Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/13/2007 10:58:57 AM PST by traviskicks
John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on Youth Appeal, Opposition to Medicare, Medicaid
"20/20's" John Stossel interviews Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, exclusively for ABCNEWS.com. Paul wants the government out of health care, and opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and federally mandated children's health insurance. (AP Photo)
Over the last few months, I've heard from hundreds of viewers who said that I should interview unconventional Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. So I did.
In our interview, published exclusively on ABCNEWS.com, we talk about the Iraq war, when war is justified, the proper role of government, immigration, drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, and more.
In this segment, we discuss the 72-year-old Texas congressman's surprising popularity with young people, and then, at greater length, his thoughts on health care. You can watch the full interview here.
Rocking the Youth Vote
Paul's libertarian platform of individual freedom, and freedom from most government regulation, has resonated with young voters.
He's the most Googled presidential candidate, and his videos are the most watched on YouTube. He's a hit on the Internet, a space mostly inhabitated by young voters.
"Freedom is a young idea. Tyranny is an old idea," he told me.
"Young people tend to be more principled, and they like that, and they know I've been dedicated to the principles of the Constitution, and they welcome the idea of somebody that talks about leaving them alone, letting them run their own lives."
Struggle for Health Care
When it comes to one of the thorniest issues in the presidential race — health care — Paul has firsthand experience.
He is an obstetrician-gynecologist who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. In his practice, he never accepted Medicare or Medicaid — the government health insurance programs for the poor and elderly — because he objects to government involvement in health care.
"We've had the government involved in our medical care system since the early '70s, we've had managed care. And all of a sudden, nobody's happy with it," Paul said in our interview.
Paul has even gone as far as taking the lonely position of saying government shouldn't provide health insurance for poor children.
What would happen to those kids under his administration? Paul replied by talking about his early experience as a doctor.
"I worked in a church hospital ... and I was paid $3 an hour in the early 1960s. There was no government insurance. But everybody got taken care of. And nobody was charged."
Paul says that private charity will step in to care for the poor.
"Should we move to, toward a socialized system, or should we look to the marketplace to help us sort out the problems we have in medicine? My argument, of course, is always looking for the answers in the free market, in private choices, and in individuals dealing with those problems, rather than depending on the state."
Opposing Medicare and Medicaid
Paul also opposes Medicare.
I asked him, "How can elderly people be taken care of without a big government program like that?"
"Right now, it's difficult," Paul said, "because we made a whole generation who are too dependent. But the question that we ought to ask is, if we continue to do what we do, how are we going to finance it? There's no funding for Medicare. It's under a greater threat than Social Security.
"Government interferes too often," he argued. "We've become complacent and dependent on the government to protect us, and they fail, and they don't provide the services that they claim."
Paul says government cannot be our guardian and protector.
"The failure of government is becoming more evident than ever before ... the failure of taking care of the victims of Katrina, the failure of the war, the bankruptcy of the Social Security system. The government hasn't protected us from lead in paints ... it just goes on and on."
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
This article is just another bunch of slogans and demagoguery. There is NO program to actually DO anything presented by Paul.
What is Paul’s plan of action?
Does he want to get government out of the business of licensing physicians, and requiring medical schools to be accredited?
That is really where the biggest bottleneck is. Not enough physicians because of the licensure and accredidation retrictions.
ping
I asked him, "How can elderly people be taken care of without a big government program like that?"
"Right now, it's difficult," Paul said, "because we made a whole generation who are too dependent. But the question that we ought to ask is, if we continue to do what we do, how are we going to finance it? There's no funding for Medicare. It's under a greater threat than Social Security
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a response to that simple question.
Interesting idea, but easier said than done. If the government pulls the plug on Medicare, I want all of my contributions back, compounded for all the years they have had them. And I want them to make good with my former employer, who adjusted my retirement policies over many years under the assumption that medicare was going to kick in.
I think it’s not too late to pull the plug on Bush’s recent and very stupid medicare prescription plan. Rational employers continue to offer better, less expensive alternatives in their retirement plans, though no doubt some employers have drunk the koolaid. But getting out from under Medicare is another matter entirely.
That’s the problem with socialist interference. Once done, it’s very difficult to undo. You can’t just stamp your foot and declare it out of existence. It’s like Russia after 70 years of Communism. You can’t easily just start over, with a wrecked economy, a surviving Apparat of KGB agents, and a population mostly stupified by vodka. It’s not easy to fix.
I'd rather have no plan rather than the abortion of a boondoggle Bush's Medicare shenanigans turned out to be.
Best way to flummox a Paulbot is to ask them about a plan...
“This article is just another bunch of slogans and demagoguery.”
Much like the majority of your posts......
I don’t understand how conservatives can read this, understand his message, and still post such vile things about him. Dr. Paul IS conservatism.
I’m NOT a fan of Paul’s, but he is right this issue, at least the part of getting Government out of Healthcare where Government should never have been in the first place. I think the transition from Government meddling to Free Market policies is what really needs to be addressed, and then do it.
Get Government out of Healthcare. It’s to Politicians’ a huge pot of gold to play Pol games with.
Ron Paul is to conservatism as Fred Phelps is to the Bible.
Was that vile enough?
Wish I could remember who said that first, I’d like to give credit.
“Young people tend to be more principled...”
Fascinating quote. I think he’s right.
I asked him, “How can elderly people be taken care of without a big government program like that?”
“Right now, it’s difficult,” Paul said, “because we made a whole generation who are too dependent. But the question that we ought to ask is, if we continue to do what we do, how are we going to finance it? There’s no funding for Medicare. It’s under a greater threat than Social Security”
“What is Paul’s plan of action?”
As you can see from the above response, he has none. How anyone can possibly think that this maroon is presidential material I will never know. Oh wait, I take that back. There are people who will fall for anything....Scientology, 9/11 conspiracies, alian abductions.....so why not Ron Paul?
That would be a good start. I'd want my payments for care that were elevated due to cost shifting too.
At least Paul has the BALLS to say what he has said. The Dems just have different plans to socialize medicine quickly or slowly, while the Republicans will only tinker with our present system. You may view Paul as an outlier, which he probably is, but some of his ideas, if they get some traction and are found spark some popularity, I guarantee will become standard conversative running-planks in 4 or 8 years.
At least Paul has the BALLS to say what he has said. The Dems just have different plans to socialize medicine quickly or slowly, while the Republicans will only tinker with our present system. You may view Paul as an outlier, which he probably is, but some of his ideas, if they get some traction and are found spark some popularity, I guarantee will become standard conversative running-planks in 4 or 8 years.
“I don’t understand how conservatives can read this, understand his message, and still post such vile things about him. Dr. Paul IS conservatism.”
There are not many conservatives left in the Republican Party.
See ‘On the Paper Trail with Ron Paul’ for a perfect example of what happens when you ask simple questions, let alone ‘plans’....(chuckle)
No argument, but right now, we are seeing political suicide in action. It may damage the Republicans in the long run.
I guarantee will become standard Conservative running-planks in 4 or 8 years.
With the increase of Baby Bloomers are getting on the Medicare Bandwagon it will be akin to playing with dynamite. This is one beast you have to kill by small increments.
IMHO the biggest reason health care is as expensive as it is is twofold Free health care to Illegal aliens and trial lawyers.
First legit thing I’ve heard him say in some time now.
Principled disagreement is one thing, but the pure hatred is just irrational and not at all constructive.
While there haven’t been any plans proposed by Ron Paul, it is refreshing to see these *ideas* advocated on the MSM without derision (I think we can thank Stossel for that)
My problem with Ron Paul is that I agree with him totally on about 85% of what he says, but I disagree with him SO MUCH on the other 15% that I just cannot vote for him.
You’re right about that. Ron Paul threads and Catholic threads seem to unleash nearly the same amount of vitriol.
Under the current law retired military personnel are placed on Medicare rosters once they turn retirement age.
Careful when using that term with some PaulPots. They'll assume you're referring to a car.
It’s too bad he’s a RINO moonbat when it comes to the War on Terror.
“There is NO program to actually DO anything presented by Paul.”
Still stuck on government programs, eh? The only answer is a government program spending money, right?
How about removing the government BS that is in the medical industry. How about eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, and HIPAA? How about removing insurance regualtions that cause higher insurance premiums. How about forbidding foreign medical students for awhile. NONE of these things require a “program” or spending.
I was waiting on that...;-)
Yes, young people are principled, but they can afford to be.
It is easy to say “kill Medicare” when you haven’t spent years paying into it. It is much harder after you’ve been forced to contribute $100K into Medicare and somebody else blithely wants you to accept a $100K loss. That’s a lot of sacrifice those young people want from me.
As with retired Federal civil service personnel, those who do not qualify for care by the VA should be offered a means, perhaps a cash settlement, by which they can acquire health insurance in the marketplace. The Federal government should keep its commitments to its retired personnel, civilian or military.
Now you have presented a good idea...."A promise made is a promise kept"
Sorry I spoiled your fun :)
Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.
**The good doctors idea for taxes is to get rid of the IRS, remember? So, what is he going to have us post a tax credit against if there is no tax being paid?
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).
**This takes the assumption that ALL employers give employees the option to put money away in FSA accounts. They don’t and can not be forced to.
C. Makes every American eligible for an Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies.
**Who would be paying for this HSA? If a person can not afford insurance in the first place, how are they going to put additional money aside?
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
**Redundant. If there is no income tax, what are you going to deduct it against?
Please don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t looking at your post as statement of right or wrong, I was more into wishfully thinking about a real contender for the Presidency advocating withdrawal from the Free Market.
“...He needs the help of Congress.”
A President can accomplish considerably that which he intends to do if he has the people of this Nations’ support to trump the Congress. Preferably a sane Congress, not the likes of the radical Leftist/RINO’s of today whom would fight those that elected them.
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.
100% tax credit is socialized medicine.
The large number of Boomers who already have paid into the system and now deserve to get something back...It's like walking on thin ice...Tread very carefully.
Why do we need a GOVERNMENT plan???? That’s 99% of what’s wrong in this country... way too many folks want a GOVERNMENT plan to fix things. How about we just get government OUT OF THE WAY and let PEOPLE resolve their own issues? Wouldn’t that be how this nation was FOUNDED?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.