Paul pressed to explain AIDS claims

[slipnslide]

Paul pressed to explain AIDS claims (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/01/ron-paul-aids-patients-victimize-country-109238.html)


“I don't know how you can change science,” Paul answered. “Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sexual activity. That’s been known for some 400 or 500 years, how these diseases are spread. If a fault comes with people because of their personal behavior, and in a free society, people do dumb things, but it isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people. Why should they have to pay for the consequences? That’s a sort of a nationalistic or socialistic attitude.”

Paul later clarified that AIDS patients should rely on the free market and private insurance to pay for their medical care rather than on the government.

I imagine his thoughts on this get a fair amount of traction in the US. His opinion is very matter of fact though - if someone contracts an STI is it up to everyone else to pay for that burden?

Or does the public health risk trump associated costs of someone else's promiscuity?

Would it change STI infection rates if people were suddenly faced with the risk of assuming the costs of their actions?

In a Ron Paul America you would likely have to declare your sexuality so the insurance company could calculate your risk factor and associated premium - and if they discovered you lied you would lose your coverage.

I've considered in the past whether smokers and people with poor diets should be subsidized by me for their behaviour when their health deteriorates. This is another twist on that.

[drugstore cowboy]

Ron Paul is an idiot and is just showing how out of touch with reality he is about HIV and other STDs, and healthcare and HIV medications.

I am not HIV+ but my friends who are or were when they were alive who had insurance were all dropped by their insurance companies once the insurance company found out they were HIV+.

Even those who were able to keep their insurance were still not able to afford the highly expensive HIV meds.

[Long Duck Dong]

being a new zealander, the antics of US politicians are something I generally do not bother with...... but having seen the way the system treated my sister and her partner when they were both diagnosed with HIV, I can only say it was one eye opening experience....

over here we have a publically funded health care system paid for by the tax payer, and it covers hiv+ people, but within that system there was ( and still is ) a *avoid the leper * type attitude towards people with incurable / terminal contagious diseases.......

insurance companies will do ANYTHING to avoid paying out or to limit their liabilities and maximizing their profits and health insurance companies are no different.... having to declare your sexuality is something that they are not able to do, unless our privacy and anti discrimination laws, but if you ended up with hiv, they would do their best to find a way to claim that you did not disclose something that showed you had a increased risk....

as a smoker I am one of the few people in NZ that actually pay for my health care thru taxes, as the latest increase in taxes on ciggies, raised the price to $21 for a pack of 30 cigs..... and its estimated that a person like me could save $5-6000 dollars a year if I was to stop smoking, the cost of treating me for smoking related issues would cost the country $50k ....
I only have to smoke for 10 years to *pay* for my health care in taxes....so I look at it from the point of view, that as long as I do not develop a smoking related illness, I am funding the sports players and drinking drivers that do not cover their health care.... and also the people that have unsafe sex and get HIV.......

[Pasadenacpl2]

Ron Paul has a point from a financial standpoint. Why should everyone else pay for the results of other people's private decisions? Now, this is speaking in general terms and not accounting for rape or blood transfusions with tainted blood (almost non-existent, but I suppose still possible). It's pretty safe to say that, in today's society with the safeguards available, if you get HIV you were either negligent or raped. I shouldn't have to pay for your negligence.

As for the free market or private insurance, this too is born out by basic economic theory. In fact, if more people went on the free market and stopped relying on insurance, the rates for almost all medical services (and drugs) would fall drastically. That's basic supply and demand (with a healthy does of removing the middle man). The problem here is that you get people using emotional data points (my friend with HIV is suffering) that get in the way of considering the potential impact using real data.

Obamacare screwed this up, for the record. I don't approve of any socialized medicine, personally. BUT,if we were going to do it, we should have gone all the way and just socialized the entire thing. What we have now is a monstrosity guaranteed to benefit no one (but the insurance companies) and abosolutely kill the middle class (what remains of it).

As for Paul, of the Republican candidates, the's the one liberals should actually embrace. He wants to curb military spending, bring the troops home, and get the government out of our bedrooms (as well as getting it out of the boardrooms). He's also the only one who is consistent. What he said in 1990 is pretty much what he says now in regards to the role of government, fiscal responsibility. And while he doesn't agree with gay marriage, he is at least far more consistent and logical in his approach (he doesn't like it, but doesn't feel it's the federal government's job to regulate it, either).

The above is only a critique of Paul in comparison to the other Republican candidates. A comparison with the president would take a much more in-depth analysis (which would actually show why liberals should abandon President Obama, who is much different than candidate Obama).

Pasa



Pasa

[æonpax]

Considering all the clowns running in the republican primary, at first glance, Paul appears somewhat sane. However, looks can be deceiving. I agree with him on his anti-war stance and in regards to dismantling the FED, but not the rest of his platform.


He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act,
privatize public education,
abolish Social Security,
kill Medicare,
re-establish DADT,
eliminate public housing,
abolish federal student loans,
strongly opposes extending federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples,
kill Planned Parenthood,
end the Departments of Energy and Education and the EPA,
abolish the minimum wage,
end affirmative action,
disagrees with equal pay for women,
want's to institute states rights over Federal rights
and wants to end FEMA.

He is a dangerous individual who believes in mixing religion and government. Ron Paul would allow fundamentalist Christians to control the government, the very people who would end the personal liberties he claims to fight for.

[DuckiesDarling]

Solution is really simple and can be summed in one word:



http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ShowImage.aspx_.gif

[darkeyes]

Lets get it right... governments pay for bugger all.. we pay..the taxpayers.. what governments do is allocate our tax payments to the various functions for which it is responsible and administer those functions...

I have written more than once about the NHS and for all it's faults and the faults of other publicly funded health services in Europe and elsewhere is a vastly superior system to anything u have in the states, where even the poorest can receive state of the art health care without going into financial hardship.

It has saved my life more than once, including the day I was born, and has treated me and millions of others for ailments of various different kinds and helped us remain as healthy as we can be. Yes it has its faults, and care in some areas is better and more advanced than in others. Also once again a right wing government is trying to place it's future in jeopardy, but dare not announce its demise because it's future as a government would be very bleak indeed...

The health service in the UK and elsewhere is funded by us, through national insurance payments we pay throughout our working lives, not to private companies, but to a publicly owned and run service for the good of every man woman and child in this country from cradle to grave. We may pay in insurance payments to the NHS more than the value of treatment we get back, but we are just as likely to not.. few quibble with that because they know it is insurance and it is insurance with no upper limit on treatment costs and no one can tell what the future will bring.

Any system as vast and complex as the NHS will have shortcomings and there will be and are negligences and inadequacies of treatment by health authorities just as there are in private systems.. but by and large it is a loved institution which the nation would not do without and is responsible certainly for keeping me alive and as well as I am but also millions of other Britons many of whom, were it not for the NHS would long since have perished or at the very least be in far less good health than they are today and still suffering from many debilitating illnesses which would have made there lives far more miserable than they are now..

.. and lets not forget the NHS provides ante and post natal care, midwives, facilities and support for women to give birth, and health treatment of all kinds to those children throughout their lives.

Government pays for none of this... we do.. we pay out insurance for many things we may not ever collect upon.. there arent many more important things to pay insurance on than our own and our childrens health.. and u know what? We dont even have to sign up for it.. it is there when we need it... and Christ, I have needed it on more than one occasion in my life, my parents have and my brother and sister, our children... little things mostly, but not all... certainly not in my case because of serious ill health, or my mothers, Kate's or my sister in law who have all had children... and none of us were ever presented with bill.. our National Insurance payments cover it all..

It is the one function of government more than any other, that I do not grudge one single penny of my taxes being spent on..

[Diva667]

I read an article concerning this: "Ayn Rand and the Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned to Stop Loving My Neighbor and Despise Them Instead.’" (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/30/ayn-rand-and-the-sociopathic-society-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-loving-my-neighbor-and-despise-them-instead/)




Ayn Rand and the Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned to Stop Loving My Neighbor and Despise Them Instead.’
December 30, 2011
By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario


A fat, smug bastard friend of mine (that’s his chosen nickname, The FSB) pointed out to me some time ago that pretty much ALL conservative politics are selfish at their core. Take any conservative position on a social or economic issue and boil away all the rhetoric and what you are left with is “I got mine, screw you.
I thought about that for a while. I suppose its simplicity struck me as being a little too easy, a little too sound bitey. So I sat down and made a list:

* No gay marriage – Homosexuality makes me uncomfortable (due to misguided religious influence or poor upbringing or both) so gay people should be punished because of my beliefs. Stoopid homos…
* No welfare, food stamps or Medicaid – I’m not poor enough to qualify for these programs so my tax dollars shouldn’t pay for it. Stoopid poor people and by poor I really mean black…
* No health care reform – Why should I help pay for other people who are sick when I’m not? Stoopid sick people…
* No environmental protection – Environmental laws makes things more expensive for me and that’s bad. I also don’t understand the concept of long term impact; I want cheap gas and gadgets now! Stoopid…ah, you get the idea…
* Don’t raise my taxes – EVER. The government can find its own money to pay for stuff.
* Medicare – Young conservatives: Why should I help pay for old people and the disabled? Older conservatives: Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
* Social Security – Young conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made, people should take care of themselves, not depend on handouts from people like me. Older conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made BUT DON’T YOU TOUCH MY SOCIAL SECURITY!
* No abortion – The government should tell women what to do with their bodies because I don’t like abortion.
* No prayer in school? – GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!! I like The Jesus™ so everyone should have to listen to my prayers. No Muslim prayers, though. That’s indoctrination.
”

Pretty much sums up Ron Paul, with the addition of taking away any $$ from the DOD.

PS: so·ci·o·path   [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] noun Psychiatry .
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

[keefer201]

Paul pressed to explain AIDS claims (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/01/ron-paul-aids-patients-victimize-country-109238.html)



I imagine his thoughts on this get a fair amount of traction in the US. His opinion is very matter of fact though - if someone contracts an STI is it up to everyone else to pay for that burden?

Or does the public health risk trump associated costs of someone else's promiscuity?

Would it change STI infection rates if people were suddenly faced with the risk of assuming the costs of their actions?

In a Ron Paul America you would likely have to declare your sexuality so the insurance company could calculate your risk factor and associated premium - and if they discovered you lied you would lose your coverage.

I've considered in the past whether smokers and people with poor diets should be subsidized by me for their behaviour when their health deteriorates. This is another twist on that.

I'm not sure why you care what goes on in America as you're from Canada. Our hospitals are filled with Canadians seeking treatments. As for what Darkeyes suggests about the poor getting healthcare here in the U.S. luffly one, not a single person is turned down for care when they show up at a clinic or ER. And you are right, we the tax payers, and insurance holders, pay for that care. I believe that is the right thing to do.....to an extent. With an ever growing population and a declining tax base, where is this money coming from? To the question of insurance companies charging higher premiums to ciggy smokers, rock climbers, pilots and other high risk jobs or habits; what would they do if a person were known to be involving themselves in risky sexual behaviors? I think to put this to bed, we need not to worry about Ron Paul becoming President, and especially if you aren't a citizen of these United States.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Considering all the clowns running in the republican primary, at first glance, Paul appears somewhat sane. However, looks can be deceiving. I agree with him on his anti-war stance and in regards to dismantling the FED, but not the rest of his platform.


He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act,
privatize public education,
abolish Social Security,
kill Medicare,
re-establish DADT,
eliminate public housing,
abolish federal student loans,
strongly opposes extending federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples,
kill Planned Parenthood,
end the Departments of Energy and Education and the EPA,
abolish the minimum wage,
end affirmative action,
disagrees with equal pay for women,
want's to institute states rights over Federal rights
and wants to end FEMA.

He is a dangerous individual who believes in mixing religion and government. Ron Paul would allow fundamentalist Christians to control the government, the very people who would end the personal liberties he claims to fight for.


Almost none of this is true (and the ones that are are stated in a way that is skewed from reality). I don't know where you got your talking points are, but they aren't true in the least.

Pasa

[æonpax]

Almost none of this is true (and the ones that are are stated in a way that is skewed from reality). I don't know where you got your talking points are, but they aren't true in the least.
Pasa

Fair enough, here are two sources:

1) http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/ron-pauls-newsletters-tweeted.html - Now I'll admit these can be fake but the RP Team has not disavowed them. Multiple sources here.

2) http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/05/16-ron-paul-quotes-that-prove-he-is-not-a-liberal/ - This site sums RP up for me.

If these articles contain lies or distortions, which ones? I'm not against Ron Paul as much as I am against the "flavor of the week" GOP candidates he's running with. I can live with a RP presidency, not so his running mates.

[slipnslide]

I'm not sure why you care what goes on in America as you're from Canada. Our hospitals are filled with Canadians seeking treatments.

I don't care, I think it's funny. Hilarious in fact.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Fair enough, here are two sources:

1) http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/ron-pauls-newsletters-tweeted.html - Now I'll admit these can be fake but the RP Team has not disavowed them. Multiple sources here.

2) http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/05/16-ron-paul-quotes-that-prove-he-is-not-a-liberal/ - This site sums RP up for me.

If these articles contain lies or distortions, which ones? I'm not against Ron Paul as much as I am against the "flavor of the week" GOP candidates he's running with. I can live with a RP presidency, not so his running mates.

The first one I have no idea...not really relevant to our current discussion.

The second one is an example of cherrypicking and then providing "context" in many cases. Example:


4. “You don’t have a right to a house, you don’t have a right to a job, you don’t have a right to medical care.”
~Ron Paul, saying that Americans have no right to have jobs and health care.

While yes, this is what he's saying, it is not the whole of what he is saying. He isn't saying "you don't have a right to seek and acquire employment" as it is appearing in the "context". He is saying that you don't deserve to have a job merely because you were born. You gain one and keep one based upon the merits you build for yourself. He's saying that healthcare is not a right, you pay for it (and, we have a very delineated group of rights, and healthcare isn't anywhere in there). From a constitutional standpoint, he's right on both counts. But the "context" would paint it otherwise.


6. “Technically, they [Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid] are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from?"... ~Ron Paul, saying he would get rid of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid during a GOP Presidential Debate.

He did not say he would get rid of them. Well, at least not in the manner that it was painted. If you go further in the text of that debate, he went on to state that he has a plan that ensures two things: First, the solvency for those people who have already paid in and are owed benefits, and second: a method for young people to opt out and find better ways to take care of their retirements. Neither of those things are getting rid of SS. It's changing it to come into alignment with the Constitution.

RP's stance is that even if it's a good idea, if the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to do something, they should leave their damn hands off it.

As for the rest of the GOP slate: what a bunch of maroons. The only other one I can stomach is Gingrich, and that's because he's just about brilliant. Read his books on George Washington and the Civil War. I oppose him on a few issues, but overall Gingrich would be better than any of them, but Paul. I say this now, and I mean it (and those of you who know me know how much I can't stand Obama). If the GOP nominates anyone but Paul or Gingrich (preferably both on the same ticket) I will vote for Obama.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

I don't care, I think it's funny. Hilarious in fact.

Dont know for sure but know sevral Americans who live 'ere partly cos of the NHS... why wud we go to the richest country in the world to receive some of the worst treatment of ne developed country? Some of the best too... but we havta have the dosh b4 we can get it... richest country on the planet and down round 40th in terms of health treatment? Wow.. the UK isnt the best but it is a bloody sight betta than that.. an only 2 countries spend more per head on health? Jeeez.. dusnt the US do well.... an no1 thats poor is denied treatment? Dont think so.... certainly dont think they get the same treatment as the non poor.... and here am not talkin of the rich... if they did the US wudn be down bout the bottom of the developed world in health care...in infant mortality...or in life expectancy... think bout it...

[darkeyes]

The first one I have no idea...not really relevant to our current discussion.

The second one is an example of cherrypicking and then providing "context" in many cases. Example:



While yes, this is what he's saying, it is not the whole of what he is saying. He isn't saying "you don't have a right to seek and acquire employment" as it is appearing in the "context". He is saying that you don't deserve to have a job merely because you were born. You gain one and keep one based upon the merits you build for yourself. He's saying that healthcare is not a right, you pay for it (and, we have a very delineated group of rights, and healthcare isn't anywhere in there). From a constitutional standpoint, he's right on both counts. But the "context" would paint it otherwise.



He did not say he would get rid of them. Well, at least not in the manner that it was painted. If you go further in the text of that debate, he went on to state that he has a plan that ensures two things: First, the solvency for those people who have already paid in and are owed benefits, and second: a method for young people to opt out and find better ways to take care of their retirements. Neither of those things are getting rid of SS. It's changing it to come into alignment with the Constitution.

RP's stance is that even if it's a good idea, if the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to do something, they should leave their damn hands off it.

As for the rest of the GOP slate: what a bunch of maroons. The only other one I can stomach is Gingrich, and that's because he's just about brilliant. Read his books on George Washington and the Civil War. I oppose him on a few issues, but overall Gingrich would be better than any of them, but Paul. I say this now, and I mean it (and those of you who know me know how much I can't stand Obama). If the GOP nominates anyone but Paul or Gingrich (preferably both on the same ticket) I will vote for Obama.

Pasa

support ne right wing candidate u support the shit that got the world in2 the mess it is... good one Pasa....

[Pasadenacpl2]

Umm...Fran? News flash: the US, even the right wingers, are not responsible for the world being in the mess it's in. Do they contribute? Sure, just as much as left wingers, Muslim extremists, EU monetary theorists, terrorists, dictators, presidents, Germans, French, British, Japanese, Chinese manufacturing, Walmart, and the list goes on and on and on.

When one paints with such a brush as to say the sorts of ideological tripe you said, one dismisses the possibility of rational and reasoned debate on topics of government.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

Umm...Fran? News flash: the US, even the right wingers, are not responsible for the world being in the mess it's in. Do they contribute? Sure, just as much as left wingers, Muslim extremists, EU monetary theorists, terrorists, dictators, presidents, Germans, French, British, Japanese, Chinese manufacturing, Walmart, and the list goes on and on and on.

When one paints with such a brush as to say the sorts of ideological tripe you said, one dismisses the possibility of rational and reasoned debate on topics of government.

Pasa

Not my political ideology that got us into the shit we r in babes,,, giveya nowt out of 100 for perception...

[falcondfw]

In a Ron Paul America, we would be totally weak kneed and lily livered and would be cowtowing to world opinion for our foreign policy. Our military, which has kept us and our ideals safe for so long, would be gutted.
Ron Paul makes TREMENDOUS sense when it comes to fiscal policy and size of government, but his foreign and military policy will prevent him from EVER being elected.

[DuckiesDarling]

Okay let me explain this for those of you that are not Americans and don't really have a clue how our medical system works.

First, no hospital may deny anyone treatment for reasons of not having insurance or failure to pay if they come to ER with a lifethreatening condition.

A doctor's office can refuse to see a patient due to not being able to pay.

Big difference.

Here we have programs that will help people who do not have insurance. Most hospitals have a fund that will actually pay for facility costs, doctors do work with patients as long as they honestly try to do something about a bill.

Then you have a few privileged that are actually poor enough to enjoy the insurance provided by the government. It's limited, you have only so many visits for things that are not emergency treatments and you have to be pretty much at the end of your rope and have kids to qualify for it. One of the big questions they ask if you are pregnant because being pregnant means you are automatically covered.

We do not have national health care, honestly I don't know if it's better or worse. At least here the hospitals actually treat the person not the pocketbook and that is why we do not have an infant mortality rate of a third world country.

Now since this thread is about AMERICAN stuff my first response still stands. You don't like Ron Paul, get off your ass and exercise your right to vote.

[dafydd]

It's pretty safe to say that, in today's society with the safeguards available, if you get HIV you were either negligent or raped. I shouldn't have to pay for your negligence.



Pasa


It's pretty safe to say that your statement there is beyond doubt, complete nonsense. I shouldn't have to pay for your negligence of thought, but somehow I feel I do.
A lot of infections are spread by people not knowing they are infected. people who get infected aren't always crazy insane, life gambling types, whacked out on drugs, throwing condoms to the wind... and even if they were...no one wants to get infected.

What's with this cold brutal view on welfare? Im guessing this guys from a country without an national health care service. Do u hear a lot of that kind of talk in America? You don't tend to hear it here, where everyone benefits at some point in their life from the taxes of others: and usually on their risky, negligent, deserved behaviour. It's called the NHS and being a fallable human being.

but hey, here are some more people that were negligent and should not be paid for!
"why pay for medical care for kids who get run over playing ball in the road?"
"why should i pay to treat people with cancer from passive smoking?"
"why should i pay for people who are victims of plane/train disasters?"

they all knew the risks: the road, the smoky bars, the notion of flight

of course those are ridiculous... but what this is really about is not opposition to pay for people who are negligent, (otherwise why not cite the examples above). What it is about, is people who are opposed to paying for others' problems when they do something they believe is immoral.

It's when personal, subjective prejudice starts masquerading as political ideology in the name of the people.

And so going back to the OP quote, this comment about diseases being around 400/500 years.. etc...

HIV, which is what he's fumbling around saying, is believed to have only been around less than 100 years. It doesn't even make sense as an example.
It seems like he's just trying to find a way of bringing AIDS into the equation. Maybe he's just using this economic theory to feed his ire for dirty homo AIDS victims...I don't know... sometimes politics can make a poor prejudice seem sensible.

or not...i can't say i checked out out the source of the quote or have any idea who this guy is. so im riding high on assumptions.
i was just transfixed by your "It's pretty safe to say...." comment Pasa that I had to chip in.

d

[Pasadenacpl2]

Apparently, you don't know how HIV works. There are a VERY limited number of ways it is spread. It is actually a very weak virus compared to things like Hep. Pretty much, the only way you get HIV is: unprotected sex with an infected person, previously used needles (also used by an infected person), and exposure to blood of a person who has been infected. That's pretty much it.

So, back to my statement: you were either being negligent, or you were raped. I suppose I should rephrase: If you get HIV today, you were either negligent, or you were exposed to HIV due to someone removing your ability for informed consent (that phrase keeps popping up). I'll call it rape just so we have a convenient word to use.

So...

Unprotected sex? Negligent.
Unprotected sex with your cheating husband (you didn't know he was cheating)? Rape
Using needles? Negligent
Exposed to HIV+ blood? Most likely negligent.(the screening makes it impossible during transfusion anymore).
Rape? uh..rape.

So, unless you can provide something to counter that, I'll stand by my original statement. As for the rest of your post...your last assertion is the closest to correct. You are assuming a LOT.

[æonpax]

The first one I have no idea...not really relevant to our current discussion.The second one is an example of cherrypicking and then providing "context" in many cases. Example:
While yes, this is what he's saying, it is not the whole of what he is saying. He isn't saying "you don't have a right to seek and acquire employment" as it is appearing in the "context". He is saying that you don't deserve to have a job merely because you were born. You gain one and keep one based upon the merits you build for yourself. He's saying that healthcare is not a right, you pay for it (and, we have a very delineated group of rights, and healthcare isn't anywhere in there). From a constitutional standpoint, he's right on both counts. But the "context" would paint it otherwise.
He did not say he would get rid of them. Well, at least not in the manner that it was painted. If you go further in the text of that debate, he went on to state that he has a plan that ensures two things: First, the solvency for those people who have already paid in and are owed benefits, and second: a method for young people to opt out and find better ways to take care of their retirements. Neither of those things are getting rid of SS. It's changing it to come into alignment with the Constitution.
RP's stance is that even if it's a good idea, if the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to do something, they should leave their damn hands off it.
As for the rest of the GOP slate: what a bunch of maroons. The only other one I can stomach is Gingrich, and that's because he's just about brilliant. Read his books on George Washington and the Civil War. I oppose him on a few issues, but overall Gingrich would be better than any of them, but Paul. I say this now, and I mean it (and those of you who know me know how much I can't stand Obama). If the GOP nominates anyone but Paul or Gingrich (preferably both on the same ticket) I will vote for Obama.
Pasa

I gave my opinion on Ron Paul and his ideology. Paul is a paleolibertarian (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism) which basically means a person who is culturally conservative (social issues), but fundamentally a noninterventionist (he was against the Iraq war and has no use for the UN). However, he has a weakness for conspiracy theories and is so fanatically constitutionalist that he sees just about everything the federal government does as a transgression against what he believes to be, the founding fathers vision for this country.

Having said this, I find Paul, for all his political idiosyncrasies, to be the least objectionable candidate coming from the GOP circus tent. It may interest you that I am also opposed to the corporate tool, Barack Obama, but that's another topic.

Getting back to RPs opinion on HIV/AIDS, ( http://www.inquisitr.com/174449/ron-paul-aids-patients-bear-responsibility-not-society/ ) HIV has been accurately described as an epidemic. While I agree that personal responsibly may be lacking, if left unchecked, the "rights" unfounded belief that they will not contract HIV, simply by acting responsible and moral, is not only ludicrous but also very dangerous and will lead to the spread of HIV. The federal government must step in.

[darkeyes]

Found this a fascinating read last nite.. even allowing for the fact its wiki it makes me glad I do live in a country with a national health service.. cos I kno if I ever fall seriously ill again I wont be bankrupted by medical charges..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

In some ways I have immense admiration for American medicine.. certainly when it comes to R&D of new treatments, equipment and drugs cos it leaves everyone else standing and makes them look inadequate.. but not when it comes.. and just how much is spent in this area.. pity is how the piecemeal way it works when it comes to treating ordinary peeps an how money talks... not a great place to be chronically ill for instance, an after care for emergency treatment leaves a lot to be desired if ur skint..

The UK isnt the best national health service on the planet partly cos its used as a political football and is suffering like every other public service from cuts at present, but a health service in the US funded out of tax or a system of national insurance would save taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars and provide a more even and fair system of health care for all.. it would certainly screw up the providers of private health insurance and while that would not entirely disappear.. cos some.. like here.. nobs an peeps who think they r better than they r... will want to continue to be able to get treatment now and will buy it.. it will eliminate the collecting of premiums for years and then the "see clause whatever" which currently often prevents peeps from receiving treatment and so the private health insurance sector will shrink drastically cos everyone will be insured by the health service... no "see clause anything" will apply.. treatment on the basis of need and no bills to bankrupt anyone.. no being denied access to GPs cos of inability to pay... and shortly in Scotland at least, it will be like Wales and there will not even be prescription charges... poor old England which will still have them and maybe Northern Ireland which is thinking of reintroducing them..

What we have is a universal health care system available to all and for all its faults it works pretty well.. many things are self inflicted upon British people by themselves from liver disease to HIV because of life style.. the NHS treats them all even if a few health authorities do try and discriminate against smokers for instance but have to buckle in the end and do what they must....and personally I shall forever be in its debt.. the US would do well to lose its paranoia of such a system cos in the long term it will reduce health care costs and improve the health of the nation immensely as it has wherever such a system operates.. and the US, so far down the league of developed nations when it comes to health care, life expectancy, infant mortality and chronic illness, would within a few short years find itself right at the top of the leader board.. and that I would love to see, not cos its a socialist idea, cos actually it isnt, but cos I do care and no matter where peeps live and who they are, believe every human being on this planet has a right to universal health care provided by a national health service in their country of residence not on the basis of affordability, but on the basis of need... that isnt a socialist idea.. it is but a very human one..

[LastGent]

For Aeonpax and Pasadenacpl2: The reason why I shall decline to vote for Mr. Paul, if his campaign survives to the election, is because of his discontinued racist, anti-gay newsletter from the '80's and 90's and remark about whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. A scandal erupted in 1996 when this newsletter was discovered and when asked about its content, he said he wrote the articles about how 95% of blacks in D.C. are criminals, how AIDS is a gay disease and so forth because he believed such things to be true based on his research into the issues. Well, in 2001 he pulled a screwie-lewie-spitooie on America when this subject came up again and he said he never wrote those articles, never read them, didn't know nothing about them. The troubling thing is Mr. Paul never assured us that he was no longer a racist, he didn't say something like "I date Filipinos and all that", he just said he was not the writer of the articles he wrote. Why couldn't he have said he out grew his white superiority phase? Is he a closet racist?
Then there's the remark about the Civil Rights Act, made in 2010?-or a couple years back. He's a libertarian, and a part of that ideology is about property rights. So he, and libertarians in general, would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act because it prohibited property owners from discriminating (in this case, against Americans who just happened to be of African descent) against others on their own property-but (not having been there, so I don't know what all the court arguments were about) wasn't that the point of the amendment? To end segregation?
So, Mr. Paul, I think not.

[æonpax]

For Aeonpax and Pasadenacpl2: The reason why I shall decline to vote for Mr. Paul, if his campaign survives to the election, is because of his discontinued racist, anti-gay newsletter from the '80's and 90's and remark about whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. <snipped for brevity>

A distinct pattern of Ron Paul’s campaign is that his strongest critics are self-proclaimed conservatives and GOP spokesmen. This is ironic and unfortunate, because Paul, according to the American Journal of Political Science (http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm) , is the most conservative congressman since 1937. As John Nichols puts it so well:


Ron Paul represents the ideology that Republican insiders most fear: conservatism.

Having said that, Paul's definition of what constitutes a "social contract", while outwardly similar to John Locke's interpretation, is by far, a very extreme view. I find that very disturbing.
`