# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Rand Paul

## Boshembechle

For the record, I like him. He is one of the few who cares about fourth amendment rights, foreign intervention, and incarceration reform. Likewise, deep down, I know he is a social conservative. He correctly understands the absurdity behind same sex marriage and rights for transsexuals who defy basic biology. However, I cannot vote for someone who is a threat to my obamacare. I am a single father of one who was priced out of healthcare for my son and I. For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring). I have insurance now and it is almost completely free through federal subsidies. Rand Paul has a profound level of disdain for this law that is of ENORMOUS benefit for my son and I. I, like many others who have a similar story, love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For the record, I like him. He is one of the few who cares about fourth amendment rights, foreign intervention, and incarceration reform. Likewise, deep down, I know he is a social conservative. He correctly understands the absurdity behind same sex marriage and rights for transsexuals who defy basic biology. However, I cannot vote for someone who is a threat to my obamacare. I am a single father of one who was priced out of healthcare for my son and I. For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring). I have insurance now and it is almost completely free through federal subsidies. Rand Paul has a profound level of disdain for this law that is of ENORMOUS benefit for my son and I. I, like many others who have a similar story, love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.


In other words, you can't vote for Rand because you like being a thief.  

You may not realize this is the source of your objection, but ultimately, it is.  You like having the government steal from other people in order to give to you.  You should be ashamed.

Consider where your Obamacare comes from.  Who pays for it?  Other people.  Do other people pay for it voluntarily, out of the goodness of their hearts?  Of course not.  They pay at gunpoint.  Other people work, and the government threatens them at gunpoint in order to give money to you and your son.

If you simply took the money because government already took it, and you were simply trying to de-fund the thieves, I would not object.  But to refuse to do what you can to STOP the theft is simply immoral, regardless of reason.

That's not to say there are no valid issues with Rand, but this is certainly not one of them.  You can't vote for the man because he's principled enough to oppose theft.  That is just sad.  Repent.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Obamacare threatens MY economic self-interest. I stand with Rand on this.

----------


## Brett85

Then it sounds like you can't vote for any Republican, because every Republican in 2016 is going to be running on a platform of repealing Obamacare.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Some people feel the same way with regards to military subsidies.

Or agricultural subsidies.

Or media subsidies.

Or mining subsidies.

Or fishing subsidies.

Or lumber subsidies.

Or nuclear subsidies.

Or energy subsidies.

Or security subsidies.

What a good model we have! Everyone can take from everyone. For ever. There is absolutely no chance that this is a house of cards that will come collapsing with worse off conditions than otherwise would be felt. No chance whatsoever.

----------


## phill4paul

> Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring).


  You make me chuckle.

----------


## mosquitobite

Big government sucks, except when it benefits me.  That about right?

----------


## qh4dotcom

> In other words, you can't vote for Rand because you like being a thief.  
> 
> You may not realize this is the source of your objection, but ultimately, it is.  You like having the government steal from other people in order to give to you.  You should be ashamed.
> 
> Consider where your Obamacare comes from.  Who pays for it?  Other people.  Do other people pay for it voluntarily, out of the goodness of their hearts?  Of course not.  They pay at gunpoint.  Other people work, and the government threatens them at gunpoint in order to give money to you and your son.
> 
> If you simply took the money because government already took it, and you were simply trying to de-fund the thieves, I would not object.  But to refuse to do what you can to STOP the theft is simply immoral, regardless of reason.
> 
> That's not to say there are no valid issues with Rand, but this is certainly not one of them.  You can't vote for the man because he's principled enough to oppose theft.  That is just sad.  Repent.


Besides what you said, the law is doomed to fail....don't forget that Obama wants single payer/government run healthcare....the almost free healthcare won't last for long....he also doesn't realize the quality of care he will receive will deteriorate.

----------


## MelissaWV

> For the record, I like him. He is one of the few who cares about fourth amendment rights, foreign intervention, and incarceration reform. Likewise, deep down, I know he is a social conservative. He correctly understands the absurdity behind same sex marriage and rights for transsexuals who defy basic biology. However, I cannot vote for someone who is a threat to my obamacare. I am a single father of one who was priced out of healthcare for my son and I. For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod delete] and their offspring). I have insurance now and it is *almost completely free through federal subsidies*. Rand Paul has a profound level of disdain for this law that is of ENORMOUS benefit for my son and I. I, like many others who have a similar story, love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.


So it's not free, even to you, and it certainly isn't free to the people ponying up to pay for your share.  Out of curiosity, have you actually tried to use this insurance yet?  Or are you like a large portion who just have insurance in name only, and haven't had to do battle with what providers are and aren't willing to take "ObamaCare" for?

----------


## fisharmor



----------


## Boshembechle

> Then it sounds like you can't vote for any Republican, because every Republican in 2016 is going to be running on a platform of repealing Obamacare.


The problem is that GOP moderates who would most likely keep the ACA (Christie, Jeb Bush) are twits when it comes to civil liberties.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Besides what you said, the law is doomed to fail....don't forget that Obama wants single payer/government run healthcare....the almost free healthcare won't last for long....he also doesn't realize the quality of care he will receive will deteriorate.


Yeah, its a pragmatic disaster too.

----------


## fisharmor

> The problem is that GOP moderates who would most likely keep the ACA (Christie, Jeb Bush) are twits when it comes to civil liberties.


The problem is that the ones who aren't twits on civil liberties don't think that keeping your pay and deciding for yourself what health care provider to give it to are civil liberties.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The problem is that GOP moderates who would most likely keep the ACA (Christie, Jeb Bush) are twits when it comes to civil liberties.


Why are you surprised?

Ron Paul got to the heart of the problem in his farewell speech.

Quoting Ron:



> Why do so many members [of congress] defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
> 
> Why do so many members [of congress] defend civil liberties, but not free markets?  Aren't they the same?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> For the record, I like him. He is one of the few who cares about fourth amendment rights, foreign intervention, and incarceration reform. Likewise, deep down, I know he is a social conservative. He correctly understands the absurdity behind same sex marriage and rights for transsexuals who defy basic biology. However, I cannot vote for someone who is a threat to my obamacare. I am a single father of one who was priced out of healthcare for my son and I. For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring). I have insurance now and it is almost completely free through federal subsidies. Rand Paul has a profound level of disdain for this law that is of ENORMOUS benefit for my son and I. I, like many others who have a similar story, love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.


It's true that the system was screwed up.  I agree with you on that.  But, it was screwed up because of government interference.  That is why the prices went sky-high and the insurance companies were given plenty of bennies, not to mention a captive audience, by the federal government.  

What would have been better than getting government even more involved would have been to get them completely out of the healthcare business.  Prices would have plummeted and competition would be everywhere.  You and I both would have been able to afford it.  Government getting into something always causes the price to skyrocket.  Look at the cost of college now, after the government started guaranteeing student loans.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Wasn't it the insurance companies who wrote this legislation? I mean, I know we like to just say that the government dunnit but this was the skullduggery of the insurance companies working from within government infrastructure. Right?

----------


## angelatc

> In other words, you can't vote for Rand because you like being a thief.


This.

----------


## Danke

> Some people feel the same way with regards to military subsidies.
> 
> Or agricultural subsidies.
> 
> Or media subsidies.
> 
> Or mining subsidies.
> 
> Or fishing subsidies.
> ...


The most important:  Banks

----------


## Boshembechle

I am not a thief. The government has offered me this. I am merely the beneficiary. I am not the one putting a gun to your head.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I am not a thief. The government has offered me this. I am merely the beneficiary. I am not the one putting a gun to your head.


You're just standing in the background cheering them on.  What moral highground you must have.

----------


## Boshembechle

If someone offered you a million dollars, would you accept it?

----------


## phill4paul

> I am not a thief. The government has offered me this. I am merely the beneficiary. I am not the one putting a gun to your head.


  Lol. You funny.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If someone offered you a million dollars, would you accept it?


If it was stolen from my neighbor, no.  Come on,  you know that.  Just because the government is doing the stealing, doesn't let you off the hook for accepting stolen money.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am not a thief. The government has offered me this. I am merely the beneficiary. I am not the one putting a gun to your head.


Read my original response.  I was deliberately very specific.  You are deliberately voting in such a way as to manipulate the government into stealing.  That's different than trying to stop the theft but still taking what you can from government in order to defund said government.

I take financial aid.  I do not think it is immoral for me to take financial aid.  But, if I were to refuse to vote for a candidate because he was anti-financial aid, I would then be taking the role of a thief, because I am deliberately voting in such a way as to encourage the government to steal, rather than simply stealing from the government directly.  

I hope you can make that distinction.  I know of several people, some of whom are pro-tax and some of whom thinking I justify theft, that cannot make the distinction.  




> If someone offered you a million dollars, would you accept it?


Yes.  But I would not vote in such a way as to manipulate someone into stealing a million dollars for me when I could  vote in such a way as to prevent the million dollars from being stolen.

----------


## LibertyEagle

But people, this is what the government does.  They create the problem and then their fix is more government.

----------


## specsaregood

I wonder if the OP even knows any of Rand's alternate proposals to Obamacarefail.  If one was being honest, they would research those ideas first.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I think the dude is trying to survive.  It's hard to be principled when the alternative is not getting any healthcare at all.  Instead of turning against each other, we need to be focused on getting the government out of everything we possibly can.  Then, people like this dude will see that is where the problems are coming from.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If it was stolen from my neighbor, no.  Come on,  you know that.  Just because the government is doing the stealing, doesn't let you off the hook for accepting stolen money.


I think its a little trickier than that actually.

If Person A robbed Person B and offered the money to you, it seems obvious to me that you should take the money and give it back to Person B.  If you kept the money for yourself you would be a thief, but not because you took the money from A, rather because you are depriving it from B.

On the other hand, if Person A stole from a person who was now dead and had no heirs, and he offered you the money, I would see no moral issue with taking and keeping the money.  By keeping the money, you are not preventing the rightful owner from accessing it, but you are keeping it out of the hands of Person A, an actual thief.

In government's case, its exceedingly complicated.  The government steals from a bunch of different people and offers money from a whole lot of people.  Its impossible to identify who you would actually owe the money to if you actually do accept the offer.  So, I don't see accepting the government's offer of money as per say making one a thief.  But if you have the option to vote to make them stop stealing and you refuse to take it because you want to keep stealing, you then become a accompolice to theft.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think the dude is trying to survive.  It's hard to be principled when the alternative is not getting any healthcare at all.  Instead of turning against each other, we need to be focused on getting the government out of everything we possibly can.  Then, people like this dude will see that is where the problems are coming from.


My issue with him is not that he uses Obamacare.  My problem with him is that he actually thinks Obamacare is justified, and he thinks Rand is wrong for opposing it.  That's the issue.

----------


## MelissaWV

> If someone offered you a million dollars, would you accept it?


I would look for the catch and provisions.  If someone pulled $100 out of my wallet and offered me back $50 I would not be impressed.  That's what's going on here.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> My issue with him is not that he uses Obamacare.  My problem with him is that he actually thinks Obamacare is justified, and he thinks Rand is wrong for opposing it.  That's the issue.


Because he can't see the alternative.  Why not talk about that and how it would work, instead of just bashing him for taking advantage of something that allowed him to get healthcare.

----------


## angelatc

> If someone offered you a million dollars, would you accept it?


15 years ago, the government offered me disability, and I turned it down because I thought it was morally wrong.  


The Chinese woman who runs the local dry cleaner came to this country not speaking a word of English,  and her husband died within a year, leaving her alone with two toddlers and no family.   She refused welfare, and even went to the school to tell them to stop sending her kids home with the free lunch applications because she was not going to start down the same road she just came from.

Apparently she is a far better man than you will ever be.

----------


## angelatc

> I take financial aid.  I do not think it is immoral for me to take financial aid.  But, if I were to refuse to vote for a candidate because he was anti-financial aid, I would then be taking the role of a thief, because I am deliberately voting in such a way as to encourage the government to steal, rather than simply stealing from the government directly. .


Not only that, but you would be allowing politicians to buy your vote, using money that was stolen from others.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because he can't see the alternative.  Why not talk about that and how it would work, instead of just bashing him for taking advantage of something that allowed him to get healthcare.


I'm not sure how the alternative would work.  I just know that free market would work better and that it would not involve theft.  Exactly how private companies would provide healthcare on the market cannot be predicted.

I do find it ironic that you get mad at an-caps who don't vote for Rand because he isn't principled enough (for them) and yet you don't have any frustration with this guy for refusing to vote for Rand because he wants to use the government to steal.  

But... I think it really comes down to the fact that you just find Obamacare annoying, rather than actually "theft."  Its impossible for you to see it as theft with your worldview.  Saying that it is theft is incompatible with your worldview because your wordlview does not see taxation as theft.

----------


## Crashland

The sentiment of the OP is legitimate and it is a major hindrance for expanding the base to the lower class or other people who are benefiting from government redistribution. Why vote for someone like Rand when you have much to lose and little to gain? OP was not responsible for the government creating this situation in which he has a tangible financial interest at stake.

You should consider though - whether or not you asked for it, the *effect* is still the same. You are not the thief. But if a thief were to give you stolen money would you be okay with accepting it? Are you admitting that these politicians have bought your vote? Which is more important to you - your government handout, or your freedom? Remember - if the government does not universally respect people's freedoms in one area that you might not care about so much (the freedom to buy or not buy a health plan of their choice), then do not be surprised when the government infringes on the freedoms that *you* personally value for yourself, using the example of the ACA as a justification.

----------


## Boshembechle

> I'm not sure how the alternative would work.  I just know that free market would work better and that it would not involve theft.  Exactly how private companies would provide healthcare on the market cannot be predicted.
> 
> I do find it ironic that you get mad at an-caps who don't vote for Rand because he isn't principled enough (for them) and yet you don't have any frustration with this guy for refusing to vote for Rand because he wants to use the government to steal.  
> 
> But... I think it really comes down to the fact that you just find Obamacare annoying, rather than actually "theft."  Its impossible for you to see it as theft with your worldview.  Saying that it is theft is incompatible with your worldview because your wordlview does not see taxation as theft.


How would a free market work better when the very foundation of the free market is the idea that you have to pay for a service. As long as there are prices, certain people will not be able to receive goods.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Read my original response.  I was deliberately very specific.  You are deliberately voting in such a way as to manipulate the government into stealing.  That's different than trying to stop the theft but still taking what you can from government in order to defund said government.
> 
> I take financial aid.  I do not think it is immoral for me to take financial aid.  But, if I were to refuse to vote for a candidate because he was anti-financial aid, I would then be taking the role of a thief, because I am deliberately voting in such a way as to encourage the government to steal, rather than simply stealing from the government directly.  
> 
> I hope you can make that distinction.  I know of several people, some of whom are pro-tax and some of whom thinking I justify theft, that cannot make the distinction.  
> 
> Yes.  But I would not vote in such a way as to manipulate someone into stealing a million dollars for me when I could  vote in such a way as to prevent the million dollars from being stolen.


I cannot make that distinction.

Not to rehash old discussion, but get $#@!ing real.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The sentiment of the OP is legitimate and it is a major hindrance for expanding the base to the lower class or other people who are benefiting from government redistribution. Why vote for someone like Rand when you have much to lose and little to gain? OP was not responsible for the government creating this situation in which he has a tangible financial interest at stake.
> 
> You should consider though - whether or not you asked for it, the *effect* is still the same. You are not the thief. But if a thief were to give you stolen money would you be okay with accepting it? Are you admitting that these politicians have bought your vote? Which is more important to you - your government handout, or your freedom? Remember - if the government does not universally respect people's freedoms in one area that you might not care about so much (the freedom to buy or not buy a health plan of their choice), then do not be surprised when the government infringes on the freedoms that *you* personally value for yourself, using the example of the ACA as a justification.


Well let's not delude ourselves into thinking all are not stealing from all.

That is the model.

That one uses or endorses the model is unsurprising.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I cannot make that distinction.
> 
> Not to rehash old discussion, but *get $#@!ing real.*


Whatever

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Whatever


I'm speaking pragmatically, if that appeals to you more so.

Do not steal from all....... after all, when there is no job for the worthless degree you are attempting to attain, they will garnish the wage that you are able to make. And as much, you'll probably complain. I'm not saying "worthless" because your pursuits are worthless, for what it's worth. Your degree is worthless because a million other people have the same damn thing when there are fewer jobs afforded yearly to come close to meeting a demand.

That you chastise people so sincerely while jumping through hoops for your own bull$#@! speaks volumes. Repent.

----------


## juleswin

> For the record, I like him. He is one of the few who cares about fourth amendment rights, foreign intervention, and incarceration reform. Likewise, deep down, I know he is a social conservative. He correctly understands the absurdity behind same sex marriage and rights for transsexuals who defy basic biology. However, I cannot vote for someone who is a threat to my obamacare. I am a single father of one who was priced out of healthcare for my son and I. For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring). I have insurance now and it is almost completely free through federal subsidies. Rand Paul has a profound level of disdain for this law that is of ENORMOUS benefit for my son and I. I, like many others who have a similar story, love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.


I do feel your pain but Rand Paul presidency wouldn't spell an end to socialized medicine. Massachusetts has Obamacare without Obama and Vermouth was about to install single payer system without Obama. If Rand wins, you can still create your own state run system if you want. Rand winning will give us all a chance to pick the system we want. One size fits all is never the answer to complicated issues like healthcare. 

I do wish you reconsider cos there is too much at stake come 2016 and healthcare is just one issue and there are 100s of more issues that I am sure Rand Paul is right about and the other candidate supporting Obamacare is wrong one

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> How would a free market work better when the very foundation of the free market is the idea that you have to pay for a service. As long as there are prices, certain people will not be able to receive goods.


More people would be able to attain the services or products than otherwise.

Your model hampers growth, creates a moral hazard (as evidenced in this thread) and is flat out immoral. You sleep soundly as you don't see the sweat and pain many afford for your luxury. You haven't the time to read a book, in between applications for aid, to speak sincerely without your obvious bias for theft. You care not about those displaced out of healthcare through your, and many other's, pillage of wealth, denying rights in the process.

You obfuscate and hide behind precisely nothing. "Equilibrium prices" and mental acrobatics. You are well to do in typing much without actually saying anything. I'd assume you a troll, and do, but your attitude is evidenced by an overwhelming majority of this country. Even here, some set up the hoops to mentally contort through after all but agreeing in part and parcel of your mantra. You are not alone. And when it all comes down, as a house of cards blows in the wind, I will have less sympathy than otherwise. I'd tell you to repent, but by and large they're the biggest thieves. What a peculiar circumstance.

Don't repent. Read a $#@!ing book. And I mean that.

----------


## Boshembechle

> More people would be able to attain the services or products than otherwise.
> 
> Your model hampers growth, creates a moral hazard (as evidenced in this thread) and is flat out immoral. You sleep soundly as you don't see the sweat and pain many afford for your luxury. You haven't the time to read a book, in between applications for aid, to speak sincerely without your obvious bias for theft. You care not about those displaced out of healthcare through your, and many other's, pillage of wealth, denying rights in the process.
> 
> You obfuscate and hide behind precisely nothing. "Equilibrium prices" and mental acrobats. You are well to do in typing much without actually saying anything. I'd assume you a troll, and do, but your attitude is evident by an overwhelming majority of this country. Even here, some set up the hoops to mentally contort through after all but agreeing in part and parcel of your mantra. You are not alone. And when it all comes down, as a house of cards blows in the wind, I will have less sympathy than otherwise. I'd tell you to repent, but by and large they're the biggest thieves. What a peculiar circumstance.
> 
> Don't repent. Read a $#@!ing book. And I mean that.


I love to read. I just see the inherent problems with price systems in the medical sector. Instead of rationing care on the basis of income, care should be rationed on the basis of consumption and age. That is, Grandma Gertrude with stage 5 cancer everything should not be hogging resources. In our system, Grandma Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye hag.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I love to read. I just see the inherent problems with price systems in the medical sector. Instead of rationing care on the basis of income, care should be rationed on the basis of consumption and age. That is, Grandma Gertrude with stage 5 cancer everything should not be hogging resources. In our system, Grandma Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye hag.


Charming.  This, and the poor Mexicans you have to share a doctor with, make your posts sad to read.  Ah well.

----------


## Danke

> I love to read. I just see the inherent problems with price systems in the medical sector. Instead of rationing care on the basis of income, care should be rationed on the basis of consumption and age. That is, Grandma Gertrude with stage 5 cancer everything should not be hogging resources. In our system, Grandma Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye hag.


So you are a eugenicist.

*Why President Obama wants the economy to fail*

                12:48 PM  04/09/2014        




John Jordan
Board Member, Hoover Institution



The President is no economic illiterate, despite what conservatives think. He understands basic macroeconomics just fine, thank you  but with a twist.

Mainstream Democrats worship at the altar of the New Deal. Its an article of faith that massive government spending pulled America out of the Great Depression. (With all respect to Paul Krugman, the truth is more complicated, but thats not within the scope of this article.)

The presidents view of spending, deficits and debt is not merely Keynesian theory run amok. Its origins and objectives are far more terrifying. Where the traditional Democratic playbook for economic downturns was provided by Keynes and first made policy by FDR, the Obama template comes straight from Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky, the father of  community organizing, hails from the presidents Chicago and is revered by todays fashionably leftist university faculties. His 1971 _Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals_ distills and updates Karl Marxs _Das Kapital_ for the 20th century, as a how-to manual for exploiting the darker corners of human nature. Alinsky repackaged such Marxian terms as bourgoisie and proletariat into 20th century American idiom as Haves, Have Nots and Want Mores.

More ominously, Alinsky advises identifying an enemy and elevating and manipulating symbols to better unite and direct the passions of the community to be organized. Even worse, he addresses the central question of civil society  do the ends justify the means?  only in the context of goal-setting. Moral absolutes appear to have no place in his system, only controlling the political process matters without regard to the sanctity of the individual, the rule of law, and the rights of those who disagree.

In that context, the Presidents own statements and economic policies compel some alarming conclusions.  Namely, that bloated federal spending does not serve the classic Keynesian purpose  to ameliorate and ultimately end economic slumps inherent in free-market economies.  Rather, it is an extension of Alinskys construct: to sharpen and exploit those downturns as means to achieve the objectives of the organizer.

Chronic deficits, massive increases in the national debt, and persistent joblessness are part of President Obamas plan for the transformation of America. You read that right: they are not a problem, but rather necessities as part of a broader plan to make America conform to their notion of fairness. That America will be much poorer overall and that a far greater percentage of her people dependent on the government, which is a success in their eyes.

Just what does the destruction of economic growth and opportunity create for Mr. Obama and his allies?

First, it creates a bigger government workforce  and thereby, larger public employee union memberships and dues collections.  Not hard to figure where those dues go at election time.

Second, it creates greater fairness, as the President defines it  dragging everyone down to the same level. In 2008, then-Senator Obama told ABCs Charlie Gibson that he supports raising capital gains taxes for the sake of fairness  even if it reduces federal receipts  adding on another occasion, I do think that at a certain point you have made enough money. No mainstream Democrat worth his or her salt would reduce revenues and thereby the ability to finance bigger government. Obamas primary interest in tax policy, by contrast, is redistribution, not maximizing revenues.


Third, it creates greater dependence on government  and thereby,  more Democratic voters. That explains the presidents unwillingness to support  any proposal to reduce the number (47 million) of Americans on Food Stamps or  tackle unemployment that does not involve further expenditures, or altering  Obamacare in any meaningful fashion.

Fourth, the growth in the federal debt in combination with the  above will create a political imperative for confiscatory taxation. With the  impending retirement of a large number of boomer voters it will be politically  untenable to restrain entitlement spending in a meaningful way. Although  economically self defeating, higher taxes will be the order of the day. This  will be accelerated if interest  rates  rise and/or creditors demand higher interest rates due to Americas debt to GDP  ratio.

The president has made clear his intention to transform America through his  words, and it is only by examining his background and his deeds in office that  his vision of this country is becoming clear. The America of dreams and big  things that has for centuries been the envy of the world is to be reduced. An  America that is fair is one that is manifestly poorer; a country that has  replaced growth and prosperity with the iron hands of state power, taxes, and  dependence


Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/09/wh...#ixzz2ypHDcr9G

----------


## Boshembechle

That article you quoted is hardly pertinent to the issue at hand. Obama is despicable in many respects, but he freed me from the shackles of the medical price system

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That article you quoted is hardly pertinent to the issue at hand. Obama is despicable in many respects, but he freed me from the shackles of the medical price system


What other things do you think government should provide for you?

----------


## Boshembechle

> What other things do you think government should provide for you?


Vital things for survival. Food, housing, and shelter. And once I get richer, I won't need the government to help me. The government should be providing shelter, food, and medicine to everyone who cannot afford the equilibrium prices for those product.s

----------


## Brett85

> Vital things for survival. Food, housing, and shelter. And once I get richer, I won't need the government to help me. The government should be providing shelter, food, and medicine to everyone who cannot afford the equilibrium prices for those product.s


So the government should buy every single person their own house?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> How would a free market work better when the very foundation of the free market is the idea that you have to pay for a service.


You cannot get something out of nothing. If you do not "pay for a service" you receive, then someone else must be forced to do so in your place.

That is not the "foundation of the free market" - that is the foundation of reality.




> As long as there are prices, certain people will not be able to receive goods.


And as long as the State interferes with prices on the market, there will be even more people who not be able to do so.
Which will be used as the excuse for yet more State intervention, which will result in even more economic dislocation, which will [wash, rinse, repeat] ...

There will always be needs & wants - with scarce & limited means of filling them. Utopia is not an option.
But buying people like you off with the sweat of other peoples' labor is ...




> The government should be providing shelter, food, and medicine to  everyone who cannot afford the equilibrium prices for those product.s


The government does not and cannot provide any of those things. It can only force other people to provide them - while taking a nice, big slice off the top for itself.




> IIn our system, Grandma  Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye  hag.


And so the vile & vicious spriit of the mooching parasite is fully revealed ...

----------


## klamath

> I love to read. I just see the inherent problems with price systems in the medical sector. Instead of rationing care on the basis of income, care should be rationed on the basis of consumption and age. That is, Grandma Gertrude with stage 5 cancer everything should not be hogging resources. In our system, Grandma Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye hag.


Wow, I had a little sympathy for you until I read this. You have a sick mind.

----------


## euphemia

Welcome to the forums, in any case.

----------


## fisharmor

> How would a free market work better when the very foundation of the free market is the idea that you have to pay for a service. As long as there are prices, certain people will not be able to receive goods.


1) There would be no AMA and no state licensing boards.
Medical certification would be done by market actors.  Organizations would self-organize in order to create certifications and some would eventually become fairly dominant.
Being market entities, they would perform this task at a fraction of the cost the state-blessed cartel incurs.

2) There would be no laws restricting you from seeing someone who is not an MD.
You would be able to pick and choose.  There is absolutely no reason why you need to talk to a person who has an 8 year degree and a residency in order to get stitches or an amoxicillin prescription for strep throat.  90% or more of the medicine which happens is routine and can be done by people for far less than $200 an hour.

3) With the competition for little problems opened up to non-MDs, and with competing certification boards, the number of people entering the field would skyrocket.  The more people there are in a field, the lower the salary is going to be.  In short, things would go back to the way they were in the late 1900s, before the AMA and before we had a cartel medical system.

Read this, it is quite eye-opening.  Well, for those who want open eyes, that is.
https://mises.org/daily/4276

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> 1) There would be no AMA and no state licensing boards.
> Medical certification would be done by market actors.  Organizations would self-organize in order to create certifications and some would eventually become fairly dominant.
> Being market entities, they would perform this task at a fraction of the cost the state-blessed cartel incurs.
> 
> 2) There would be no laws restricting you from seeing someone who is not an MD.
> You would be able to pick and choose.  There is absolutely no reason why you need to talk to a person who has an 8 year degree and a residency in order to get stitches or an amoxicillin prescription for strep throat.  90% or more of the medicine which happens is routine and can be done by people for far less than $200 an hour.
> 
> 3) With the competition for little problems opened up to non-MDs, and with competing certification boards, the number of people entering the field would skyrocket.  The more people there are in a field, the lower the salary is going to be.  In short, things would go back to the way they were in the late 1900s, before the AMA and before we had a cartel medical system.
> 
> ...


Game, set, match.

----------


## Boshembechle

> 1) There would be no AMA and no state licensing boards.
> Medical certification would be done by market actors.  Organizations would self-organize in order to create certifications and some would eventually become fairly dominant.
> Being market entities, they would perform this task at a fraction of the cost the state-blessed cartel incurs.
> 
> 2) There would be no laws restricting you from seeing someone who is not an MD.
> You would be able to pick and choose.  There is absolutely no reason why you need to talk to a person who has an 8 year degree and a residency in order to get stitches or an amoxicillin prescription for strep throat.  90% or more of the medicine which happens is routine and can be done by people for far less than $200 an hour.
> 
> 3) With the competition for little problems opened up to non-MDs, and with competing certification boards, the number of people entering the field would skyrocket.  The more people there are in a field, the lower the salary is going to be.  In short, things would go back to the way they were in the late 1900s, before the AMA and before we had a cartel medical system.
> 
> ...


I very well believe that a freer market would lower result in lower prices, BUT no matter how low a price of something is, market forces necessarily prevent a certain group of people from owning or even demanding the item. This is the market's way to deal with the scarcity issue, and I think it is cruel. You can cut medical costs 95% and it still wouldn't be ideal, for, as sad as it is, there would STILL be people below the equilibrium price.

----------


## acptulsa

> I very well believe that a freer market would lower result in lower prices, BUT no matter how low a price of something is, market forces necessarily prevent a certain group of people from owning or even demanding the item.


But if there's not a whole lot of thievery going on, a lot more people can afford to be generous.  And since charity, unlike the government, is not run on graft, kickbacks, thousands of niggling little regulations and reams of paperwork, charity gets the job done far more efficiently than government.  It was government, not charity, that caused health care prices to rise far, far faster than inflation, and it was government that brought us to the point where you could not afford health care.




> This is the market's way to deal with the scarcity issue, and I think it is cruel.


And cutting grandmother off, as you were advocating a few posts ago, is less cruel?  Government pits you against grandmother and you think a choice has to be made.  But sixty years ago when the government had not yet begun to ruin things, the free market found ways to serve everyone.




> You can cut medical costs 95% and it still wouldn't be ideal, for, as sad as it is, there would STILL be people below the equilibrium price.am


Yes, yes.  Better to cut grandmother off because she's above the equilibrium age.  Better that than a truly free market because then you get subsidized, grandmother's wrinkly face disappears, bureaucrats get paper shuffling jobs, and maybe someone will steal enough from someone else for you to get a house, too, instead of improving the economy enough that you can have a job.

We still disagree with you.

You've never seen a free market in your lifetime, but you think you know firsthand why they don't work.  Well, some of us are old enough, and others are sufficiently well versed in history, to see how things really weren't broke before the federal government fixed them.  Look at where U.S. schools ranked in 1978 before the federal Department of Education existed, and where they are now.  Look at the hard numbers.  Then tell us how we're against education because we're against the federal ED, and you're 'defending' it.  I dare you.

Freedom isn't getting free stuff.  Freedom is being allowed to work for it, being allowed to choose it, and being allowed to buy some for your poor neighbors yourself.  You liberals keep seeing this stuff will work if we put the right person in charge of it.  And we keep saying the right people to put in charge are We, the People.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> You can cut medical costs 95% and it still wouldn't be ideal, for, as sad as it is, there would STILL be people below the equilibrium price.


And those would be the truly destitute people in society that would be beneficiaries of charitable work. This truly free market would allow the super vast majority of people to do what humans do: produce for themselves. Then, with most people prospering there would be a higher % of people w/ charitable hearts to give more than there are now by a long shot which would cover the spread. Plus, in this free market there wouldn't be the baiting of certain groups or classes of people against others that is the MO of the progressives and their current system of redistribution based on envy. The sad thing is that much of charity these days involves tax write offs which doesn't exactly bolster or foster a concern for anyone else's well being. Hand out not a hand up in most instances.

----------


## acptulsa

Meanwhile, you're putting your faith in a democratically administrated system which you admit will conduct rationing.  But you seem to have  childlike faith that your child will get rations before grandmothers will.  But hundreds of millions of voters and potential voters have grandmothers who they love, whereas whatever preexisting condition your child has may be something the masses have no sympathy for.  Indeed, unless it makes children incredibly cute before it kills them, you can't trust the governmentally-manipulated masses to even notice.  At least with free market charity a majority of the masses don't have to care for you to get help.  Just a handful of people would be enough, because you don't have to worry about the government banning charity because charity makes it look bad.

You people blow my mind.  'Life's not kind enough to me so we need to put the bombers of brown children worldwide in charge of everything.'  Yeah, 'cause that's working so well for us that twenty percent of the population is in prison in the name of freedom and democracy...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This is the market's way to deal with the scarcity issue, and *I think it is cruel*. You can cut medical costs 95% and it still wouldn't be ideal, for, as sad as it is, there would STILL be people below the equilibrium price.


This from the guy who says that under "his" system, he would put "Grandma Gertrude" on an ice floe, shove it out to sea, and say "bye bye hag" ...

----------


## Lucille

> I have insurance now and it is almost completely free through federal subsidies.


"Free,"  eh? LOL  Famous last words.

You might have thanked us for subsidizing your insurance.  I guess you must think you're entitled to other people's money.

----------


## Boshembechle

> "Free,"  eh? LOL  Famous last words.
> 
> You might have thanked us for subsidizing your insurance.  I guess you must think you're entitled to other people's money.


i believe it is possible to live in a society where everyone is entitled to everybody's work so that scarcity can be abolished

----------


## Boshembechle

Remember, scarcity is only an issue because for some reason we don't produce to full capacity

----------


## mad cow

> i believe it is possible to live in a society where everyone is entitled to everybody's work so that scarcity can be abolished


Alright,you've had your fun.Whose sock puppet account is this?There ain't even 50 hardcore commies in the world that believe that hogwash and they're all American college professors.

----------


## Carlybee

> Alright,you've had your fun.Whose sock puppet account is this?There ain't even 50 hardcore commies in the world that believe that hogwash and they're all American college professors.


My thoughts as well.

----------


## Lucille

> i believe it is possible to live in a society where everyone is entitled to everybody's work so that scarcity can be abolished


That's nice.  And those communist efforts sure have gone great!  Only a 100 million or so dead.

The Humanitarian with the Guillotine
http://mises.org/daily/2739




> And the good people cannot be exonerated for supporting them. Neither can it be believed that the good people are wholly unaware of what actually happens. But when the good people do know, as they certainly do, that three million persons (at the least estimate) were starved to death in one year by the methods they approve, why do they still fraternize with the murderers and support the measures? Because they have been told that the lingering death of the three millions might ultimately benefit a greater number. The argument applies equally well to cannibalism.

----------


## acptulsa

> Remember, scarcity is only an issue because for some reason we don't produce to full capacity


And the main reason we don't produce to full capacity is we're being micromismanaged from Washington.  And Washington loves scarcity.  We had better productivity during the 1920s, when our techniques were ninety years less advanced.

Ever hear of farmers being paid not to grow crops?

If you don't believe government loves scarcity, look at how long Russians waited in line for toilet paper under Stalin.  You might think there's something glorious and moral about killing grandmother so your child might live and using old Sears catalogs to wipe your butt, but we don't.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I love to read. I just see the inherent problems with price systems in the medical sector. Instead of rationing care on the basis of income, care should be rationed on the basis of consumption and age. That is, Grandma Gertrude with stage 5 cancer everything should not be hogging resources. *In our system, Grandma Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye hag*.


Spoken like a true Leninist.

- rep

Only in the sick and twisted and bitter mind of the collectivist, could this statement be embraced.

And *we're* supposedly the dangerous ones.

SMMFH

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Alright,you've had your fun.Whose sock puppet account is this?There ain't even 50 hardcore commies in the world that believe that hogwash and they're all American college professors.


LOL good points, hadn't even occurred to me...I just figured some Maoist wandered in here for some obscure reason.

----------


## acptulsa

> Alright,you've had your fun.Whose sock puppet account is this?There ain't even 50 hardcore commies in the world that believe that hogwash and they're all American college professors.


Yeah, no doubt you're right.  We've had any number of fools through the years who think their neighbors can't be trusted to help them when they're truly in need, but the sociopathic bombers of brown children can be.  I can't remember, however, the last time one of those even admitted that government might create scarcity and have to ration stuff, much less that it wouldn't be any fun to get free health care if someone's grandmother weren't being left to die as a result...

----------


## Danke

> LOL good points, hadn't even occurred to me...I just figured some Maoist wandered in here for some obscure reason.


IP check aisle two.  IP check aisle two.

http://www.youtube.com/user/boshembechle

----------


## Anti Federalist

> IP check aisle two.  IP check aisle two.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/boshembechle


Hah Hah...busted.

Optatron?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Hah Hah...busted.
> 
> Optatron?


Plausible.  See : shame at having to share medical care with poor Mexicans.

----------


## CaseyJones

eh no IP matches but that means nothing Kyle learned to avoid that long ago

----------


## fisharmor

> BUT no matter how low a price of something is, market forces necessarily prevent a certain group of people from owning or even demanding the item. This is the market's way to deal with the scarcity issue, and I think it is cruel. You can cut medical costs 95% and it still wouldn't be ideal, for, as sad as it is, there would STILL be people below the equilibrium price.


Whatever.  There are multiple documented cases of communist governments in the 60s through the 80s showing pictures of run down American tenements to their people in order to show how wretched America is.

And in each case it backfired spectacularly, as the people in the Eastern bloc recognized immediately that American poor had TV sets and clothes that weren't falling off their backs.

If you haven't read The Road to Serfdom (I'd wager heavily you haven't), you need to at least read chapter 1, "The Abandoned Road".  It illustrates how the road we were on (the market) was advancing society at a pace never seen before in history, but for some reason everyone decided it wasn't working fast enough and veered us off course.... straight into Obamacare.

----------


## erowe1

> Then it sounds like you can't vote for any Republican, because every Republican in 2016 is going to be running on a platform of repealing Obamacare.


I doubt that.

----------


## erowe1

> Remember, scarcity is only an issue because for some reason we don't produce to full capacity


What the?

Is this some kind of rhetorical trick where you say something absurd and make it sound plausible by putting the word "remember" in front of it?

----------


## oyarde

> For the record, I like him. He is one of the few who cares about fourth amendment rights, foreign intervention, and incarceration reform. Likewise, deep down, I know he is a social conservative. He correctly understands the absurdity behind same sex marriage and rights for transsexuals who defy basic biology. However, I cannot vote for someone who is a threat to my obamacare. I am a single father of one who was priced out of healthcare for my son and I. For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring). I have insurance now and it is almost completely free through federal subsidies. Rand Paul has a profound level of disdain for this law that is of ENORMOUS benefit for my son and I. I, like many others who have a similar story, love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.


Looking at the Senate , your Obummercare is not at risk.Therefore , you can still vote for him .

----------


## anaconda

> love Rand Paul's disdain for government surveillance and the like, but will not be able to vote for him due to economic self-interest.


Health care services and health care insurance would be hella cheap if the government (federal and states) got out of the way.

----------


## euphemia

> For years, I went without healthcare and went to the ER when I absolutely needed to. (Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring).


This is quite possibly one of the most insulting things I have ever read on these boards.  I suppose we might have been considered poor when we married.  We both worked.  When we made the choice to begin having children, we found out that the insurance we had would not cover a lot the expense of giving birth in a hospital, so we made the choice to go through a clinic at our county hospital.  I was probably the oldest first-time mother in their care at that time.  I made a point to be early for each appointment, attend class with everyone else, and see the doctor in turn.  

Guess what?  I had excellent care for about a fourth of the cost of what my friends paid.  My child was very healthy.  There we're some who delivered about that time who did not have healthy children, but they wonderful care, too.  

It is just the most insulting thing to read that a man has too much pride to be realistic about his ability to pay, and will turn his nose up at care because he has to associate with those who have as little ability to pay as he does.  Yet that same man has so little pride that he will allow the government to confiscate part of my wages so he can have something for free.

That is truly an attitude for which such a man should be ashamed.

----------


## osan

> I am not a thief. The government has offered me this. I am merely the beneficiary. I am not the one putting a gun to your head.


You, sir, are full of $#@!.  The "government" is YOUR agent in this.  What you claim is pure, unvarnished lie.  

I will add that if you decide you want your neighbor killed and pay someone to do it, decrying your innocence to the jury because it was not you who held the gun to your neighbor's head is not going to get you very far.

Now that your credibility has dipped well below the zero-point I feel most comfortable in spending the rest of my life ignoring you.

----------


## Working Poor

So when the government has taken all your freedom you can still be glad about your right to steal from other people. What happens though when the people who pay for you no longer can pay?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I love to read. I just see the inherent problems with price systems in the medical sector. Instead of rationing care on the basis of income, care should be rationed on the basis of consumption and age. That is, Grandma Gertrude with stage 5 cancer everything should not be hogging resources. In our system, Grandma Gertrude gets all the damn care in the world. In my system, bye bye hag.


WOW!  How about people are saved based on their IQ.  Bye bye Boshembechle.

----------


## pcosmar

> Then it sounds like you can't vote for any Republican, because every Republican in 2016 is going to be running on a platform of repealing Obamacare.


Nope,, they will offer their Better "new improved" socialized medicine.

which will only shift profit margins to their friends.  Like the Romney plan.

----------


## Boshembechle

> So when the government has taken all your freedom you can still be glad about your right to steal from other people. What happens though when the people who pay for you no longer can pay?


 I wouldn't have to rely on your money for healthcare if the free market offered it to me at an affordable price. Do you people REALLY think that people WANT to be on welfare? People don't, but they have no other option because the free market has left them out to dry. Oh, and BTW, if the free market is so successful at rising all boats, then there never would have been a drive for a safety net in the first place. Th creation of social nets was not based on a lust for political power, it was based on observations by real people of real people living in literal hovels and impoverished in the truest sense of the word.

----------


## Unregistered

"(Very few people understand how belittling and embarrassing it is having to use the same medical services as poor [mod deleted] and their offspring)."



Whatever. Very few people actually have the morals and ethics to realize that this type of legalized plunder is just that... THEFT.

----------

