Ron Paul

H

Hydroman

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
147
1. Seems pragmatic. I'm surprised he's made it this long. I like him

2. Never trust a man with two first names
 
I think his plan is fine for smart ,fairly healthy individuals but how will the uneducated who use most of the healthcare figure it out ?
 
He is popular with the internet crowd.

But many don't see him as a viable candidate, if he stays around ($$),
he might have a chance to be a spoiler. He is not the normal religious
right winger, I'd might vote for him.

He was #1 in an ABC poll, but they threw out his results, stating it was
biased by the fore mention internet crowd. Gotta wonder about a
network that throws out results in its own poll because it doesn't like
the result.
TJ
 
I like some of his ideas, especially making every American eligible for an HSA, regardless of what kind of healthplan they have. We need to stop assuming that uneducated people are too stupid to figure out how to save some of their own money for out-of-pocket medical expenses or too stupid to figure out how to take advantage of tax deductions associated with those savings. It's not that complicated....Given the right money-saving incentives, even uneducated people will make an effort to understand how they can save money too. People will naturally gravitate towards higher deductible plans as they figure out that the combination of lower premiums and personal savings results in money-savings, in-general, over time.

I don't think he went into enough detail for most people to understand why his plan would work.

The dems won't like it, because it gives tax credits...(most people who can't afford health insurance in the first place, don't pay much taxes, so the tax credits really aren't of much benefit to them). On the other hand, you have to look at the BIGGER picture. A good portion of the uninsured can actually afford insurance, but choose not to have it. If we can give those people an incentive to purchase, at minimum, catastrophic health insurance coverage, we will bring a lot more healthy people into the risk pool, which results in lower premiums for everyone.

Any plan for reform needs to address those people who will slip through the cracks. Ron Paul's plan doesn't seem to do that. There's got to be some kind of guaranteed issue plan for those who can't medically qualify, and it needs to be accessible and affordable, on a sliding scale, for anyone who might "slip through the cracks". IMO, this plan needs to be either a limited benefit plan or a catastrophic plan (not a full-coverage plan).
 
He appears to be a nutball who will remain a fringe candidate outside his home state. But we got lots of those...
 
As usual, in America we never elect the candidates who make the most sense. Anyone who speaks their convictions and not the political party line(s) are called, crazy, nut cases and other names by seemingly so-called more "intelligent", individuals.
If only enough Americans got off their butts and went to the polls and got rid of the status-quo , republicans/democrats (synonyms) and elected people who are for ALL Americans (not just the rich) we might make this country of ours great.
 
brewer12345 said:
He appears to be a nutball who will remain a fringe candidate outside his home state. But we got lots of those...
Click to expand...

I've seen similar statements made about Paul in the face of mostly positive feedback, and I haven't yet figured out why. I don't know that much about him, but, from what I've read, he seems to be a decently intelligent, non-panderer. Sounds good to me. So, for all those who think he should be wearing a hat made of tin foil, can you please enlighten me? UVA
 
here he is in disguise... Note the similarity !

Note also the similarity to Pat Paulson. Is that a coincidence :confused: You be the judge !

tinfoil.gif
Ron%20Paul_1.jpg
paulsen.jpg
 
Last edited:
UVaOK said:
I've seen similar statements made about Paul in the face of mostly positive feedback, and I haven't yet figured out why.
Click to expand...
A. Some people don't like change
B. Some people don't want to hear the truth or don't care to hear an
opinion that's not their own. This is the reason why Rush, Hannity, etc are
popular.
C. You have to be extreme right/left to win your party's nomination, Paul will have to run as a libertarian, that's why McCain and Giuliani won't get the
republican nomination, bet on Thompson or Romney, versus HC or Obama,
with Edwards trying for VP again (Perfect job for him, he did nothing as a
senator, he could do equally nothing as VP).

Remember Howard Dean, like Paul, he had a strong internet following,
unfortunately, that doesn't translate to votes because outspoken
internet geeks don't vote (this would change if we ever had internet
voting of course). Dean thought about running as an independent but
the Dems stepped in, bribed him not to run by making him the DNC
chairman.

TJ
 
teejayevans said:
A. Some people don't like change
B. Some people don't want to hear the truth or don't care to hear an
opinion that's not their own. This is the reason why Rush, Hannity, etc are
popular.
C. You have to be extreme right/left to win your party's nomination, Paul will have to run as a libertarian, that's why McCain and Giuliani won't get the
republican nomination, bet on Thompson or Romney, versus HC or Obama,
with Edwards trying for VP again (Perfect job for him, he did nothing as a
senator, he could do equally nothing as VP).

Remember Howard Dean, like Paul, he had a strong internet following,
unfortunately, that doesn't translate to votes because outspoken
internet geeks don't vote (this would change if we ever had internet
voting of course). Dean thought about running as an independent but
the Dems stepped in, bribed him not to run by making him the DNC
chairman.
Click to expand...

It's not his occupation of the "political fringe" or long-shot candidacy that I am questioning; I'm fully on board with that. Any non-panderer with more than a modicum of common sense doesn't really stand much of a chance in our flawed system.

It is the less vocal minority who label him a "nutjob" that I am questioning. Thus far, because I haven't encountered any substance to back up such claims, I can only assume they're just the usual ad-hominem attacks. You are, of course, correct in your assertions that some folks don't like change and most don't like to be confronted with contrary political opinions, but this still doesn't explain his "lunatic" and "nutjob" labels.

If the guy has truly proposed some off-the-wall policies, I am more than willing to hear about and be swayed by them; however, not a single instance of this has been forthcoming, and, until it is, I'm not willing to join the "nutjob" bandwagon.
 
Hydroman said:
Ron Paul is Congressman from Texas and a Republican candidate for President. He is also a pediatrian. Even though Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party, he fundamentally is a Libertarian.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The guy is an idiot and he clearly represents his constituents of Texas, probably more so than the current resident of the white house. Hard to believe, yes but there are a lot more where they came from.

If you want the Harry Trumans, John F. Kennedys, FDR's or Bill Clintons - You have to vote Democratic and quit looking under Cesspools for these other losers.
 
Cut-Throat said:
The guy is an idiot and he clearly represents his constituents of Texas, probably more so than the current resident of the white house. Hard to believe, yes but there are a lot more where they came from.

If you want the Harry Trumans, John F. Kennedys, FDR's or Bill Clintons - You have to vote Democratic and quit looking under Cesspools for these other losers.
Click to expand...
Still guzzling the Kool-Aid I see....:D ...
koolaid.gif_thumb.jpg


Satan himself could run and you'd vote for him as long as there was a (D) after his name.
 
Cut-Throat said:
The guy is an idiot and he clearly represents his constituents of Texas, probably more so than the current resident of the white house. Hard to believe, yes but there are a lot more where they came from.

If you want the Harry Trumans, John F. Kennedys, FDR's or Bill Clintons - You have to vote Democratic and quit looking under Cesspools for these other losers.
Click to expand...

I'd be thrilled with HT, JFK, FDR, or even BC, instead the stupid Dems
keep pushing un-electable candidates.

Yep, don't use facts or logic, just name calling, so typical of dems, can't
form a constructive argument.

Dems would have easily won last 2 presidential elections if they didn't
let the far left pick the candidate, didn't learn much from Bill. Of course
if they all "think" like you, guess that explains it.

TJ
 
Cut-Throat said:
The guy is an idiot...
Click to expand...


Why?

I have no problem with ad-hominem attacks so long as they are validly backed by past arguments of substance; so far as I can tell, and, using some of the responses to this thread as an example, those against Ron Paul are not.

Please feel free to read either of my other posts in this thread and offer some follow-up insight into the "idiocy" and "nutjob" status of Ron Paul.

Thanks
 
Hi all

This is a reminder to keep the discussion on Ron Paul and his policies, pro and con.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Paul Revere, Redux
Replies
13
Views
931
MichaelB
MichaelB
MichaelB
Executive announcement to end cost sharing reductions
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
11K
Mr._Graybeard
Mr._Graybeard
MichaelB
  • Locked
Useful links to 2017 Health Care Reform
Replies
0
Views
5K
MichaelB
MichaelB
clifp
The Declaration of Independence
Replies
4
Views
2K
G8tr
G8tr
MichaelB
  • Locked
FAQ Archive on PPACA
Replies
0
Views
10K
MichaelB
MichaelB

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom