Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Why do I live in my nation?

B5CB5C
edited September 2011 in Modern Buddhism
This is from last nights Tea Party Debate:




People cheer for the deaths of prisoners and some could be innocent.

GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die (VIDEO)

"A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

Paul interjected to offer an explanation for how this was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. He added that communities and non-government institutions can fill the void that the public sector is currently playing.

"We never turned anybody away from the hospital," he said of his volunteer work for churches and his career as a doctor. "We have given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves ... that's the reason the cost is so high."

The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage."

Gosh, why do I live in this nation?
«1

Comments

  • Care for one and other money cannot replace life.
  • If you work at WalMart or wherever part time, trying to take whatever job you can get to make ends meet, you probably won't get insurance with your job. I also know a guy who makes enough money that he can afford and does have private insurance, but anything related to his blood pressure issues his insurance will not pay-- which is the main reason he got the insurance!

    The US can afford to put almost half of taxpayers money into a war machine-- more than any other country (more than China and Russia and 16 more countries combines in fact) but it can't afford basic healthcare for its citizens. And the US is the only developed nation like this. There are even some third world countries that provide basic healthcare for it citizens, and the US can't even get that right. Add to that all the tax cuts for the rich and some corporations paying ZERO taxes-- well, SOMEBODY'S got to pay, so the middle class gets saddled with it. No one seems to be looking at the bigger picture here, even though in many other countries this is regarded as common sense.

    "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Speaking of third world countries:



    Shameful.
  • They did not cheer because people were killed, its because the journalist asked a question that implied a huge contradiction to what the candidate was previously talking about. I suggest you watch the whole show, since this is clearly cut as to make the candidate look bad.

    I don't think the candidate in question meant harm with it, but killing those people is doing something out of fear (not that unusual in humans). So many people will agree with death-row. This is a whole different question though.
  • Care for one and other money cannot replace life.
    Unfortunately, I think the sentiment of some US Americans is "As long as its not MY money or MY life, why should I care?"

    ~~~~

    BTW, I work in an ER and I see this every day at work. We have to pick up the pieces-- just damage control-- because not everyone can live the so-called "American dream."
  • B5CB5C
    edited September 2011
    They did not cheer because people were killed, its because the journalist asked a question that implied a huge contradiction to what the candidate was previously talking about. I suggest you watch the whole show, since this is clearly cut as to make the candidate look bad.

    I don't think the candidate in question meant harm with it, but killing those people is doing something out of fear (not that unusual in humans). So many people will agree with death-row. This is a whole different question though.
    The problem is that the audience was cheering and applauding on the death and suffering of others.

    As for Rick Perry. Here clearly thinks his courts are so perfect that everyone on death row is guilty, so he does not need to interfere with the death row process.

  • Care for one and other money cannot replace life.


    Unfortunately, I think the sentiment of some US Americans is "As long as its not MY money or MY life, why should I care?"

    ~~~~

    BTW, I work in an ER and I see this every day at work. We have to pick up the pieces-- just damage control-- because not everyone can live the so-called "American dream."
    Everyone should be able to have their health looked after, The same citizens do not stir when they think theyre money is being used to buy weapons to maim and kill others but they get upset at the prospect that money is being used to help others instead of harm them ?

    There is something fundementally wrong with society when they cannot care for others.
  • They make me ashamed to call myself an American. Honestly. Ashamed.

    Why do we consider it a basic right of citizenship to have our children educated for free through the 12th grade, have our 911 calls answered by police or fire departments, have adequate and well maintained roads and bridges, have air traffic controllers to guide our flights, to have our trash picked up, to have clean running water, and to have our sewage disposed of properly... we expect all that, but we see the right to see a doctor as a "benefit" available only to a select slice of society (which doesn't include me at the moment, btw).

    I just don't get it.
  • Care for one and other money cannot replace life.


    Unfortunately, I think the sentiment of some US Americans is "As long as its not MY money or MY life, why should I care?"

    ~~~~

    BTW, I work in an ER and I see this every day at work. We have to pick up the pieces-- just damage control-- because not everyone can live the so-called "American dream."
    While I am a moderate Democrat, I'd like to question whether it is true that "not everyone can live the so-called American Dream", or whether at least many people make their own poor choices resulting in them not being able to live the American Dream.

    And I'll use my mother as an example. When in her early 50s, she applied for a secretarial position in two places -- a private doctor's office and a public school. In the public school she would have gotten health insurance and a pension. In the private doctor's office she got neither, but the pay was marginally higher and she thought she'd enjoy the adult clientele more. She chose the private doctor's office. 20 years later she had no health insurance and no pension. Society's fault, or the fault of her own poor choices?

    The people who I know who are living the American Dream...whatever that is...worked damn hard to do so. Two people I know who are/were not living the American Dream are my sister and my nephew...who didn't really work much at all.

    I know there are other examples on the other side of things, as well.

  • This Country is going down the tubes I'm afraid...

  • While I am a moderate Democrat, I'd like to question whether it is true that "not everyone can live the so-called American Dream", or whether at least many people make their own poor choices resulting in them not being able to live the American Dream.
    Where I currently live (in the southern US), there aren't a lot of options for people who are born in poverty. That doesn't mean its not possible, but it's extremely rare. Factor in health, education, crime, drugs, guns, racism, etc. and there are lot of odds stacked against you. Most people wouldn't fare well under such conditions. And if you are born into that, it may never even OCCUR to one that it could be different. In a country whose culture has implicitly bought into the "Protestant work ethic," that's perceived as a moral failing on their part.
  • I'm a moderate at the moment trying to take the middle path on this whole political issue. I am not seeing anyone from the GOP that I can support, and I have been disillusioned on Obama's abilities as well. We definitely need a change in this country but it doesn't look like we will get it anytime in the near future.
  • mithrilmithril Veteran
    edited September 2011

    The problem is that the audience was cheering and applauding on the death and suffering of others.

    As for Rick Perry. Here clearly thinks his courts are so perfect that everyone on death row is guilty, so he does not need to interfere with the death row process.

    No they didn't. They cheered because Rick Perry got presented with a question (which was actually a statement) after talking about how he cares about the American people.

    The journalist actually told him "What you are saying is false, you murdered all those people". He got himself out of the tricky question by saying "I believe our society made a just system, which deals with people fairly. I believe that American people are able to make good decisions which result in a just world. If someone will not behave in the interests of our society, i support fully the capabilities of the people working in this system to deal with this person in a way that will make justice a rule in our society. If the choice of our society is to execute those people, i fully support them in their opinion."

    Note that what i quoted are not direct quotes from the video, but is rather my personal interpretation of what happened on that stage.

    Also, i did not say Rick Perry is necessarily the type of person i would vote for personally - i'm just urging everyone who might have understood what happened as a crowd cheering for the executions, to consider an alternative viewpoint - that of the candidate being supportive of the views of people, a system which is supposedly the consequence of people deciding for democratically, even if it might be something that would be controversial, or he might not fully agree with.

    I'm sure he understands the system is not perfect. He's just saying that it is a system that is the best he and everyone else could make, even if it has faults. As such, he supports it - since the system still supposedly handles people (who might be guilty or not) in the best way possible. He is saying it is not in his interest to doubt in such a system, because his opinion might actually be less just than the result of going through the process which people go through to be found either guilty or innocent in this case.

  • I sometimes think Britain is in a bad state with regards to social issue and policy but then I look across the pond and realize im fortunate to have access to free health care amongst other things and that the majority of our politician arent nuts however wet behind the ears and liberally limp they may be. :)
  • As much as my British friends gripe about the NHS and all its ills, at least it's there and it's free. You might have to wait a few months to get a knee replacement, but you're not going to go without. Right now I'm without health insurance. Could I get it? Probably - for a price. Blue Cross/Blue Shield wanted to charge me $2400 a month for their most basic HMO coverage back in 1998 when I moved to Virginia. Why? Because I was an otherwise perfectly healthy 36 year old man - who had had a cancer diagnosis in the past. Oh, and we won't ever cover anything related in any way to cancer of any kind. Which leaves them *broad* latitude not to cover anything they don't want to cover. Which would, in my experience with the health insurance industry, include anything I ever claimed. Had I opted for their "generous" offer, I'd have spent nearly $400,000 up to this point for basically nothing.

    Right now I'm a full time student, and despite the law that says they can't use my history to refuse to write me insurance, nothing says what they can charge for it. I simply can't get insurance because I've had cancer (and been cancer free for almost 17 years, BTW) and have taken an antidepressant medication within the past ten years.

    People wonder why I'm a rabidly liberal progressive? It's all about the profit in this country. I think the whole idea of "for-profit" in health care is morally wrong and unsupportable. Corporations whose number one priority is to maximize profits so as to pay the maximum dividend to share holders making decisions about who gets what health care is just flat wrong.
  • I agree Mountains. It seems what people call Liberal is vastly different from a British Liberal.

    Healthcare should be available for every citizen of said country, Keeping a Healthy population is in everyones best interest.
  • Ron Paul 2012. Hehe.
  • Problem is, democrats are no different. But because they're not as crazy as the republicans, people vote for them (thinking they're the lesser of the two evils) and become disillusioned. Over and over and over.
  • As much as my British friends gripe about the NHS and all its ills, at least it's there and it's free.
    It won't be for much longer if the current government has its way...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/11/doctors-letter-resists-nhs-reform

  • Ron Paul 2012. Hehe.
    You could insert the name of any of the GOP field, only I'd change the "hehe" to "god help us".
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited September 2011
    I would not be surprised if those people where put there to cheer on stuff like that on purpose, just to make Ron Paul look bad. He does not want anyone to die in the hospital, he's a doctor for $%&# sake! He himself has even treated people FOR FREE, who didn't have money or insurance to pay. Ironically, he is one of the very few doctors that are willing to do that and he's done that many times.... He is not against health care, he is against forcibly taking people's paychecks to pay for it. His answer is simple, stop spending billions and billions of $'s acting like an imperialist world dictator and it could easily be paid for without having to take people's paychecks to begin with...
  • MountainsMountains Moderator
    edited September 2011
    For one thing, Ron Paul practiced medicine 50 years ago. That was a different time and a totally different health care system. For another, there are *lots* of physicians and hospitals who write off indigent/uninsured care. Lots. You just don't hear about it in the news very much. But that's not a sustainable way to provide health care.

    The other fact that gets conveniently omitted every single time this issue comes up is, anyone who legitimately can't afford mandatory health insurance will get government help to purchase it. Had the public option not been shot down, we could have created a single overall system to do this. As it now stands, it's going to be a nightmare of paperwork (if the GOP doesn't torpedo the whole bill as seems likely). I don't see how this is any different from requiring auto insurance. It's called "the common good". You have to pay taxes to have fire and police protection, schools, roads, etc. How is this any different? If your not choosing to do it for yourself ends up costing me money, how is that fair?

    The sad fact is (and it *is* a fact) that all the health care that is given away (almost 25% in the hospital system I worked in) has to be paid for somehow. And that happens by insurance companies, hospitals, etc raising their rates. So we all pay for that care in the end - and at a much higher cost than if we'd simply make sure everybody were covered in the first place. $5 worth of preventative care up front would save us $5000 worth of acute care later, but we're too myopic to see that.

    I don't get why the GOP are so against this (other than that Obama is for it, which seems good enough reason for them). For one thing, it was their idea to start with (ask Mitt Romney). Second, their mega-rich buddies in the health insurance industry stand to see HUGE profits from it. Imagine if they suddenly had another 50 million customers with paid up premiums!! They'd be rolling in dough more than they are already (sickening, but true).

    Finally, as a Buddhist, and if you allege to practice compassion, I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care. You've clearly never been without it yourself and had any kind of health issue, nor known anyone who did. I've been there, done that.
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    edited September 2011
    I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here too (I posted this on a blog elsewhere):

    I work in the ER (not medical staff– I register patients). While it is true that EMTALA regulations make it where no one can (supposedly) be turned away from the ER, the problem is the ER then just works as “damage control” long after an injury or illness has caused sometimes irreversible damage to the patient’s health.

    All the ER does is do a quick fix to the immediate problem, but cannot treat the larger health issues that led to the visit in the first place... the ER is only obligated to stabilize the patient, that is all EMTALA requires.

    Nobody benefits from such an arrangement and its yet another reason why the US spends so much more money than other countries. The value of having health insurance is to PREVENT things from getting worse. The logic of “We have free healthcare– just go to the ER” is NOT a solution.

    I'm still waiting for the US to catch up with the rest of the developed world.
  • Or to put it differently:

    You save money on your vehicle by maintaining it-- i.e. by investing money in oil changes, tune ups, checking tire pressure, etc. If you don't, the consequences will be far worse and you'll have to shell out a lot more money.

    If you want to save money in the long run, you have to spend money. Ironically the conservative way of doing things is not so conservative. Its just myopic.


  • I would not be surprised if those people where put there to cheer on stuff like that on purpose, just to make Ron Paul look bad. He does not want anyone to die in the hospital, he's a doctor for $%&# sake! He himself has even treated people FOR FREE, who didn't have money or insurance to pay. Ironically, he is one of the very few doctors that are willing to do that and he's done that many times.... He is not against health care, he is against forcibly taking people's paychecks to pay for it. His answer is simple, stop spending billions and billions of $'s acting like an imperialist world dictator and it could easily be paid for without having to take people's paychecks to begin with...
    Actually, in my view, I'd say Ron Paul's point is his own ego. Every time he runs for president, he knows he isn't going to get nominated. But he likes being out there in front...he laps up the applause...makes jokes designed to get lots of laughs. Yes, some of what he says rings true. I listened to an extended interview with him a couple of weeks ago on public radio...about half of what he says makes sense. He seems to have forgotten why government got into regulation to begin with...it was called the Great Depression.

  • I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here too (I posted this on a blog elsewhere):

    I work in the ER (not medical staff– I register patients). While it is true that EMTALA regulations make it where no one can (supposedly) be turned away from the ER, the problem is the ER then just works as “damage control” long after an injury or illness has caused sometimes irreversible damage to the patient’s health.

    All the ER does is do a quick fix to the immediate problem, but cannot treat the larger health issues that led to the visit in the first place... the ER is only obligated to stabilize the patient, that is all EMTALA requires.

    Nobody benefits from such an arrangement and its yet another reason why the US spends so much more money than other countries. The value of having health insurance is to PREVENT things from getting worse. The logic of “We have free healthcare– just go to the ER” is NOT a solution.

    I'm still waiting for the US to catch up with the rest of the developed world.
    Well, the whole way emergency rooms are run in this country is a flawed system to begin with.

    First of all, it should be for emergencies. Only. Instead, many people without insurance or their own doctor are admitted for things that are not emergencies. Have a separate clinic for non-emergency cases.

    Second, if it's an emergency, why are many patients left sitting there for LONG periods of time?

    I have to admit that some of the private hospitals in Bangkok operate much better -- from a logistics standpoint -- than do our American hospitals. Bumrungrad International there, which has been featured on "60 Minutes" (and in a positive sense) has several divisions. The regular hospital. The emergency room. The general clinic. The doctors offices and exam rooms for general treatment. All on the same campus, but in different buildings or wings.

  • Oh, yes, the ER system in the US is screwed. Doctors here turn away patients without insurance. There are a couple of small clinics here, but its not a 24 hour operation. Where else can people go? The sad thing is I live in a VERY small town, though we do serve a broad (mostly rural) area. I can only imagine how much worse it is in actual cities.

    There is a triage system so that patients are initially assigned a level of urgency, but it still doesn't matter-- a lot of cases end up being urgent (or worse) because they haven't been able to nip the problem in the bud by seeing a doctor (no insurance!). Again, it just ends up as damage control, after the health issues have gotten out of control.
  • I am a retired flight nurse(RN) from the military.I received a purple heart during desert storm.This I am undeserving due to the great cost that others have endured and continuing to. I am a not flag waver,however when one decides to be distraught over some uncaring,ignorant political jerk,it concerns me.There are many great countries on this beautiful globe.However,We still do have the right of protest without government action,like being shott,raped or your home taken away. I can not close my eyes at night whithout seeing the horror and faces of the people of iraq and various parts of africa. My point-it,s about time:)I feel the same way that you do on this subject! This country needs people,good people,just like the people of this forum.Don't leave this country, protest these people instead.I hope I did't offend anyone,that is not what I wanted.What I wanted was for you to let them know just how you feel. Thanks and peace be yours.
  • Sorry about the poor grammer and spelling above.I can,t type very well without my specs.:}
  • I am a retired flight nurse(RN) from the military.I received a purple heart during desert storm.This I am undeserving due to the great cost that others have endured and continuing to. I am a not flag waver,however when one decides to be distraught over some uncaring,ignorant political jerk,it concerns me.There are many great countries on this beautiful globe.However,We still do have the right of protest without government action,like being shott,raped or your home taken away. I can not close my eyes at night whithout seeing the horror and faces of the people of iraq and various parts of africa. My point-it,s about time:)I feel the same way that you do on this subject! This country needs people,good people,just like the people of this forum.Don't leave this country, protest these people instead.I hope I did't offend anyone,that is not what I wanted.What I wanted was for you to let them know just how you feel. Thanks and peace be yours.
    Fltnr1, I don't think it's really a question of going out and protesting as much as it is about getting involved in the political process. Most Americans -- and for a while I had to include myself -- don't even vote in elections. Let alone actually getting involved in political meetings, etc. I'm afraid we take our democracy for granted, and then many simply complain when they don't like the result.

  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    For one thing, Ron Paul practiced medicine 50 years ago. That was a different time and a totally different health care system. For another, there are *lots* of physicians and hospitals who write off indigent/uninsured care. Lots. You just don't hear about it in the news very much. But that's not a sustainable way to provide health care.

    The other fact that gets conveniently omitted every single time this issue comes up is, anyone who legitimately can't afford mandatory health insurance will get government help to purchase it. Had the public option not been shot down, we could have created a single overall system to do this. As it now stands, it's going to be a nightmare of paperwork (if the GOP doesn't torpedo the whole bill as seems likely). I don't see how this is any different from requiring auto insurance. It's called "the common good". You have to pay taxes to have fire and police protection, schools, roads, etc. How is this any different? If your not choosing to do it for yourself ends up costing me money, how is that fair?

    The sad fact is (and it *is* a fact) that all the health care that is given away (almost 25% in the hospital system I worked in) has to be paid for somehow. And that happens by insurance companies, hospitals, etc raising their rates. So we all pay for that care in the end - and at a much higher cost than if we'd simply make sure everybody were covered in the first place. $5 worth of preventative care up front would save us $5000 worth of acute care later, but we're too myopic to see that.

    I don't get why the GOP are so against this (other than that Obama is for it, which seems good enough reason for them). For one thing, it was their idea to start with (ask Mitt Romney). Second, their mega-rich buddies in the health insurance industry stand to see HUGE profits from it. Imagine if they suddenly had another 50 million customers with paid up premiums!! They'd be rolling in dough more than they are already (sickening, but true).

    Finally, as a Buddhist, and if you allege to practice compassion, I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care. You've clearly never been without it yourself and had any kind of health issue, nor known anyone who did. I've been there, done that.
    The sad fact is that Ron Paul is one of the only real anti war people in the whole of Congress and no one really cares about that. It's also sad that people think that military world imperialism can be separated from other things that cost money when it actually can't. The GOP is against it because it's bad for their best buddies in the business world. That is not the case with him.

    >I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care.

    There is the misunderstanding. It's not about not being in favor for people having access to healthcare. It's about the government forcing people to give up more of their paycheck, meanwhile, with meanwhile being the most important part of this whole thing, spending over 1 trillion dollars a year on military imperialism and then doing all this other stuff too. The money is ALREADY there to begin with, it's just being used to build bombs instead. Ron Paul says, don't take more of the people's money, stop trying to rule the world with the military. People booed him when he stated the actual reasons why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. That is just sad. Military spending simply can't be ignored whenever you have something else that costs money. However, very very few people even talk about that. The reason is that very very few people are actually anti war. The money is already there to pay for it, it's just being used to build bombs...


  • Fltnr1, I don't think it's really a question of going out and protesting as much as it is about getting involved in the political process. Most Americans -- and for a while I had to include myself -- don't even vote in elections. Let alone actually getting involved in political meetings, etc. I'm afraid we take our democracy for granted, and then many simply complain when they don't like the result.

    I agree. This is why everyone MUST be involved in politics.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran


    I would not be surprised if those people where put there to cheer on stuff like that on purpose, just to make Ron Paul look bad. He does not want anyone to die in the hospital, he's a doctor for $%&# sake! He himself has even treated people FOR FREE, who didn't have money or insurance to pay. Ironically, he is one of the very few doctors that are willing to do that and he's done that many times.... He is not against health care, he is against forcibly taking people's paychecks to pay for it. His answer is simple, stop spending billions and billions of $'s acting like an imperialist world dictator and it could easily be paid for without having to take people's paychecks to begin with...


    Actually, in my view, I'd say Ron Paul's point is his own ego. Every time he runs for president, he knows he isn't going to get nominated. But he likes being out there in front...he laps up the applause...makes jokes designed to get lots of laughs. Yes, some of what he says rings true. I listened to an extended interview with him a couple of weeks ago on public radio...about half of what he says makes sense. He seems to have forgotten why government got into regulation to begin with...it was called the Great Depression.

    He hasn't forgotten about the great depression. He correctly understands that government interference in the banking system is what caused the great depression to begin with and they enacted even more regulations to clean up the mess they made. The faulty manipulation by the federal reserve caused the normal business recession of 1929 to become a full blown great depression over the next couple years. Ben Bernanke words about it "You're right, we did it. We're very sorry.".



  • The sad fact is that Ron Paul is one of the only real anti war people in the whole of Congress and no one really cares about that. It's also sad that people think that military world imperialism can be separated from other things that cost money when it actually can't. The GOP is against it because it's bad for their best buddies in the business world. That is not the case with him.

    >I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care.

    There is the misunderstanding. It's not about not being in favor for people having access to healthcare. It's about the government forcing people to give up more of their paycheck, meanwhile, with meanwhile being the most important part of this whole thing, spending over 1 trillion dollars a year on military imperialism and then doing all this other stuff too. The money is ALREADY there to begin with, it's just being used to build bombs instead. Ron Paul says, don't take more of the people's money, stop trying to rule the world with the military. People booed him when he stated the actual reasons why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. That is just sad. Military spending simply can't be ignored whenever you have something else that costs money. However, very very few people even talk about that. The reason is that very very few people are actually anti war. The money is already there to pay for it, it's just being used to build bombs...
    I see Ron Paul as, perhaps, the penultimate in political immorality.

    Any war is not right or wrong because of $$$$$. And that's what Ron Paul often reduces it to.

    Health care is not right or wrong because of $$$$$. And that's what Ron Paul reduces it to.

    I'm an open-minded Democrat. If the GOP doesn't like "Obamacare", fine...propose the alternative to it. Did they fix it under 8 year of Nixon? No. Did they fix it under 8 years of Reagan? No. Did they fix it under 12 years of Bushes? No. But then, when the Democrats attempt to fix it, they moan and groan about it's not the right fix. What's their plan to fix it? I still see no GOP plan.

  • I totaly agree about being involved in the political process, My poor wording eludided to protesting against issues.I truly ment becoming part of the process and not let the process become part of you. I read the forum of this site and hear great intuition,promise and potentional leadership. It sounds as though many of you are young.This is wonderful,allow your thought to become action. This country needs activist and political inovaters like youselves.You folks are america,this gives me hope.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran


    The sad fact is that Ron Paul is one of the only real anti war people in the whole of Congress and no one really cares about that. It's also sad that people think that military world imperialism can be separated from other things that cost money when it actually can't. The GOP is against it because it's bad for their best buddies in the business world. That is not the case with him.

    >I don't really see how you can justify to yourself not being in favor of everyone having access to health care.

    There is the misunderstanding. It's not about not being in favor for people having access to healthcare. It's about the government forcing people to give up more of their paycheck, meanwhile, with meanwhile being the most important part of this whole thing, spending over 1 trillion dollars a year on military imperialism and then doing all this other stuff too. The money is ALREADY there to begin with, it's just being used to build bombs instead. Ron Paul says, don't take more of the people's money, stop trying to rule the world with the military. People booed him when he stated the actual reasons why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. That is just sad. Military spending simply can't be ignored whenever you have something else that costs money. However, very very few people even talk about that. The reason is that very very few people are actually anti war. The money is already there to pay for it, it's just being used to build bombs...


    I see Ron Paul as, perhaps, the penultimate in political immorality.

    Any war is not right or wrong because of $$$$$. And that's what Ron Paul often reduces it to.

    Health care is not right or wrong because of $$$$$. And that's what Ron Paul reduces it to.

    I'm an open-minded Democrat. If the GOP doesn't like "Obamacare", fine...propose the alternative to it. Did they fix it under 8 year of Nixon? No. Did they fix it under 8 years of Reagan? No. Did they fix it under 12 years of Bushes? No. But then, when the Democrats attempt to fix it, they moan and groan about it's not the right fix. What's their plan to fix it? I still see no GOP plan.

    He reduces it to money because the entire system revolves around money and that is all most people care about these days. His anti war stance isn't just about money, His health car stance isn't just about money. Whenever people talk about the GOP, they are not talking about Ron Paul. Ron Paul despises the GOP and is constantly telling them they are a bunch of war mongering neocon bafoons, that is why none of them like him, because he actually tells the truth.

  • Ron Paul doesn't run as a GOP candidate because he shares their views. He does so because the people in this country have an apathetic attitude toward third-party candidates which is propagated by proponents of both the republicans and the democrats.

    Ron Paul is demonized because people don't truly understand the potential of libertarianism. To me libertarianism is about giving the citizens of the country a blank slate to create a country that is based in compassion and understanding, but it only works when the citizens of that country have a sense of community and actively practice compassion and understanding. We obviously are not there yet and so candidates like Ron Paul (who are not perfect and subject to mistakes and delusions), are not taken seriously (which is a good thing, as sad as it makes me to say that).

    Did the buddha tell his followers to go FORCE compassion on others because it would make the world a better place? No. He realized that true compassion derives strength from wisdom and that wisdom is only gained from a personal commitment to follow principles that lead to its development.

    You can't effectively legislate morality; it must come from within.
  • He reduces it to money because the entire system revolves around money and that is all most people care about these days. His anti war stance isn't just about money, His health car stance isn't just about money. Whenever people talk about the GOP, they are not talking about Ron Paul. Ron Paul despises the GOP and is constantly telling them they are a bunch of war mongering neocon bafoons, that is why none of them like him, because he actually tells the truth.
    :clap:
  • B5CB5C
    edited September 2011
    Do you really want to support Ron Paul?

    Look at his 2008 Campaign Manager:

    "Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured
    At CNN's Tea Party-indulging debate on Monday, Ron Paul, a medical doctor, faced a pointed line of questioning from Wolf Blitzer regarding the case of an uninsured young man who suddenly found himself in dire need of intensive health care.

    Should the state pay his bills? Paul responded, "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—"

    He never quite finished that point, letting the audience's loud applause finish it for him. So Blitzer pressed on, asking if he meant that "society should just let him die," which earned a chilling round of approving hoots from the crowd. Paul would not concede that much outright, instead responding with a personal anecdote, the upshot being that in such a case, it was up to churches to care for the dying young man. So basically, yeah. He'd let him die.

    As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.
    http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured
    "

    This guy died to a treatable illness! I had Pneumonia when I was in high school and almost died from it. The only thing that saved me was the free healthcare from the US military. If I had the Pneumonia today that I had in high school. I would be suffering and slowly suffocating my self to death.
  • To me libertarianism is about giving the citizens of the country a blank slate to create a country that is based in compassion and understanding, but it only works when the citizens of that country have a sense of community and actively practice compassion and understanding.
    Then why is it that nearly every self-professed Libertarian I've come across seems to be completely lacking in compassion, understanding or a sense of community?
  • @B5C How can anybody support almost anyone in our current government, they continue to support wars that result in the needless death of hundreds of thousand people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) Who said I agreed with his views on health care, anyway? I don't subscribe to accepting all or nothing when evaluating a political candidate. I feel that Ron Paul's economic principles or something similar might get this country back to a position to help its citizens. This is a tough time, there are no easy answers and I am looking for a solution, not a band-aid. Sometimes we will have growing pains, but nobody in the government seems to be willing to acknowledge and embrace this.

    @StaticToybox I hardly think that your "sampling" of libertarians is a true representation and if it is, I apologize in advance for my assumptions. I know there are many greedy people who are attracted to libertarianism because they see a opportunity to take control/advantage: much like communism. I have met many christians who seemingly lack the compassion that most christian sects preach, but that doesn't mean I think that christianity itself is represented by those people. I see many democrats that are lazy and want the government to simply support their laziness, but that doesn't mean that all democrats are lazy. That kind of generalization is what has caused many muslims (and assumed muslims), unjustified suffering because they were bundled in with people who chose to take some pretty extreme actions in the name of a shared religion.

    Also, you will see that I stated that I feel that this country is NOT ready for that level of freedom/responsibility.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran


    As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to
    What is interesting is that the guy that died holds the same opinion. If the government was not interfering in the health care market to begin with, the medical bill would not have been 400k to begin with. The idea that Paul wants people to die in the hospital is simply a smear idea and nothing more. It simply isn't true.


    Also, you will see that I stated that I feel that this country is NOT ready for that level of freedom/responsibility.
    Some people thought the same when the country was first founded. Thomas Jefferson's response "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?"

    The country is even less fit for everyone to be ruled by an elite select few.

  • What is interesting is that the guy that died holds the same opinion. If the government was not interfering in the health care market to begin with, the medical bill would not have been 400k to begin with.


    Actually, if the poor guy lived in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Israel, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Turkey, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand (I could go on...), things would not have gotten so bad for his health and he would not have died. But he lived in the US, which is the ONLY developed nation that still refuses to understand the necessity of universal healthcare and how it benefits society as a whole.

    And as far as money goes:


  • What is interesting is that the guy that died holds the same opinion. If the government was not interfering in the health care market to begin with, the medical bill would not have been 400k to begin with. The idea that Paul wants people to die in the hospital is simply a smear idea and nothing more. It simply isn't true.

    The fact that the guy who died had the same opinion really doesn't mean much.

    I have a friend who is a tea party member. Rails against unions. But belonged to one before retirement. Rails against social security. But happily accepts the check every month, because without it and a very small pension as a former school secretary, she and her handicapped husband would have to...well, she doesn't believe in relief or food stamps or anything like that...guess they'd just have to die. Rails against the interstate highway system. But uses it multiple times per week. Rails against any kind of government health care plan. But had a sister who died after a long battle with multiple forms of cancer and wondered why the government didn't do anything about the state of medical care in the U.S. (And as an aside, is a born again Christian who used to believe that everyone in this forum was going to hell).

    In other words, she's got a big mouth and doesn't live up to a single principle that she espouses.

  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Concept with meaning Samsara Veteran
    To the OP,
    I agree our political situation is a sad state of affairs. We are a society that functions to a large extent out of greed, fear and delusion. Just look around it's not hard to see. If the culture and society as a whole functions at such a level, why would one expect those put in office would be any different? A people gets the government it deserves.
    All the best,
    Todd
  • @B5C How can anybody support almost anyone in our current government, they continue to support wars that result in the needless death of hundreds of thousand people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War)
    That is the problem with the most of our current leaders. The Military Industrial Complex really takes control of everyone. Look in my state I have two democrat politicians who say they oppose the Iraq war and yet continue giving money to the DOD. Why? Their districts are full of US military personnel and companies who make weapons for the US military. They need their votes to continue their job. Also they worry if they cut the military that thousands of people will lose their jobs because our economy is linked to the US military.

    This is why we must get into politics and influence a new generation of leaders. Look at me. I was an ex neo-conservative republican who is now an Democratic Socialist. I will never join the Democratic Socialists of America due to the fact that third parties work, so I decided to become an democrat and influence from the ground up. Thanks to my location that I live in a very progressive area. The local Skagit County Democrats endorses Dennis Kucinich and very good supporters of the Socialist Bernie Sanders.

    Who said I agreed with his views on health care, anyway? I don't subscribe to accepting all or nothing when evaluating a political candidate. I feel that Ron Paul's economic principles or something similar might get this country back to a position to help its citizens. This is a tough time, there are no easy answers and I am looking for a solution, not a band-aid. Sometimes we will have growing pains, but nobody in the government seems to be willing to acknowledge and embrace this.
    This is why I oppose Ron Paul. I like his views on foreign policy, but I really don't like his domestic policy. Capitalism is the worst thing on the planet. Capitalism only brings suffering to the people who can not make it through the system. Right now we are returning to the 1920s where the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer. Do you want a society where altruism reigns or selfishness?

    Ron Paul is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Do you really think you want to live an society where they believe Altruism is evil??






    I can not live in a society where selfishness reigns. I love those social programs I enjoy. I don't want to see them gone.

    We need to get out of capitalism and to something better.



  • Some people thought the same when the country was first founded. Thomas Jefferson's response "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?"

    The country is even less fit for everyone to be ruled by an elite select few.
    I stand corrected. I guess we must never forget why we emancipated ourselves from the king. Read the Declaration of Independence and see if it sounds familiar.
    @B5C I am assuming you meant that third parties don't work? I think it is this attitude that maintains their invalidity. It gives two corrupt groups of people the power over this country.

    Altruism should come freely from us, not forced out of us by government or politicians.

    "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
    "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"
  • We're all connected and in the same ship, whether we are aware of it or not. The whole point of government programs is they benefit society as a whole. It has nothing to do with "forcing" altruism on people, which was Ayn Rand's most beloved red herring.
  • MountainsMountains Moderator
    edited September 2011
    How sad (not to mention reprehensible) is this? This woman *actually* believes that HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Any graduate of 8th grade biology would know that that's impossible, but this person is running for President. Not to mention using a special needs child as a political tool. I fear for the future of human kind.



  • @B5C I am assuming you meant that third parties don't work? I think it is this attitude that maintains their invalidity. It gives two corrupt groups of people the power over this country.

    Altruism should come freely from us, not forced out of us by government or politicians.

    "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
    "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"
    I have worked for third parties before. I was state chairman of the Washington State Whig party for two years. The US system does not work for a third party. Why? The GOP and the Dems will basically take over third party positions. Like how the GOP has taken over the Tea Party. Also we don't get enough money to launch good campaigns.
    http://www.modernwhig.org/


«1
Sign In or Register to comment.