

How about offering tax incentives to be healthy. Hey... we'll give you a 1000 dollar tax credit for having good blood work. Oh, you don't smoke here's another 500.

Idiotic government and the people that elect the idiots want to fix the problem by plucking the rotten fruit off the tree rather than digging down to the root.

danow
06-28-2012, 05:23 PM
Told my coworker today that he above all is getting screwed. He's middle class but chooses to opt out of our employer health insurance. Now:

1. He's lost the freedom to choose
2. He is subject to a tax
3. His middle class taxes will pay for those people that can't pay the tax
4. He risks going to jail if he still chooses to not pay because you're now dealing with the IRS. Who'm Obama recently expanded by was it 30k jobs?

Land of the free???

Fixed