I have a serious inquiry here. There seems to be a lot of Paul supporters around. Paul seems to advocate a limited government, yet in the recent debate, he said (Interrupted by Wolf Blitzer, imagine that):Those of you who are familiar with his policies, I have this question: given the highlighted area above, and Paul's staments and his implied agreement with Maher that we need universal health care, how does this gel with a limited government framework?
I honestly seek to understand here, not to quibble or start a Paul bashing or praise-fest.
Debate: Ron Paul and education/health care
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by TomVols, Jun 7, 2007.
-
By the way, here is the link to the debate transcript http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/politics/05cnd-transcript.html?pagewanted=26&_r=1
-
Ron Paul is starting to learn how to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He is a politician first, his convictions come second. The most important issue to me is still the fight against those who want to kill Americans. Electing a pacifist isnt going change their minds. It is only going to make their job easier. I am seriously concerned about the next election.
-
I noticed those comments as well Tom and I would've desired that Congressman Paul have more time to elaborate on that statement (notice that when the topic of health care was addressed, they didn't ask the one Dr. on the stage for his input).
Below would be more detailed explanations of some of his healthcare views...
- The Federal War on Pain Relief
- Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
- Free Trade in Pharmaceuticals
- Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto
- Lowering the Cost of Health Care
-
I knew what he meant when he said it during the debate, but I wish he would have said it differently.
He was referring back to the previous questions asked about healthcare and such, to which he was not asked to respond earlier.
The Republican candidates don't seem to understand, if you want any kind of government programs for healthcare/education for children, stop spending all your money in Iraq. I don't agree with the government doing such here, but it seems contradictory to me for people to complain about not having enough money to spend, on anything (healthcare included) here, when we are spending so much elsewhere.
The healthcare questions are on pages 20 and 21 of the transcript. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I think his approach of limited government, along with his immigration position would cure the health care system. We spend way, way too much on free health care for illegal aliens. A return to personal responsibility and non-interferance is what we need.
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html
Oh wait, that might be a "neocon" site.......:laugh: Sorry. -
Having looked at Paul's website, and at his ideas and policies, and history, I have to say that I think electing him would be a mistake. Why? Two main reasons:
1. He is an isolationist. If America had remained isolationist during WWII Britain would have been overrun by the Nazis. I am not saying that America should be the world's policeman, or that it has to intervene in every dispute. But pulling up the drawbridge will only harm America in the long term.
2. I think he is too old and too far from the centre for the American electorate. Hi idea to abolish the IRS and Income Tax, to reduce social security, to in effect, introduce a wholly libertarian state, simply won't work, and is too extreme for most Americans. While I agree in a smaller state and less taxation, Income Tax is there for a reason.
Of course, as a Briton I have no vote, but as a big fan of the US, I want to see someone who is less of a libertarian in the White House. -
Most of Americans are not as "centered" in the spectrum as many would think. On social issues, probably more so than on fiscal issues. Most Americans do want smaller government, do hate the I.R.S., and do agree there is far too much corruption and pork-barrel spending in Washington. Those are (or used to be, anyway) right wing stances.
You're right that making a completely libertarian state overnight would not work. Dr. Paul acknowledges such. This is something that is going to take time to wean Americans off of the bottle that politicians have let sit in their mouths for so many years. Getting started is the key. If Americans get used to the idea that the government will leave them alone and let them live their own lives with their own money, they might just begin to like it again. Once upon a time this country enjoyed that type of life.
I really don't care what the name of the next President is, but I want them to actually follow the Constitution. That necessitates that the President believe in the libertarian principle of Constitutional law.