Here's where we fundamentally disagree in philosophy and practical strategy. Those who are for Bush's massive expansion of socialized medicine, and yet claim to be for free markets or limited goverment, don't have a leg to stand on either morally or pragmatically.
Paul doesn't "ignore it" anything at all, at least compared to his critics. To the contrary, those who vote for more socialized mediine in the name of avoiding "something worse" are ignoring the obvious of realities of how government generally grows e.g. incrementally and insideously.
By choosing to throw half a towel in the ring rather than the whole towel, the defenders of the Bush plan are showing themselves to be strategic babes in the woods. If you want evidence, please note tht despite their "pragmatic" plan, the country is plunging headlong toward socialized medicine faster than ever before.
This administration inherited a Medicare/Medicaid system that covered physician services and hospitalization fees, but not prescription medication.
The uncovered status of prescription medication was the main argument the Left had in favor of a completely socialized, Canada-style health system. This was the issue that they could use to get the powerful senior citizen voting block to accept a National Health Service.
The prescription drug benefit eviscerated healthcare as a front burner issue for senior voters.
The Left will continue to push for a National Health Service, of course, but a key voting bloc they were counting on has now been largely neutralized.
It was a strategic move, not an ideological embrace of socialism.