constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
So I was skimming ye ol' favorite online "liberal" rag when I came across an excellent post in defense of the good dr. I was reading along and thought, "wow, this individual has got it down." Once done reading, I checked to see what the poster's name was and what do you know? the forums very own JaylieWow nailed it!
Rock on!
RE: Why I Would Never Support Ron Paul
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JaylieWoW on Nov 30, 2007 8:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Suz,
Your claim that Ron Paul is "anti-choice" is false and misunderstood. Ron Paul is "pro-life". These two terms do not mean the same thing at all.
Anti-choice means forced submission. Ron Paul is personally pro-life but realizes and supports others views even when those views don't match his own. He supports freedom of choice. Ironic isn't it?
Ron Paul wants to remove abortion from federal control. Anyone who is pro-choice should listen wisely to his council on this because with the current administration American's have experienced significant loss of individual liberty.
My actual point is to ask you to consider what could happen if someone rabidly anti- choice came into power. With the advent of line-item veto, executive orders and presidential signing statements, a single individual with that much power at the federal level could wipe out your coveted right to choose.
Wouldn't it be better to handle abortion at the local/state level? You could reach considerable compromise and protection if this were the case.
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but I recognize not all individuals have religious beliefs and do not believe life begins at conception. At the same time I also recognize the reverse is true. It is never peaceful nor protective of an individual's right to choose by forcing all of differing beliefs to accept a position. The danger is that someday that minority can and often does come into power.
Frankly, the assault on individual liberties is a far more concerning issue which could easily infringe on the right to be either pro-choice or pro-life.
As to universal health care consider these thoughts. I hope you will do more research into the matter.
A theory suggests that the reason medical expenses rise rather than fall is because of government intervention into the health market and over regulation. As someone who chose medicine as his career, I believe Ron Paul has considerable more experience in this area than any of the other candidates running for office. Sadly, the media are too busy attacking his position on Iraq to pay attention to his positions on health care.
In recent years, we have seen significant advances in technology. As a result, prices on many consumer goods have become more and more affordable. The medical industry has benefited from these advances as well. Why then, if prices in all other consumer markets are falling, is it that medical costs continue to rise?
Consider Lasik Eye Surgery. Just a few years ago this procedure was limited to those of means. This procedure is rarely, if ever, covered by medical insurance. However, though Lasik is a pure out of pocket expense, the price for the procedure has dramatically declined. Why is that? Shouldn't we also be seeing a decline throughout the medical industry on many other procedures?
I know it is tempting to want to use government to solve all our problems, but this is a very dangerous road to tread. Look to our "ghettos" for proof of what dependency creates.
...we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. ~William Graham Sumner
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Rock on!
RE: Why I Would Never Support Ron Paul
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JaylieWoW on Nov 30, 2007 8:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Suz,
Your claim that Ron Paul is "anti-choice" is false and misunderstood. Ron Paul is "pro-life". These two terms do not mean the same thing at all.
Anti-choice means forced submission. Ron Paul is personally pro-life but realizes and supports others views even when those views don't match his own. He supports freedom of choice. Ironic isn't it?
Ron Paul wants to remove abortion from federal control. Anyone who is pro-choice should listen wisely to his council on this because with the current administration American's have experienced significant loss of individual liberty.
My actual point is to ask you to consider what could happen if someone rabidly anti- choice came into power. With the advent of line-item veto, executive orders and presidential signing statements, a single individual with that much power at the federal level could wipe out your coveted right to choose.
Wouldn't it be better to handle abortion at the local/state level? You could reach considerable compromise and protection if this were the case.
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but I recognize not all individuals have religious beliefs and do not believe life begins at conception. At the same time I also recognize the reverse is true. It is never peaceful nor protective of an individual's right to choose by forcing all of differing beliefs to accept a position. The danger is that someday that minority can and often does come into power.
Frankly, the assault on individual liberties is a far more concerning issue which could easily infringe on the right to be either pro-choice or pro-life.
As to universal health care consider these thoughts. I hope you will do more research into the matter.
A theory suggests that the reason medical expenses rise rather than fall is because of government intervention into the health market and over regulation. As someone who chose medicine as his career, I believe Ron Paul has considerable more experience in this area than any of the other candidates running for office. Sadly, the media are too busy attacking his position on Iraq to pay attention to his positions on health care.
In recent years, we have seen significant advances in technology. As a result, prices on many consumer goods have become more and more affordable. The medical industry has benefited from these advances as well. Why then, if prices in all other consumer markets are falling, is it that medical costs continue to rise?
Consider Lasik Eye Surgery. Just a few years ago this procedure was limited to those of means. This procedure is rarely, if ever, covered by medical insurance. However, though Lasik is a pure out of pocket expense, the price for the procedure has dramatically declined. Why is that? Shouldn't we also be seeing a decline throughout the medical industry on many other procedures?
I know it is tempting to want to use government to solve all our problems, but this is a very dangerous road to tread. Look to our "ghettos" for proof of what dependency creates.
...we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. ~William Graham Sumner
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
)
