Dr. Ron Paul Has A Heart Of Stone. And Plenty Of Company In Today’s Republican Party.
There was a special moment during the CNN/Tea Party presidential debate on Monday evening when moderator Wolf Blitzer threw out a red-meat hypothetical: What do the candidates think about the case of a young man who could afford health insurance but chose not to buy it and became gravely ill? Should the state pay his bills?
“That’s what freedom is all about; taking your own risks,” replied Ron Paul. “This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody–”
Paul’s response was drowned out by cheers from the audience, as well as shouts of “Let him die! Let him die!”
The response and applause was a defining moment for today’s Republican Party, which has been hijacked by right-wing zealots who are so twisted that they are pro-life when it comes to abortion but pro-death when it comes to health-care reform.
Ron Paul, however, is even more twisted than his ardent acolytes. You see, Ron Paul is a medical doctor and knows first hand what happens when young people don’t have health insurance: In 2008, Kent Snyder, his friend and former campaign manager, died of complications from pneumonia at age 49.
Snyder was relatively young and seemingly healthy when the illness struck. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Dr. Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs totaled $400,000. His mother was incapable of paying the bill.
“Let him die! Let him die!”
The issue that defines America and its people in coming years will not be reducing the federal budget deficit or what to do about income taxes. It will be health care.
Health care is an inalienable right. Other industrialized countries recognized this years ago. Only the U.S. stands alone in letting tens of millions of its citizens, including many children, go without adequate health care or the insurance to pay for that care.
The rights of insurance and drug companies and for-profit hospital chains trump those of Joe and Jane Sixpack, and Dr. Paul and virtually all of the Republican presidential field are just fine with that.
“Let him die! Let him die!”
40 Responses to “Dr. Ron Paul Has A Heart Of Stone. And Plenty Of Company In Today’s Republican Party.”
Actually Paul was not drowned out by the crowd. If you read the transcript it went like this:
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No.
I listened to this again last night and the crowd sounds like a bunch of jackals, but you are misrepresenting Paul.
Not true. I quoted Dr. Paul verbatim. Also, it’s not like his views on the subject are secret.
Every transcript of the debate has Ron Paul saying ‘No’. I think you might need to source something other than your memory.
Anyway, you’re seriously misrepresenting yourself here. So his campaign manager died without health insurance. Please tell me why he owed 400,000 to a hospital? Was he running up a tab in the commissary? No, he was getting healthcare. Free by the looks of it.
He died of a virus of which there is no known cure. Only treatment of symptoms. Millions of people die yearly due to influenza with and without health care.
And as an FYI, the guys mom is under no obligation to pay her sons bills. You should be after the bill collectors for hounding a family during a grief period.
On the whole, I’d say this article is complete trash and you owe Ron Paul an apology.
Well here’s the transcript, people can come to their own conclusions:
http://politisite.com/2011/09/13/cnn-tea-party-debate-transcript-part-3-cnnteaparty/
“the crowd sounds like a bunch of jackals”
Mob psychology is something I’ve never understood well, but I know it has to do with the breaking down of normal moral impulses when large numbers of frustrated people are gathered. Would the question Blitzer asked have had any different result if it had been asked to each of the crowd members individually? Or what if the young man in the hypothetical wasn’t represented as a stranger, but as a friend or family member? I suppose it’s easier to say, “let him die” if it’s a stranger eh? Our health care system should have been changed long ago.
[...] a lesson in how to do reporting really really badly, i.e., tell big lies. Perhaps he’s just following the leader? One wonders how such a person [...]
Here is the section of the transcript with the entirety of Dr. Paul’s answer:
PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced –
BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –
I stand by my post and my remarks. No apology is due. Shame on Dr. Paul.
Shaun if you don’t feel Paul’s response to Blitzer’s question “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” is relevant we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I think it’s relevant.
Ron Paul said no…sort of.
Of course Rep. Paul’s answer has problems. He blames the government and doesn’t seem to acknowledge the huge range of other changes in health care and the rest of society. Changes in medical technology apparently had nothing to do with it. The corporate takeover of much of medicine and its related systems have nothing to do with it. The churches? Really, Dr. Paul. Do you think the churches have the resources to help that much with modern medicine? Many if not most of our neighbors or friends are scraping by with few resources to spare, Dr. Paul. Or have you not noticed the condition of our modern economy? Have you noticed that families are smaller, making the resources available through that channel smaller as well? Unlikely. If it worked then, it will work now seems to be their motto. Dr. Paul and his supporters are trapped in a past viewed through a golden haze of nostalgia that doesn’t let them rationally analyze the modern world.
Jim:
Thank you for the additional perspective.
It is difficult for me to reconcile Ayn Rand disciples like Paul with the notion that they are presidential timber.
While I acknowledge that there are plenty of freeloaders out there and for all I know the deceased Mr. Snyder was one of them, the Me First Always philosophy is antithetical to good governance.
I agree with that, Shaun.
The pivot point on all of this is whether one believes that health care is a right and by extension the federal government should try to make that so as have the governments of other industrialized countries.
It is not an accident that compared to those countries the U.S. has an atrocious infant mortality rate and a health-care “system” with out of control costs. It is not an accident that the culprits — Big Pharma, insurance companies and for-profit hospital chains — opposed even modest health-care reforms.
Dr. Paul is entitled to his view and I to mine — that his view disqualifies him from being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
Perhaps the government can not force those who can afford it to buy health insurance.
But on the same token, the government/health care industry can and should bill them (or their estates)for the full medical care costs.
@Jim and Shaun
The government doesn’t have any resources that it didn’t get from its citizens. To claim that it can somehow do more than the citizens in the marketplace is a breach of reality. It can gather money for a single project better, say mass transit or a moon landing, but it can’t make more than it either taxes or borrows.
With something as ubiquitous as health care, it can’t spend more than the people as a whole. It can only trash the marketplace better.
Well, said, DaGoat. That answer is obviously relevant, as it goes to the whole crux of the problem.
Ultimately Mr. Mullen and Dr. Paul have different theories about why health care is so expensive that mortals can’t afford it. One blames insurance and drug companies, the other blames the broader ecosystem of regulation and subsidy that prevents competition and lets the industry as a whole keep raising prices. Those positions don’t actually sound that far apart to me.
One can argue if people should take responsibility for their own actions or if society should take responsibility for others inaction. But there is also another arguement that pertains to this subject.
The liberals believe government is the answer to all of societies problems and can solve these problems through government programs. Conservatives believe government is not the answer for any of societies problems and is unable to solve any of the problems.
Somewhere between these two extremes lies the answer. But today, elected officials are unable to find the answer due to the constiuents that they have to answer to.
However, for someone who has worked in healthcare since the early 70′s, I can tell you that there has been discussions about “fraud” in Medicare and Medicaid since the early 80′s. Still today, we hear about the fraud that exist in the system. Why?. One, the government agency (CMS) that oversees the program has the same problems communicating within its agency as the agencies overseeing security had before 9-11. There is little communication, so what one division does in CMS goes unknown to others, leaving regulations and oversight nonexistant in many cases. Second, there is alot of money to be made by gaming the system. Organized crime and questionable physicians have found it profitable to set up systems that can gain funds from a program that has lax oversight. Three, CMS has outdated computer system programs that lack adequate monitoring of payments, allowing funds to go out illegally. And finally, it does give politicians a talking point for every election, even though they do nothing to improve the programs once they are elected.
So, why should we believe that a program that is going to put another 30 million individuals on the Medicaid program is going to save money. It just adds another 30 million people that increases the population of recipients that makes finding fraud even harder.
And that is why so many people are against any new government program. A large percentage of Americans truely believe this is going to cost billions in the future, just like the Medicare program and there will be little ways to pay for it other than raising taxes. And with only 50% of Americans paying taxes…(but thats another time for discussion).
Prof:
Your view falls on the reality that the market place in this instance is operating in a way that is beneficial to society. It is doing anything but that. The health care industry is not like others such as the automotive or computer industries. People can take the bus or go to their public library to use a computer.
Getting sick is not an option. You just get sick. If you are one of nearly 50 million — read that again: 50 fricking million — Americans who are uninsured or have the misfortune to be a child whose care providers are uninsured, you are screwed.
I modestly submit that if the government can bail out the auto industry and provide seed money to high-tech start-ups, it can lend a hand to those 50 million.
Had Mr. Snyder lived until 2016, he would be required to have health insurance under ObamaCare. The reason is to root out the freeloaders so that the marketplace can operate as it should. As it is, that provision might not survive. Just like millions of uninsured Americans.
RP:
As someone whose love has worked in the health care industry since the late 1970s, is highly accredited (RN, CCN, LN, etc.) and as someone who has written extensively about the crisis in American health care, she and I can agree that Medicare fraud is a big problem and that a lack of communication between agencies is a problem, as well, but they are not by any means the only engines driving out-of-control costs.
The biggest engines are, by golly, greed and an insatiable thirst for the almighty buck.
Well, Ron Paul is right about one thing. There is a lot of bureaucracy which adds to costs.
We need one national healthcare system where everyone is covered. If people want “Cadillac” plans, then that’s fine, they can pay more. But one system to cover everyone would do away with the vast bureaucracy insurance companies have in place to ensure that they only pay for treatment that you have covered under your plan.
And we know that insurance companies are always right…. it’s not as though any of us ever had a dispute over coverage with an insurance company before. [sarcasm]
Insurance companies are in the business of making money for their stockholders. They’re not in the business of ensuring people have the treatment they need to cover their illnesses. Just those illnesses that the insurance company chooses to cover…
Stockboy:
Thank you also for the additional perspective. And I agree with one-plan-for-all coverage with Cadillac options for the more affluent.
I might agree with you, Shaun, if someone could point to some fat cats who are taking a trillion dollars in excess profits out of the system. Some executives get paid too much, which adds millions in costs to the system. Insurance companies make about 5% profit, which adds billions. But that doesn’t even begin to account for the extra $1.5 trillion our system costs versus Europe’s.
IMHO it’s more plausible that the money is not all going to a few fat cats, but to millions of slightly chubby cats and too many cats in general. Our doctors are overpaid relative to those elsewhere. We seem to have five clerks and bureaucrats for every doctor, operating often still paper-based systems. And many people’s output is simply wasted–for example, the people who manage the privacy disclosure forms that most people ignore, or the people who prepared surgical supplies that were opened but not needed and then thrown out.
Dr. J:
We do agree. Well said.
Shaun: “Your view falls on the reality that the market place in this instance is operating in a way that is beneficial to society. It is doing anything but that.”
You view falls on the reality that there is no market. The fact that insurance is so common, and so comprehensive, has pretty much wiped out all sense of competition. Without competition, the marketplace is useless. The employer-paid insurance deduction is the single most destructive policy in our medical system.
StockboyLA:”We need one national healthcare system where everyone is covered.”
Shouldn’t Medicare and Medicaid get fixed BEFORE we’re all stuck under it?
A “one national healthcare system where everyone is covered.” would take care of the Medicare / Medicaid problems… It would eliminate them.
@SteveK
How? What do you think it’s going to do differently from Medicare/Medicaid/et al.?
In a nutshell, we pay too little into the system and receive back far more at the expense of future generations.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/chart-of-the-day-8.html
BTW, these are the same mouth-breathers screaming about Death Panels a couple of years ago. They want to pull the plug on everyone but themselves. LOL.
In a Nut Shell…
Every modern nation has cradle to grave full coverage with no BS, fully funded, and solvent, healthcare systems with better medicine and fewer deaths by medical error, than this United States.
We have rich people only capitalist healthcare that is rapidly becoming the laughing stock of the planet.
Dr J has his finger on a big part of the problem… all those chubby cats getting paid more than they should (in part) for performing more tests and procedures than they should be doing. Plus, the AMA is a cartel. They deliberately restrict the number of doctors who can be trained so that salaries stay unnaturally high.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
Elwood, It seems like only yesterday that we had this conversation. Once was enough why don’t you ask the countries that spend markedly less while providing universal health care to ALL their citizens.
Shaun, you’re welcome.
With regards to the comments about doctors being paid too much, having too many assistants, being paper-based, ordering too many tests, etc….
While some doctors may “pad” by ordering extra tests, I bet every practicing doctor out there is “forced” to order tests they do not agree with. And they order them to cover their butts in this sue-happy country.
Agree 100% that a large part of the problem is our current system encourages physicians to do procedures. This stems from reimbursements (RVUs) set by CMS in conjunction with the AMA. I haven’t yet seen a legitimate proposal by anyone to fix that problem. If there’s anything in the ACA that addresses it please point me to it.
I’d also add that a very tiny step in the right direction was the proposal that women don’t need so many mammograms. Although the proposal was sound, it met huge resistance from both parties. What this shows is that there is a part of the problem that is societal. People associate more studies and procedures with better care even when evidence shows otherwise.
DaGoat:
Cutting back on unnecessary tests is indeed a start, albeit a modest one.
Returning to my love — a nurse with 35 years of experience, mostly in ICUs and ERs — she has become very aware that some doctors at some hospitals order substantially more tests once it is ascertained that a patient is fully insured than they would in the case of a patient who is not.
The implication, of course, is that hospitals and doctors make more money when there are more tests, and from every indication insurance companies acquiesce to this little . . . uh, scam.
SteveK:”Once was enough why don’t you ask the countries that spend markedly less while providing universal health care to ALL their citizens.”
Because we don’t live in those countries. If our politics weren’t corrupt, then we could fix the current Medicare/Medicaid/etc. If not, we shouldn’t trust them with the tiny remnants of a market we’ve got left.
Our lobbery is simply much bigger than theirs.
This is a complex question that is reduced to a simplistic partisan attack on Ron Paul and insurance companies. (As well as co-mingling things shouted by loud people in the audience in a guilt-by-association exercise).
The article says health care is a “right”. But here one is also making it an obligation. Whether or not someone wants to participate, you force them pay for it (unless you make someone else pay). The question of risks you can be allowed to take is a real one that gets mostly ignored.
Now there are things we aren’t willing to do, no matter what choices people make. I don’t support simply letting people die. But I think unless we consider all sides of the issue, then people will just consider things like requirements to have health insurance as just “government interference”. After all, if you aren’t willing to talk about fundamental moral question, then you haven’t given them any reason to see it any other way.
David: “The article says health care is a “right”. But here one is also making it an obligation. Whether or not someone wants to participate, you force them pay for it (unless you make someone else pay). … I think unless we consider all sides of the issue, then people will just consider things like requirements to have health insurance as just “government interference”.
The fact is that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE PARTICIPATES in the healthcare system whether they pay for it or not. We all fall ill and die at one point. Treatment while we are ill is necessary. If someone does not have insurance then we are ALL forced to pick up their tab.
And to those people who would rather let someone without medical insurance die rather than to treat them I have this to ask, “Let’s say you are in a car accident and are about to die. Do you think emergency personnel should verify you have coverage and are current on your premium payments? Or do you want to be treated ASAP when every second counts? What if you are in a fire with second and third degree burns across 80% of your body? Do you really want to wait for treatment while the hospital is on hold wiht the insurance company to verify they will pay? And what if your ID was lost in the car crash, burned up, or could not be found? Should we make the presumption that you do not have health care because there is no proof (and let you die)?”
A little O.T. but Right-Wing Christian Evangelist Pat Robertson has concluded that: If your wife has Alzheimer’s… Divorce her!
Well, I happen partially agree with this. If someone will die without an operation, it is hard to see how you deny that. And someone has to pay for it. OTOH, if someone said to me “look, its my life and we all face risks, who are you to tell me what risks I should take”, I don’t know what I would say to them. And political swipes, like this article takes, at those who take that position don’t really give me an answer.
I also think there is an issue of the limits. If someone has refused to pay for any insurance, are we obligated to give him and expensive operation just to keep him from waking with a limp? How about giving him a cutting-edge operation that we can’t afford to give to everyone? Again, this is an issue that deserves discussion. But all this gets lost when debate is reduced to partisan name calling, which is par-for-the-course in this country.
And to the question about whether those who have a different view would want to be denied emergency services until paperwork is checked or taken care of, I personally find that to be a bit of a straw man. Rand Paul didn’t take a position that we should be so afraid of some person getting care they didn’t pay for that we should deny care to those who do. Nor has there been any discussion of whether it actually has to come down to that.
“And to the question about whether those who have a different view would want to be denied emergency services until paperwork is checked or taken care of, I personally find that to be a bit of a straw man. Rand Paul didn’t take a position that we should be so afraid of some person getting care they didn’t pay for that we should deny care to those who do. Nor has there been any discussion of whether it actually has to come down to that.”
I agree that it hasn’t come down to that because I don’t think people have thought this through. I mean it may sound good in some quarters to say “Let him die.” But really what does that look like when put into practice? That was the point I was attempting to make.
BTW: thanks.
[...] Dr. Ron Paul Has A Heart Of Stone. And Plenty Of Company In Today’s Republican Party. (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
“It is difficult for me to reconcile Ayn Rand disciples like Paul with the notion that they are presidential timber.”
Libertarians are not Objectivists, and vice versa. Ron Paul is a libertarian conservative, not an Objectivist.
I understand the distinction is subtle, and many make this erroneous comparison…but clearly Rand hated libertarians and anarchists, and was herself a small government statist, not even a minarchist in favor of voluntary government…nor did she fully support the NAP (non-agression principle/axiom).
I don’t think you ignorant or purposefully sophistic, but they just aren’t all that similar.
His son Rand Paul isn’t named after Ayn Rand either, another pervasive myth out there.
Libertarians range from anarchists (either/neither left or/nor right) to small government minarchists, in some cases (especially now as we convert so many statists) small government Constitutional statists.
Objectivists loathe anarchists and libertarians of all sorts…and we don’t care for them on lot of issues either. Although Ayn Rand wrote some great books (especially fiction), she herself was a bit strange. Her main character in the work the “Fountainhead” was based on the “perfect man”. The man she based the character on was sadistic child killer…pretty sick right? She had a weird sort of crush on the dude, like serial killer groupies often do….the ones who marry these killers while they’re on death row. I think Rand admired sociopaths, and may of been a nonviolent one herself (incapable of empathy).
I won’t go much further, as Objectivists are sure to show up and attack me and my beliefs next…but I just wanted to make it clear that although many of Ayn Rand’s works were good (even the Fountainhead is good book, and I recommend it despite what she based the fitctional non-killer main character on), her philosophy seemed to lack empathy and showed other characterstics of being inclined toward sociopathy. She herself violated many of the redeeming aspects of her philosophy and ethics, leaving it to be more of a philosophy of her followers, not so much her own in practice.
It’s tough to follow a philosopher who doesn’t practice what they preach.
And that brings us to Ron Paul.
Notice the question Blitzer asked was about a person who COULD of affored health insurance but gambled on not needing it…and lost that bet. This, from a libertarian perspective, means he should bear the responsibility of that failed wager, just as he would have reaped the benefits of it if he had won the bet by not needing care. We believe strongly in profit and loss incentives, and also in NOT creating future moral hazard or bad incentives for others who might follow knowing that even though they could afford the insurance, their losses would be socialized while their gains would stay privatized on such a wager.
Here we would say this person should not be allowed to claim bankruptcy on this debt, assuming he recovers and is able to maintain an income that makes it affordable to pay off this debt (even if it took decades). That’s the wager he took.
However, if he could NOT afford the insurance to begin with, we would seek to help pay off this debt for him, or to allow bankruptcy as a last resort. What we would also do is assess the moral/ethical ways to accumulate the capital needed to pay off this debt, and the most efficient ways of allocating that accumulated capital.
Ethically (not legally), tax is theft. This seems alien to many who have not studied p[hilosophy, so I’ll explain briefly. You have two methods to get money accumulated; coercive methods of force, and voluntary methods. Force would include monopolies who provide essential servives/goods in a non-competitive market (exploitation of consumers, of ten created by government favortism and the lobbying/legislative process we argue), use of violence (like a mafia), and threats of violence like kidnapping (imprisonment) or extortion/theft. Voluntary methods would include donations obviously, and willing exchanges of capital for goods and services in competitive markets (most purchases).
So, ethically, non-forced accumulation methods are superior and preferable to forced methods like threats of kidnapping (prison) in order to extort (tax) funds.
Now, economically how would these funds be distributed most efficiently if they were accumulated (however you accumulated them)?
The least effcient way is governemnt. This is simply because it has “no skin in the game”. Giving away others people’s money is easy, and it’s even easier when the revenue is guranateed practically by threat of law. So, given the lack of need for customer satisfaction (revenue keeps coming even when the citizenry is dissatisfied) to keep reveunues coming in, the lack of “skin in the game”, and the overall liklihood of corrupt distribution (cronies who are connected and aid re-election campaigns get contracts, often no bid, and also Bills are stalled for as long as possible to maximize lobbying dollars extroted from special interest groups, who then write the Bills that benefit them by limiting competition in their fields, which helps create those dreaded monopolies, and then politicians don’t read and yet pass those Bills almost always so they can have plausible seniability in the re-election process), government is the least efficient model to allocate accumulated capital.
Next most efficient is charity, which has “skin in the game”, but still not it’s own skin (the problem of giving away other people’s money still exists). However, charities have to satisfy customers, donors, so they do rely on voluntary funding, and this largely keeps them honest and efficient, given they have competition for charity in their field.
The most efficient model for allocation of resources are profit-driven organizations (where not monopolized). These comapnies get funded voluntarily, and must provide the lowest cost for the highest comaparble quality in order to keep money flowing in (unless a legal monopolized mandate forces the purchase of their goods/services, which creates the same problem as tax in economic and ethical senses). They have all the “skin in the game”, as long as bailouts do not6 occur…so their every Profit, and more importantly LOSS, are their burdens directly…either private ownership or public stock holders. So these tend toward the most efficient allocation processes.
So, in dealing with someone who needs help paying a medical cost due to no fault of their own (poor people let’s say), the most ethical and economical way of dealing with the problem is charity…it’s capital is accumulated morally (freely), and it’s distributed most efficiently (as there is no profit obviously in clearing up debts of poor people). It’s be nice if there was a profit in it, as the most efficient and moral model would be profit-driven, but in the absence of this, charity is best, government is worst.
So Ron Paul is taking a libertarian position based on what we find the MOST humanitarian, the most efficient, and the most ethical/moral…in that order.
You can have free market “universal” coverage BTW. The Cleveland Cli8nic does it largely now…a huge and world renowned chain of hospitals. It uses progressive pricing models (charging the rich more, the poor less, by income) instead of progressive taxing models the government uses. It also cooperates with charities A LOT. It also insures everyone, to cut down on costs for the sniffles in their emergency rooms, which costs a ton and is incentivized by our laws regarding giving care to everyone even when uninsured in Emergency Rooms. They also drive their costs down and quality up by making people go over the charges for everything they do as they do it…and not suprisingly people pay attention to quality/cost ratios when actually informed. This also cuts down on fraud/waste. They do preventative medicine with the savings, having a gym membership as part of their insurance, and incentives in deductables and co-pays to quit smoking, eating healthier food, etc. They reall are great, I beg you check them out.
And Ron Paul isn’t heartless either…he wants this same “direct payer” model in our hospitals. In fact, he has mentioned the Cleveland Clinic while in Cleveland several times, as a model…and strives for universal coverage (not mandated, but priced in). It is his belief, as it is mine, that free markets are really humanitarian. We know they criticisms, but all in all we see no perfect system, and simply wish for the best one in practice. If we’re wrong, we’ll face it, and move on. But if we’re right, and history and data tends to favor us, then the way to shrink poverty to it’s lowest levels, the waty to shrink homelessness to it’s lowest levels, and the way to get the most universal coverage without sacrificing ethics and quality of care (or low costs overall) is the free market methods. And again, our goal is as humanitarian as yours, albeith counter-intuitive and deuctively logical.
Also, I want ot point out this “heartless” Ron Paul NEVER turned away ANY patients when he was an active doctor. This was tough, as he NEVER accepted government money for care, like Medicare or Medicaid. He stuck to his principles and either charged nothing (free) or charged by affordability (the progressive pricing model I talked about earlier). He did this, and did it gleefully. It never drove him bankrupt, and yet he never turned anyone away for care. That’s hardly “heartless”, or “cold”.
One last thing…Ron Paul is the ONLY Congressperson in either Party who DOES NOT participate in the lucrative set-for-life retirement fund for Congress people. That should speak volumes about him…he foregoes huge payments in order to provide for himself.
And he does provide for himself…as he has recently released info on his personal protfolio…he made millions putting his money where his mouth was on gold and silver, betting that since 1971 (since we came off the gold standard the rest of the way; it was a process over decades) that our economy and dollar would tank as massive inflation and unemployment would eventually set in as the housing bubble he predicted (along many free market economists) popped, and deflated to market levels.
He was laughed at when he stood on the House floor in June 2001 as he predicted the attacks on 9/11, saying our sanctions on Iraq and our meddling and bombings in Afghanistan would lead us to be the number one terrorist target in the world…unfortunately he was right. He sang this tune about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia from at least 1997- June 2001. No one listened. Then we were attacked, and they boo him for suggesting it was as predictable as food going in yopur mouth and crap coming out your rear.
He predicted the collapse of the economy going back to the 1980s, and in detail on the House floor for about 10 years leading up to the criusis…and step by step it happened as he said…unfortunately he was right again.
You can Youtube all of this, and I trust some of you will to try and debunk me.
Look up “Ron Paul Predicted 9/11″ and “Ron Paul Predicted the Economic Collapse”. If that isn’t enough look around the web and you’ll find more.
He isn’t heartless or cold, he’s principled and been right on every important issue for so long (after being called “crazy” all those years) that it’s tough for him to budge an inch on his ideas. Would you if you were him?
Agree or disagree with him, he is the real deal…a guy who isn’t bought and paif for. He isn’t for maintaining or spreading more wars, continuing or spreading drug wars, continuing torture, warrantless wiretaps, self written search warrants, GITMO, etc., etc…and it never ceases to amaze me how people ignore these much larger issues (like WAR, TORTURE, DRUG WARS that lock up millions of nonviolent people, the death of 4th Amendment Rights, etc.) for more nuanced subjects.
To me, your priorities are screwed up if you support Obama as a liberal, and not Ron Paul. Party be damned, social issue be dmaned, you’re choosing mass murder, torture, etc. over some small social issues. Why wouldn’t you prioritize? Afterall, he isn’t anti-gay, he isn’t anti-minority, he isn’t anti-anything really…how can you continue your support of a neoconservative Democrat warmonger over this guy? Is ANY DemoCrip really better than ANY RepubliBlood? Seriously?
I couldn’t sleep at night like that, and I hope you all can find it in your hearts to consider what I’ve said in this long winded comment…to consider him in the Primaries (even if not the general election, whatever), and to consider not calling him “heartless” or “cold”. Most of the folks that say that support a really “heartless” and “cold” guy right now. Priorities folks, priorities. You all know who isn’t bought off, and who is…you don’t need me to tell you. Just do what’s right, not what’s necessarily popular.