While they some things in common, Dems have always supported loads of social programs, etc., which simply gives the government more opportunity to be involved in our daily lives and in our monetary business. The hallmark of Paul and other fiscal conservatives and Libertarians is that the citizens of the US should be more self-reliant, and the government is not here to take care of everyone. Read the Constitution. The government is much too involved in our affairs as it is, our personal liberties are on the verge of extinction.
I admire some things about Ron Paul. His stand on the war quickly comes to mind, and I especially appreciate what he has done to raise awareness about the Federal Reserve. Whether you agree with Paul on the Fed or not (I do), nobody has done more to educate the public on that issue. However, the "every man for himself and the devil take the hindquarter" philosophy has no home in the Democratic party. We're not for big government, that ole dry and intellectually dishonest charge. Rather, we understand that there are some things (health insurance for example) that we can do better and less expensively when we organize among ourselves.
Despite his positive qualities, Paul just doesn't get that.
To J.K. Bowman: Yes you are free to organize as a group and negotiate for health care. But health care is a personal choice, nobody has right to force a socialist medical system on the American people. One that puts all the power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, taking it away from doctors and patients.
I fully support you if you intend on starting some kind of private medical co-op, or private medical charity, but;
Don't tread on me.
Scribbles says:
"To J.K. Bowman: Yes you are free to organize as a group and negotiate for health care. But health care is a personal choice, nobody has right to force a socialist medical system on the American people. One that puts all the power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, taking it away from doctors and patients. I fully support you if you intend on starting some kind of private medical co-op, or private medical charity, but; Don't tread on me."
The system we have now forces corporate greed on the American people. Theoretically I'd like to agree, but frankly "privatization, deregulation, and market solutions" have long been cover for hand captive markets over to greedy profiteers. Single payer health has its downsides, but at least that bureaucracy would be nominally answerable to the electorate, unlike what we have now which answers to no one but their own profits. It would certainly limit people's personal health care choices less than making them dependant on your income.
I could go on, but this isn't the right forum. Check out the Universal Health Care forum.
Batallian: thank you.
As to the original post. Interesting idea, but no. I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul--he's standing up for what he believes in. And yes, running mates should have somewhat differing views in order to attract a wider voting bloc. However, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are completely opposite in one respect: Paul is for almost 100% state sovereignty; Obama is for big government. There's no way those two could work well together.
I dunno. A liberal government has a duty to uphold the rights of it's citizens, and one of those is the right to life. And health care is a necessary component of upholding someones right to life. Hence there is justification to put health care in the hands of government even if you are a libertarian minded person. Although there is no need to go any further than providing rebates only to low income for health needs. Canada's system for example has way more regulation than what is necessary to uphold peoples right to life.
Mike gravel is a candidate who thinks like this, he wants to introduce a voucher system for healthcare and education. I'd like to see him and ron paul on the same ticket.
NO F*IN WAY!! RON PAUL AND BARACK OBAMA ARE POLAR OPPOSITES. PAUL DOESN'T TAKE MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS AND BIG CORPORATIONS, WHILE OBAMA DOES. OBAMA LIES AND SAYS HE DOESN'T BUT A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WORKING ON HIS STAFF ARE LOBBYISTS. ALSO OBAMA WANTS TO SUPPORT ALL THESE SOCIAL PROGRAMS, WHILE PAUL WANTS TO DEFEAT THE WELFARE STATE.
teamhillarycassy says:
"NO F*IN WAY!! RON PAUL AND BARACK OBAMA ARE POLAR OPPOSITES. PAUL DOESN'T TAKE MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS AND BIG CORPORATIONS, WHILE OBAMA DOES. OBAMA LIES AND SAYS HE DOESN'T BUT A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WORKING ON HIS STAFF ARE LOBBYISTS. ALSO OBAMA WANTS TO SUPPORT ALL THESE SOCIAL PROGRAMS, WHILE PAUL WANTS TO DEFEAT THE WELFARE STATE."
calm down. no need to get worked up and use all caps.
