Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Aug 6, 2009.
Rand Paul is running for US Senate.
Would you support him?
Without a doubt I will be voting for him in the Republican Primary and General Election if he wins.
and what would be your reason for doing so?
Few realize that Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), the companies that drive a wedge between the patient and his doctor, were a product of federal legislation and special interests. The HMO Act of 1973 essentially granted unfair privileges to certain sorts of companies and led to a distortion of the market. This has caused higher prices, less coverage, and more bureaucracy.
This is what happens when Washington manages health care.
By driving up costs the government makes it virtually impossible for the needy in this country to buy coverage. But this was not the case before government intervention. Just as very few in this country go without shoes or food so too would few go without health care if it weren’t for the government.
The HMO Act arose from big businesses unfairly seeking to use government power to solidify their profits. Government should not have this power.
I don't see why this part of history is utterly ignored. God bless his Senate run.
History lesson anyone?
The interesting part? These hearings were held in 1971 and produced the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-222), also known as the HMO Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 300e
38 years later and we once again Washington is bantering, to use Sen. Kennedy's words, "...a drastic overhaul of our entire way of doing business in the health-care field in order to solve the financing and organizational aspects of our health crisis."
Because he is the closest thing in our state to someone running for office who believes in running this nation by the Constitution, and puts a dent in the Demcratic-Republican axis of evil.
Here is some of his views.
Paul is a critic of the Federal Reserve, the Patriot Act, the federal government's bailout of Wall Street, and the erosion of civil liberties. Like his father, he supports significantly smaller government and balanced budgets, and opposes the Department of Education, the war in Iraq, and the federal income tax. He encourages legislators to pledge not to raise taxes, and fought the failed plan to raise hotel taxes in Kentucky in 2000.. On abortion, Paul has said that he would "introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states," and he is also supportive of term limits for politicians.
Paul is also involved in health care reform. In a 2007 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, "True reform would require an infusion of ethics, something that can't be taught or purchased".
I heard him interview on the Power Hour/Joyce Riley out of Missouri.
He had a great interview, as I would judge it.
He is not quite as soft spoken as his father.... but seems to have his humility..... uncertain about his confidence and boldness..... and more certain that he doesnot reflect his father's experience and knowledge..... which should be no surprise. He does seem to have very similar values..... adherrance to the constitution and its limitation upon government. He is a physcian.... which means....years and hours have been spent in school and with patients which means..... no matter how devoted a person is.... there is a bit of green regarding politics and knowledge in some areas. All politicians who are just entering this.... unless they have people within the party pushing, mentoring them, and guarding and limiting access..... will struggle with those who find the weaknesses and then use these minor areas where one could catch up..... to break them down and make them go away. I hope he doesn't go away. I think he would be a good choice for his state and hope the people will elect him. I think his dad ....... and a few others in the House, would be encouraged by seeing numbers added to their strengths.... and voices to their cries.
I don't live in Kentucky, but if I did I would not vote for Paul, one is enough!
Name recognition counts for a lot. I always said that if Dubya was named Bob Smith, he never would have even been governor of Texas. Americans do have their royal families...Kennedys, Bushes,Udalls, Romneys and it looks like the Pauls want to join in that club.
I'm afraid he will be like his daddy and be all against earmarks, then put his own in the bill. Sounds hypocritical to me.
whats hypocritical is you know nothing about him, yet judge him based on someone else, having nothing so far to judge him on his own.
Thus the words, "I'm afraid..."
Please notice I did not say "He would..." like the lies the republicans tell about the ramifications of national health care.
Please contrast these lies with the truth.
I'd also like him to list Ron Paul's "earmarks" and contrast them with John Murtha's.
So Ron is the lesser of two evils?
Lets not get Mr. Paul a Washington addy just yet. He has to get past Trey Grayson before he ever reaches the General Election.
No small task there.
Do the comparisons. Do some research. All earmarks are not bad.
he doesn't know what the truth is.
The great majority of people don't know what the truth is these days.
No you do not live in Kentucky, and for that I can shout Amen. You do not have a clue(imagine that) as to what the man stands for, which is not surprising, since you have no idea what you stand for.