Yeah and that is a rarity nowadays. You have to admit, Ron was straight as an arrow when it came to his ideologies and that can be respected. I'd much rather have someone like that than someone who flip flops on their stances just to appease the masses
@@marshimeak1972 My party is going through an identity crisis at the moment. They left the more Libertarian Tea-Party a while back, which has been taken over by Trump. Right now they are having an issue with the neoconservative faction and the older GOP politicians. The Republicans have an interesting future, but I am really hoping we go back to the old Republican Party, like Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Eisenhower and Nixon(he was an ass though).
@Adam Adam Tel Aviv and Vatican two step. If you want to be the selected president of the U.S.A. inc.(with capitals) then you have to have it good with them too.
@@youngpbands9507 and that’s a shame, you wouldn’t even realize your taxes wouldn’t even go up that high if you help this guy, it’s disgusting that people don’t care. It’s a obligation as a American and a human to not let others die.
@@maxB2262 for what reason? Why are others entitled to the fruits of my labor? Taxes are high enough as they are. I think it is simply immoral to force the working class to take care of the lower class. Give the individual the option to subsidize the healthcare of others, but don’t take from his pocket what is rightfully his.
So incase people aren't paying attention, his answer to the question is NO 00:54. His system encourages churches, charities, and private entities to handle these problems, NOT the government. People who think the government is the answer have another opinion. What bothers me is when people try to mischaracterize what his position is simply because they don't agree with it.
OK, yeah. But the problem with letting churches and privet charities handle it, is that they suck at it. They try. Or at least some of them try. But they suck at it. That is why the secular governments had to take over. Because letting the churches do it, didn't work.
@@Andrewcranky I don't think what we have now works better, and I think the notion that the gov't stepped in because "it didn't work" isn't true. I was for single payer until the lockdown. I never fully understood the danger Dr. Paul and others were warning against, but I respected his opinion. But just LOOK at the result of government interference in medicine! Look at the medical tyranny that's unfolded with the "threat of covid". There's one thing I think is CLEAR now, and that is government should have absolutely no involvement in medicine. I see now what they were warning against.
@@GiantOctopus0101 if we dont have any government involvement in sectors like healthcare it will quickly become monopolized and heavily regulated by the corporations that run it. One way or another there are regulations, either ones put in place by private companies/corporations, or the government.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Health insurance was created during the depression as a way for hospitals to have passive income. You can go back and research the cost of hospital stays, surgeries, etc prior. In the 20s a major surgery was like a few hundred dollars adjusted for inflation. Hospitals did used to be charitable organizations
@@jakesmall8875 No, I did pretty deep dive into this for a research paper a few years ago and compared services from hospital services under the fee for service (pre insurance) system compared to after, adjusted it all for inflation of course. A major surgery was like a couple hundred bucks adjusted for inflation. Nixon removed the gold standard completely which caused the monetary inflation to runaway which is something different. But you're too stupid to think into it anymore than by saying "durr nixon"
The 30-year-old didn't have insurance, not because he's stupid and negligent, but because, as the hypothetical states, he didn't want to pay $200 or $300 dollars a month. If Ron Paul had his way with healthcare a healthy 30-year-old wouldn't pay anywhere close to that for catastrophic insurance.
@Shawn Brink Actually, society functioned much better before the push for "socialism"/communism in America. America actually prospered and more people were actually more HEALTHY and financially free than ever in the 60's (before the push for socialism in the 70's).
@Shawn Brink Yes, it's only "not" applicable today because we are DRENCHED in socialism and a welfare system already. We would be living in a much better world with less government.
@Shawn Brink Well, let me specify. Our MONETARY system functioned better. No, it wasn't the best, but it was better. Hell, it was better before the creation of the fed in 1913. The problem is that you've never been exposed to any other economic system, so you fight to keep what you have. Look up Austrian Economics. That's a way better option than harder socialism, which created this monster in the first place.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 We get it, you're a statist moron who thinks if you don't want government force to do something, we don't want it done at all. Lick the State's boots some more while they rob the citizenry, strip you of your liberties, and fuck you over and over again.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
The problem with healthcare isn't who pays, but the cost. If you were able to make healthcare cost less the government wouldn't have to cover it because everyone could just afford it. That's how it used to be when Ron Paul actually worked as a doctor, and we didn't have all the sick people out on the streets then.
Jiggle Billy so to you its unacceptable that the very richest pay slightly more tax so the very poorest dont die. you are not even rich, so presumably this policy would help either you, or people you know. why have you got such a hard on for the rich?
its mostly the middle class that are hardest hit by the increases to taxes to prop up the inadequacies of the irresponsible btw, not the "very richest". You're going after the hard working doctors, lawyers, accountants engineer's money when people like you want free shit, dont forget that. The rich all use their businesses to avoid as much taxes as possible. I'm ok with people living their lives the way they want to and accepting the risks of life as they see fit.
@@tomj210 It's unacceptable that every part of your life is taken care of so that you don't have to strive and can simply become a strain on society. People without health care insurance should be taken care of by private charity so that they understand what a burden they are and shape up. This is a move towards RESPONSIBILITY and away from ENTITLEMENT.
@@FixdalOK Meaning they said "yes", they answered in the affirmative. To his credit, Ron Paul said "no", but those in the audience, oh, you better believe it. They said "yes".
The nanny state free loaders, who pay NOTHING into the insurance pool, expect to be helped for free. That selfish irresponsible and greedy mentality needs to end.
conservatives want to dismantle things like the post office so that corporations can do it and it's profitable to them. Weird that you guys only see greed and corruption in the faceless "government." Nanny State just means you don't like it because it doesn't benefit you enough. Sometimes, things aren't about you.
@Akshay Natu then your burning house is your responsibility and I shouldn't have to pay for a fire department to save your house? I guess whether it bothers you that your taxes are used to help other people sometimes comes down to whether you're selfish. Being selfish is a hallmark of a Libertarian.
@UC3a3ito4X9Oo_BGTW5WhC4Q well out of 7 billion or so people in the world we've established you only care about people you are friends with or are related to. That you "just don't care" about the rest. You just got done saying "I'm not selfish, I'm just pretty selfish" You realize your whole life depends on soooo many people you aren't related to and aren't friends with. Right? Your whole concept of how to relate to the world and realize your position in it is rather monstrous. None of your relatives or friends built that hospital and you don't care about anyone there so why should they treat you?
"Which family, friends and church can pay amounts like $500.000 in costs for somebody who is seriously sick?" Would you voluntarily contribute towards the healthcare of the uninsured? If your answer is yes then you've solved the problem. If the answer is no what, right do you have to advocate forcing others to pay?
Because that's what insurance is in the first place. That's how insurance works, and medical care in the US is the most expensive in the world, because of private insurance, prescription drug companies etc. profiteering off of sick people
If your answer is "yes," you still haven't solved the problem. People given hundreds of millions in charity annually (myself included) without volunteering to entirely pay for any single individual's health needs. This is kind of the point of charity being an aggregate (I.e., community) endeavor.
The prices are set so high because the government subsidizes this health care program. It's the same issue with government-subsidized student loans. There is no incentive for the insurance companies to lower the prices because they know that they will get the money.
He was on stage more to promote libertarianism than to win the presidency. If he really wanted to be president in 2012, he would have cut back on a lot of the anti-military/pro drug stuff. Even today you couldn't win the Republican presidency with that type of rhetoric.
@Josh W I'm pretty sure a "nice guy" is more like someone who changes their stance depending on the audience they're in front of in order to look better/more appealing. That's not what Ron Paul did, he spoke the truth.
i’d be happy to sponsor someone with it aswell 2 for 1 deal aslong as i didn’t have to pay tax. i’d still save a shitload of money heck i might even pay for 3 people
😆 I love that people can watch this and still think that he saying “let him die!” Actually listen for once and realize Ron Paul is explaining why the entire system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Sylvester Hannah you seriously can’t see how corrupt the government is??? Politicians because millionaires by lining their pockets. Every politician is owned. We don’t live in a democracy America is completely controlled by corporations and big pharmaceutical. We are dumbed down by a failing education system and healthcare cost are through the roof because of the change in system which only benefits the rich. Any upgrade to an already failed system is like dumping money into a business that is failing... oh yeah we already did that with the big banks. Having “free” healthcare is the biggest sham ever they will just take more taxes and screw up an already painful system while continuing to murder brown children in other countries. Keep believing in the government I also used to believe in Santa too
Sylvester Hannah libertarianism doesn’t gain traction because people would rather have security than freedom. People love to have their hand held like you.
But they're right about it. It's his responsibility. He had to think for himself "should I keep health insurance for the possibility of me becoming sick or not?". He chose not to, and the results are his problem. If he dies it's his own problem. Here in germany the government does everything and doesn't give a fuck about freedom or liberty. And taxation is high as well (38.9% for the average worker)
Under the assumptions that blitzer gave then yeah sure. He painted it as if he has a good job and living, thus showing the free market is indeed working for this individual. If he actually wanted to ask a serious question, he wouldve asked the same hypothetical by replace it with someone living in poverty who cannot afford insurance.
Paul has already answered you, poor people would be treated by civil society (churches, humanitarian hospitals and such). In the first half of XXth century, doctors worked free extra hours to treat those in need. And people were in mutual aid fraternities (book: From Mutual Aid to welfare state by David t Beito) who also treated those in need. If u think society is too egoist to help others, how can sometimes those who want to socialize medicine(democrats) win elections? Or how can people like Ron Paul have such an audience of people that want free market medicine so prices are lowered making healthcare more available to poor people?
The question is actually perfectly framed. People make dumb decisions about their health every day. The correct answer is to always give a dying person medical treatment. It wasn’t a hard question 🤷🏼♂️
Sorry but I can't afford to buy $300 health insurance a month. If the government forces me to buy it I won't even be able to meet my basic needs of shelter. I will be homeless with health insurance.
@ taxes on the wealthier means the wealthier cannot afford to give their employees the same benefits. Only solution is removing government, and letting people decide where they want to work.
@@arik2916 you won't understand what I'm about to say, because you are uneducated, but you just said that he should let his children or possibly grandchildren die
The cost of healthcare is so high because unelective healthcare treatments, by their definition, have inelastic demand. Normally, when the price of something goes up, the demand goes down. This is how prices are kept low in a functioning market. But how much would you pay to see again if blind? To walk again if crippled? To not die if sick or wounded? Everything you have. And that is precisely why health care costs are so high. What I find curious is why, after working in the industry, Ron Paul remains ignorant of this dynamic. Either he’s incredibly naive, or he doesn’t want people to know the truth. Because once you acknowledge inelastic demand, you have to face the face that the free market simply will not work for health care.
Live in the real world. Doctors don't charge the same, and you can actually ask doctors how much they'd charge. If demand was so inelastic, you'd have lots more doctors with people hedging their lives on having the knowledge to take care of themselves. Also, private insurance would work to spread that risk and reward mechanic.
@@acctsys "Live in the real world" You're a troll. But, this once I'll play. You can not ask doctors how much they'll charge until you are far down the road with them. Basically, until you've gone through all their diagnostic processes that are, themselves, highly inflated. An MRI in the US can cost upwards of $5,000.00. In Canada? $1,000 or less. We do have some forms of demand pooling in the US, and these are segmented by state for public and private health options, or by employer if the employer is large enough. While this does allow a limited form of collective bargaining, it is no where near as effective as a single, nation-wide pool would be, aka single-payer. "If demand was so inelastic" You obviously don't understand the term "inelastic" as it applies to economics, and you're ignoring the examples I gave of the types of conditions that drive that. You clearly have never been in a life-or-death situation. You also don't understand the effort required to become a healthcare a specialist. I mean, shit, there are tons of high-paying tech jobs advertised every day for software developers in this country, yet US companies resort to importing qualified talent from India, China, and elsewhere. I do live in the real world. Question is: where the hell do you live?
I don't buy this inelastic demand people keep bringing up. The supply the medical industry produces isn't just produced for people with inelastic demand like the ones you mentioned. Also, you could say calories are an inelastic demand, you need them to survive, yet we don't have a malnourishment problem in the US. It's actually the opposite. Even if you take it as a given that there is an inelastic demand, there isn't a natural inelastic supply, which Ron Paul basically mentions at the end with the comments on competition and alternative medicine. Also, as an aside, the examples you gave aren't even inelastic. I've known someone that chose to not walk again instead of going through the process of healing. It wasn't even a money issue.
The answer to "Who pays?" is that WE all do, when the hypothetical man with a condition has to go to the emergency room because it's all the healthcare he can get.
You're literally correct, but I think missing the point. That is the status quo. The question is how Paul envisions him getting care in his hypothetical system.
@@evanstein3011 A healthy man who doesn't obtain health insurance and then later needs it after the fact should not expect fellow taxpayers to foot the bill for him. That incentivizes bad decisions.
@@evanstein3011 And he also pointed out that there's a voluntary role for Churches/Charities/Friends etc in taking care of such unexpected emergencies.
Krónika then question becomes what kind of insurance. Will the insurance have a cap on the type of coverage say only cover medical up to $200k or no cap and allow coverage up to $2B in cost. And then how do you justify some getting better coverage than others therefore you might say everyone gets equally the same coverage meaning only 1 choice which is the best insurance the govt can afford. Meaning as the govt crashes and burns my health is literal tied to their success or failure which imo is frighting and I would rather rely on my own success and not the govt. Which leads to me not having any choice especially if the only thing insurance will cover is ovarian cancer and I choose to identify myself as a male.
@@larnolarno6800 i care about you because your a conscious living thing with sentience. I want to maximize your well being and happiness. I want social equality. Freedom.
I work in the ER. It is against the law for us to ask for your insurance until after the doctor does a medical evaluation, and people have the right to be stabilized. This doesn't mean that we will remove a non-lethal bullet. This doesn't mean we will do a surgery for a minor fracture that could be handled as an outpatient. We follow the law, and we do what is ethical, but listen up. This audience and Ron Paul is wackos if they think health services should be denied if someone doesn't have insurance or can't produce their insurance. If you are insured and you come into the ER unconscious because of a heart attack or a car accident, but you left your wallet at home or your wallet is scattered across the floor of your vehicle, you would be grateful if the fire department, the ambulance and the hospital performed their duties in good faith in a system like Ron Paul's or the audience's where no one was treated until they could produce cash or an insurance card that could be validated to be current and capable of covering the potential services.
And I love his response, which is basically to rely on charities. Imagine the situation, you are in an ambulance and need to get a heart cathertization for a STEMI and the closest cath lab is not a charity hospital, but there is one a few hours away, so the ambulance goes out of their system to drive someone dying of a heart attack two hours away, except, when they arrive, the line for free healthcare is long, so he dies waiting. Meanwhile, that hospital has real costs with performing something for free, so they have to raise the insurance premiums and procedure costs for paying members, so in essence, people still pay for someone else, but you know, the government doesn't have to do it and the hospitals aren't forced to do it, so all is good.
@@jirace People don't die waiting for care in free market systems like what Ron Paul wants. They die in government run systems like the VA www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/index.html
Ron never said someone should be denied if an insurance card is not produced. He operated at a time before most of this insurance BS and people were not turned away then either. It’s a hypothetical situation that does not come up. The idea of having a “right” to someone else’s skilled services eventually becomes very problematic though. Does the hospital pay you? Or do they have a right to your services as an employee?
People clearly didn’t understand his position here. His position was not that the man should be allowed to die, it was that private charity should pick up the slack. That’s why he said “when I was practicing medicine, we never turned anyone away because the churches would help them if they couldn’t pay.”
The Churches don't help anyone but themselves. Be sure to pay that 10% to that preacher, but sorry he can't pay your hospital bill. He needs a new jet.
@@Susieq26754you are spot on my friend!!! Churches don’t even feed the poor. That’s why the government does. If church fed the poor there would not be entire families with babies on the street corner begging. Jesus is going to be busy with those apostate/ churches when He returns. That includes the entire congregations as well.
Yes, and notice he said "No" 00:54 to the question "should society let the uninsured die". His system encourages churches, charities, and private entities to handle these problems, NOT the government. People can disagree, but they shouldn't mischaracterize what he's saying.
@Matt Guitar apparently it is. Countless comments completely overlooking self-responsibility and overlooking the idea that forcing one to contribute to another is the literal antithesis of liberty, while squashing out the ability for people to help eachother on their own fruition. It's unreal.
@Matthew Apsey How dense must you be to think taxation is theft? Taxation is investment. If you pay a bit extra in tax, it covers you if you have a heart attack and need to spend a few days in hospital. The U.S. healthcare system runs at huge profit.
@@thatbloodypanda6989 so if you don't pay taxes what happens? the government uses violence on you, so theft, just get rid of the insurance companies and go cash transaction free market, your healthcare is solved, in Canada our government supplies terrible healthcare and to expensive, it's collapsing. you have a crony capitalism healthcare system, you just need a capitalist healthcare system
It's completely dishonest to suggest that churches would somehow make up the enormous amount of money required to keep all uninsured people alive. He should be honest about his ideology and admit that all these people would die.
It's strange to me that the questioner, or anyone else, would think this is a "gotcha" question, but I know a lot of people think that way. The taxpayers aren't responsible for other people's health, education, housing, although most Americans think so. It's only when money is stolen from people by the government that these things are done. Common sense. 😊
Every time Ron Paul speaks, he makes me realize we live in the upside down world. That feeling you get when you realize everyone around you is wrong and thinks you are the idiot
By law , a hospital has to care for people don't have health insurance So, who will pay for people who are in a hospital and don't have health insurance Explain
Society doesn’t equal corporations. Government is supposed to be by the people for the people of the people. But it’s just owned by corporations. Especially private health insurance companies the ones Ron Paul likes to defend.
@@MrSiad123 ultimately that is a failure of govt. Ron Paul despises the unfair bottlenecking and regulations that the corporations impose to stop competition.
You missed the whole point. Immediately after the audience member says yeah, Ron Paul says no! then explains how they will definitely be taken care of, using his own life as an example.
I swear even I underestimate/forget how much an impact he had on my formative years. So ahead of his time, and it prepared me for what's going on right now. He's right about people not taking responsibility for themselves and their neighbors. If we actually all knew our neighbors and took stock in the well-being of our communities we'd be a force to be reckoned with. Problem is we've even lost who we are in the first place, which is part of the plan unfortunately.
@j-mshistorycorner6932 no, he is very well respected and admired. He's been the only one to be accurate about the federal reserve and inflation for decades.
Translation: Being unable to afford healthcare is "freedom of choice." Also, dying is "taking responsibility" for poverty. I'm really sad that I live on the same planet as such moral derelicts.
All these comments on here insinuating that Ron Paul would leave someone to die because they aren't being taken care of by the government....HE NEVER SAID that listen to it again, he said that they NEVER turned anyone away, someone in society would step in (to include CHURCHES).
we are already paying for it, 800 billion military budget. cut that bitch in half and get us our health care, not insurance. health care. control the price like everyother civilized nation.
actually that's definitely not why the cost of healthcare is so high. Healthcare at the individual level reflects inelastic demand, when you need it you need it. You can't say no when you're unconscious, and drug companies and hospitals cost whatever they want. Medicare costs way less per person than private insurance. When governments or big groups of ppl bargain for big contracts healthcare costs go down. We spend as much in TAXES for healthcare as in countries that have universal healthcare!
Saying that someone in society part of the private sector will always take care of somebody in need (church, charity, philanthropy..) Is just saying: I trust more people than the government.
Humans do in fact have a morale responsibility to one another I believe. But to try to accomplish that through government is a cheat that simply does not work. We cannot abdicate our duty to one another. It must be done voluntarily and local.
it not onyl does work, its the only reliable method. if you're in a car accident, right after you lost your job, what do you want a civilization to do? let you die? if there is a big economic collapse and you lost your job, and it will probably take a year to find something else, what do you want to happen? for the country to tell you to fuck off and starve? what if no one voluntarily helps you? thats why it should be required that the government help their citiznes by law. it should be illegal for them not to help
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Health care is not a right. Goods and services are never rights. You aren't owed anything just because you exist. Also, "What if no one voluntarily helps you" is just as outlandish as thinking the government has ever helped anyone. And nothing is ever free. The only way the government can "help" the citizenry is by stealing wealth from said citizenry.
Who can afford to pay their own health insurance nowadays...people can barely make enough to feed their families....If I didn't have health insurance through my job I couldn't afford to pay $400 a month to cover my family...this is ridiculous...we can barely pay for rent and gas!!!!!!!!! At the end he does say that alternative healthcare should be covered...I'm on the fence with this guy.
IG IAMTHEPRETTYBARBER The whole point is to break the current system that lines the pockets of big pharma . The topic at hand is cherry picked in order to never fix the real problem.
If not for the SSA and the AFA most if not all people would be covered by their employers. If you don’t have an employer then you’re obviously well off enough to afford healthcare (which would be cheaper if not for the SSA and the AFA). If you don’t work or do anything for society you shouldn’t expect society’s help.
Conservatives always say the good hearts of citizens will take care of the poor and needy so we don't need government to do that. If they really mean it, citizens should put their money where their mouth is, instead of making token donations to a "get well fund" for Tracy just because she got cancer, pay your taxes and help Tracy get health insurance.
@@NwoDispatcher The difference is that, in normal theft, you give your money or your life and get nothing in return. In tax theft, you give your money (often times a frankly tiny percentage of it) or your life - and if you give the former, then the second you need help, the society that stole from you is happy to give back. Meanwhile health insurance requires that you give many times what society would steal, but hey, at least you're not forced to, right? Oh, woops, you got cancer and nobody can help you since you couldn't afford insurance. So yes, taxation is theft. So?
Taxation is theft. Advocating for government force is not compassion. Charity and voluntary action is always more effective and more efficient than any stupid ass bureaucratic government action you seem to advocate for. Keep licking the State's boots.
90% of people took "let him die" as Ron Pauls only answer, but did not grasp on what he is trying to say. When the questions was asked, "should we let him die?" Ron said "no", audience said "yes".
Whether or not you support universal health care, we should all acknowledge that it is perfectly possible for a society to use tax money to do this successfully. It is done in numerous other countries. Canada, for example, has both better health outcomes and higher user satisfaction than the U.S. Whenever someone says it cannot work, they are simply ignoring the facts from countries like Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. If people are opposed to universal healthcare on principle, they should be honest about their reasons, not claim that it cannot work.
Jonathan Lynch I'm against Single Payer and support free market healthcare for this reason. Would you prefer a system where everyone is taken care of but taxation is required, or a system where everyone is taken care of and requires no taxation?
Jonathan Lynch Sir, you seem to have fallen victim to the lie that “all Scandinavian countries have a universal healthcare system.” This is utterly false. Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, etc. actually embrace free markets. They have much less government intervention in the economy compared to the U.S. What they do have, however, is a large welfare system. This is what’s known as the Nordic model- almost completely free market with a large welfare net. This is NOT the same as universal healthcare
Jonathan Lynch My mom relies on Canadian healthcare and has been on a waitlist for almost two months for a surgery to treat a condition that almost killed her. A friend of mine waited two months to get into surgery for a leg broken in several places. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Canadian healthcare.
You forgot the rest of it. The part about him NOT TURNING DOWN PATIENTS, and that they would NOT be left for dead. The audience cheering yes are the ones at fault in this video.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
You all have to face up to the fact that your society has failed, the private sector has failed and you need to start looking after each other as you will all need help in the future. You cannot keep thinking that everything is ok it's not .
You would not be paying for him, you would be contributing to having a society that takes care of those in need. Where children, the elderly and the sick are not baggage. It is about taking responsibility, not lacking it, in common path. On this level America is at the stone age.
You say this as if we didn’t already have methods and institutions for taking care of one another before Medicare/Medicaid. Were they perfect? Of course not. However, it provided a strong incentive for you to take care of yourself and to treat your family and members of your community with respect, because at some time you may need their help. Look at low-income Americans. They have much higher rates of obesity and tobacco use. Two of the biggest killers. Do you think these people are too stupid to realize the consequences of their decisions? Or is it possible that compassionate government policies have altered their behaviors negatively? Even if we went to a single payer system and were able to reduce pharmaceutical costs due to the US gov’s buying power and cut out third party payers we still are left with a society that makes extremely poor health choices. Resources are scarce which means healthcare will have to be rationed in some way and freedoms will have to be infringed upon. Waiting lists, death panels, hospital wards instead of rooms, taxing or restricting foods and ingredients which are deemed unhealthy, the possibilities are endless. We will eventually end up with a single payer system and it will be great for the poorest Americans. For the rest of us we will pay more in taxes and get less quality.
yep. And if you work and maintain good relationships with people, they'll be there to help you out and vice versa. Make your way. It's what this country was founded on.
Going bankrupt because you got cancer is not "freedom," you demented fucking sociopath. It is result of living in a backward, cruel, heartless country.
@@vsmith1688 at the beginning in USA, healthcare was provided privetly (with no corporativism) and people who couldn't afford it were treated by voluntarian associations (mutual aid fraternities, church hospitals, and such) and they people were pretty altruistic (highest percentage of GDP in the planet voluntary given to help others; and today there are actually 105 million americans dedicating their time to help others). The system was diminished by *_crowding out_** effect* of governtment spending and taxation: starting with Income Tax and with roosvelt and hoover interventionist mentality that continues until today. Read about the *Crowding out* Effect it's very interesting. Have a nice day 💪
Being born into a world were you can't do anything without money is not a world of taking risg. It's financial dependency on the property class just like slavery.
there's a huge difference between pulling the plug on a vegetable compared to someone in the U.S dying from a curable ailment due to being uninsured and lacking the sufficient funds
Holy hell... the government isn't there to be a beacon of altruism and compassion. All of you saying "so the government should just let people die?" What if someone smashes his car into Lamborghini and doesn't have insurance? Should he be responsible for the bill himself? What kind of government would let someone be accountable for his own irresponsibility!?
@@GpH1936 if you don't want to go into debt, then get health insurance. Don't risk not being covered. And get a life insurance policy, so that your family has money if/when you die of leukemia. If you don't want to pay for the insurance, then it's on you.
Ether 12:27 You’re being real generous to those companies for thinking that just cause you can get insurance doesn’t mean you can’t get into debt. I’ve seen it happen, and I’ve seen it ruin families. It’s also assuming you can afford insurance easily, which some folk just can’t.
How about we privatize the military instead and socialize medicine and education. The reason for conflicts are usually economic and this affects the rich cats the most so let them fund the war machine and start the wars with no help from the middle/working class!
People are not responsible for the bad baviour the business class wants to put on the masses while keeping them poor and exploited. Most people end up not having any choice at all. The economic system was build that way ! This personal responsibility bullcrap is corporate propaganda.
@@DansEarway Freedom without financial security = dependency on the shitty behaviour of other greedy people. That is not personal responsibility ! They have no choice to make other decisions. And there is not such thing as poor people with no money investing in a busniess. You cannot spend money you don't have. And wage slavery is not gonna do it !
Get rid of the gov. totally if u want (yes, they are bad in some ways and i am not a liberal) but the GREED has out done things. too many people in the medical industry including hospitals do price jacking WAAAAAAAAAY beyond cost, insurance companies try to maximize profit and minimize even valid claims and create complex paperwork and costs etc. while spiritual charities, which is the real answer, are lacking. In USA, if you're parents die to some unfortunate reason and you were born with a pre existing conditions that no insurance company or charity is able/willing to cover, liberals wanna put that cost on others through force of government, while most conservatives and libertarians at most (might) donate so little that you end up dying a slow painful death. Side note: Disclosure of hospital prices so people can shop around would require FORCE from the gov. and they don't want it. I think none of the people i stated in this comment knows what real Dharma even means. Have fun ignoring or trolling etc. my comment since my notifications are broken anyway.
Playitalready There is a reason for that, in the US we have a over use of Third party payment thanks to Medicare, Medicaid and employer provided insurance which is encouraged by the income tax. In a free market system the patent would be more incharge because insurance (like in any other industry but healthcare) would only cover catastrophic things that are unlikely to happen, everthing else would be paid for out of pocket which would bring in competitive pricing which is nowhere to be found in the current system. Ending the government regulations on insurance companies like restrictions on state and international lines just to name one would boost competition and encourage better practices.
I know/agree medical insurance SHOULD only cover catastrophic things, n everything else SHOULD be paid for out of pocket BUT again, getting rid of even ALL gov medical programs would not assure that happens like that, and even if it did... a result "which would bring in competitive pricing" is just your bias theory NOT fact. i already mentioned that to get that, you'd have to use the gov to FORCE it unless people in the industry become less greedy (which wont happen cause the gov AND parents fail to educate people properly). Obamacare resulted in HIGH out of pocket costs, many plans are like catastrophic only, yet nobody can shop around, thus debunking your theory. rarely are prices disclosed in advance in hopspitals for out of pocket costs. same thing happened before Obamacare. Cutting income tax doesnt guarentee getting rid of the 3rd party payer that happens with employers. There is no federal restriction on state lines. States have the right to restrict insurance within their state (10th amendment ensures this will not change) however as a for profit company, let me go to any state and i shall choose the state with the least rules... that allows me to give the least power/rights to patients and minimize their rightful claims to max out my profits, and with enough freedom i will take the liberty to buy up as much competition to get a monopoly (or close to it, depending on if the gov stops me or not) and be a big, bloated tyrant. I worked in the industry and know all the arguments and your talking points, i knew you might bring up the state lines thing and you'd ignore a lot of what i said, like for example you ignored how if youre born broke/an orphan with early stage cancer and nobody is able/willing to help you...your comment proves you'd let him die a slow painful death since you didn't even bother to at least throw out some talking point that might sound good in theory and convince some simpletons it would work. I got lucky i saw your comment before i closed this page...and luckily you can ignore/spin etc. the argument cause my stupid notifications arent getting fixed so i wont see it anyway. And youtube is so big they don't need to value me to help me fix it, and lack of gov intervention ain't goona help me either. Again, the problem is people don't even know what Dharma means, let alone fully or truly understand it. Oh well, God fixes all sooner or later.
Playitalready Just because some people pay more out of pocket under Obamacare that doesn't mean it's enough to make a difference, the vast majority of Americans still don't. There are some doctors in the country that don't take insurance at all yet they're prices are much lower because the customer is in charge, if that became the norm in the US (other then catastrophic events) prices would plummet. Also about state lines ever if it is a state issue it's still a failure of government non the less. I don't wanna get rid of all healthcare programs over night, we've breed a society of dependency so the right thing would be a long term transition period.
Playitalready Also ever I'd insurance companies would be attracted to states with the least regulations competition would promote good practices, nobody wants to by covered by a insurance company with a bad reputation. About the kid with cancer, that's a very unlikely what if situation, insurance would be much cheaper making it more likely the family would be covered and I'm the small chance there not covered their is St.Jude, assuming St.Jude would be unable to help they could still get treatment but go into debt, however overall prices would be so much lower than now the debt wouldn't be nearly as punishing.
In Ron Paul’s free society healthcare would be much more affordable so the hypothetical situation would be so unlikely. Healthcare is so expensive because of bureaucracy and special interests
THIS. If I was Ron Paul I would have started here. "First of all, a healthy 30 year old wouldn't be paying anywhere near 200 or 300 a month for health insurance (which isn't even a bad deal by today's inflated standards). That's absurd and wouldn't happen in a free market system"
All these comments on here insinuating that Ron Paul would leave someone to die because they aren't being taken care of by the government....HE NEVER SAID that listen to it again, he said that they NEVER turned anyone away, someone in society would step in (to include CHURCHES).
Petrovinsky Ron Paul is turning his back on the 45,000 people a year who die from lack of healthcare insurance. No Church or Charity is there to save them. news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
casasasl Try coming up with a real argument troll. You know I can’t provide healthcare for 30 million uninsured Americans, unless I was Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.
casasasl You are right that millions of Americans are worried about this. Healthcare is the #1 issue Americans care about according to research. There will continue to be much dialogue about healthcare in US politics until there is healthcare coverage for every one. Single payer is the only system that can do that. And 74% of Americans support it. Everybody needs medical care so it makes perfect sense that will all put into it. We should decrease the inflated military budget like Ron Paul says but also focus on improving the welfare of Americans.
I think Ron Paul is a genuine guy but his position on health care is absolutely wrong. In the free market health care does not work because private insurance companies are trying to profit off of all the people in the pool. Insurance by definition means you pay for other people's health care when they get sick and people pay for your health care when you get sick. However in a free market the health insurance company will look for any excuse to either deny claims or demand large deductibles before they cover a penny since they're more concerned with their own bottom line. I'm not saying everything should be nationalized, but Healthcare is something that every person will need at many different points in their lives. Now, if health insurance is non profit and offered by the government in a single payer system, it has tremendous advantages. 1. It's significantly more efficient and fair. Every single person is covered and pays into it through taxes. Meaning that a hospital never has to offer their services free of charge to people who cannot afford it, then overcharge the hell out of the next person who walks into the hospital that has really good insurance to make up for it. Doctors never have to fight to get insurance companies to pay up, further saving time and money. 2. No one has to fill out form after form of 'i want this covered, I want that covered, etc etc' if you change your insurer or you want to change your plan. No. In a single payer everything would be covered and it would just be far more simple. 3. No one goes bankrupt from medical debt. No one dies because they can't afford Healthcare. That benefits society as a whole. This isn't rocket science. Virtually every developed country in the world has some form of another of a national healthcare system. USA needs to catch up.
None of this would have been a problem if the Churches had done their jobs. And, if you don't like government helping the needy, it's not too late for you and your church to put the government out of the social safety net business.
The TRUE PROBLEM IS...that IT HAS BECOME A BUSINESS For PROFIT!!! There Is NO CAP ON WHAT THESE INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN CHARGE!! And BIG PHARMA IS JUST AS BAD, If Not WORSE!!! The SAME Medication That Costs $5 In The UK...Costs $150 HERE!!!
The price cap comes via competition, which in health care is not allowed by government bureaucracy. There's no cap on food prices either, but competition keeps the prices low. Freedom is the only thing that has ever brought prices of anything down to where people could afford it
When he says "society", what he really means is "the government". Society is normal people. People can choose to help him if they want. What does it mean for the government to help him? IT means we ALL are forced to help him, whether we like it or not.
People are selfish, so yes they should have to do it. You cant rely on the average person to do what's right, government needs to step in. There should be a right to life, it's disgusting we don't have medicare for all in this country without putting people in a debt hole they'll never escape from. How very Christian, for a country that pretends to hold it in such high regard. Its a profound selfishness, and that's what the republican party is based off of, "f you, ive got mine". But the government should be there to serve the most amount of people possible, and the ones who need it most, not the like 10% who are rich and sad theyre going to be taxed more because it might go to someone struggling, instead of making their pockets fatter. And keep in mind like 35% of people are living paycheck to paycheck, they cant possibly save enough to afford medical bills or insurance in the first place. The wealthy have way more than their fair share from exploiting others, and its not like theyre going to suffer if this happens. Theres a disgusting amount of wealth disparity in this country, that anyone can see it and accept that's the way it should / has to be is beyond me.
If you actually listen you would realise ron paul comes up with brilliant solutions that cost way less than the healthcare/insurance system we have today
Nanofuture87 Oh please. In what sense are you free? Your freedom is directly tied to how big your bank account is. Wealth = freedom. No wealth? No freedom. Just wage slavery. And you think that’s “freedom.” LOL.
@@XXgamemaster I am free to choose, free to control my own life. There is no such thing as "wage slavery," only consenting individuals exchanging their labor for mutually agreed upon compensation.
@@Nanofuture87 he's right, and this "mutually agreed wage" thing you mention is far from the truth,greedy people demanding so much along with unions backing their demands have forced companies to outsource and destroy the country's economy. Then on the other hand, you've got tightass rich pigs who dont wanna pay the workers who made their name worth something anything over $3 an hour. Capitalism is just a huge shit show and letting the sick die because they're poor only proves that point conclusively.
@@grizzly6018 "this "mutually agreed wage" thing you mention is far from the truth" It's not, except in the cases where the government has gotten involved to force wages. "Capitalism is just a huge shit show" Less of a shit show than the alternatives. "letting the sick die because they're poor only proves that point conclusively" The other options are to force doctors to treat people, an actual form of slavery, or seize property from people against their will to pay those doctors, a form of theft. Which should it be? Do you want to enslave people, steal from people, or have people be responsible for themselves?
So many people here ignoring the second part of what dr. Paul said. He explained why the cost of healthcare is so high. Healthcare is lacking competition and has become a bureaucratic hell.
The real question that’s not being addressed is “Why is Health Care so expensive if it requires insurance to pay for it? To those who claim it’s because of the greedy business owners, employers, doctors & insurance companies, do you think relying on DC, a “greedier” group that “requires” an annual budget of 4 TRILLION dollars with a debt of close to 20 TRILLION Dollars is a better idea?
You are too caught up in your feelings and won't accept the facts that public healthcare programs throughout other countries run substantially better than the US Model.
You're so bad at economics you think the national budget is like a household budget. The government gains money from having "debt" with banks. It's the smart thing to do with money.
Shout out to the people who said yes. Hope you enjoy your price gouging healthcare. Here’s a premium. Here’s a deductible. Here’s a co-pay. On top of that here’s the bill you’re partially responsible. Oh you have cancer. Oh , you’re declaring bankruptcy too bad you still have to pay the bill.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
he’s ideologically consistent that’s for sure
Yeah and that is a rarity nowadays. You have to admit, Ron was straight as an arrow when it came to his ideologies and that can be respected. I'd much rather have someone like that than someone who flip flops on their stances just to appease the masses
@@richieewinns he was a true libertarian. Republicans try to have libertarian ideologues but want government control in certain areas.
He tried to warn us... Now the neocons own both parties and the dollar is done..
@@richieewinns his picture is in the dictionary next to the word- Consistent 😅👍
@@marshimeak1972
My party is going through an identity crisis at the moment. They left the more Libertarian Tea-Party a while back, which has been taken over by Trump. Right now they are having an issue with the neoconservative faction and the older GOP politicians.
The Republicans have an interesting future, but I am really hoping we go back to the old Republican Party, like Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Eisenhower and Nixon(he was an ass though).
Ron Paul was the greatest Congressman in the last 150 years. He should have been president.
@Adam Adam Tel Aviv and Vatican two step. If you want to be the selected president of the U.S.A. inc.(with capitals) then you have to have it good with them too.
he is a jackass
LOLOLOL, Ron Paul the gross liberal. Bernie Sanders is way better
We really missed out by not having this man as a president
Yes indeed, hopefully we can elected his son Rand Paul 2024
why? he sounds like a psychopath who is planning to sentence the poor to death
yeah, you mean missed a fucking bullet lol
The whole world missed out
Not really
Its crazy how everything he was saying back then just becomes more and more true. I love this man
I often wonder if he wasn’t americas last greatest hope, and they completely wrote him off
@@dwes49 they tried the same tactics with Trump but he gave it right back to them
@@AustinKoleCarlisleTrump isn't Paul. Trump is part of the game. He was brought in to stifle the movement building with people like Paul
Did the people just say "Yeah" when they asked if they should let him die?
HELL YEA
Sounds bad but do you want to pay for all the bums outside healthcare? No? Ok thats what i thought...
@@majormarketing6552 Uhm yeah I do.
@@majormarketing6552 My money goes to fund wars. So between that and going to bums. Yeah I don't mind
Luenian Yes.
Damn he was one of the few Republicans that had the balls to tell the harsh truth.
Anyone who agrees with this crap, needs to grow up and realize we live in a modern society and we take care of our fellow humans.
@@maxB2262 I do not feel obligated to be responsible for the lives of people who I don’t even know.
@@youngpbands9507 and that’s a shame, you wouldn’t even realize your taxes wouldn’t even go up that high if you help this guy, it’s disgusting that people don’t care. It’s a obligation as a American and a human to not let others die.
@@maxB2262 for what reason? Why are others entitled to the fruits of my labor? Taxes are high enough as they are. I think it is simply immoral to force the working class to take care of the lower class. Give the individual the option to subsidize the healthcare of others, but don’t take from his pocket what is rightfully his.
@@youngpbands9507 I’m working class and I have no problem with helping people when they are down.
So incase people aren't paying attention, his answer to the question is NO 00:54. His system encourages churches, charities, and private entities to handle these problems, NOT the government. People who think the government is the answer have another opinion. What bothers me is when people try to mischaracterize what his position is simply because they don't agree with it.
It’s CNN. I don’t expect honesty from them.
OK, yeah. But the problem with letting churches and privet charities handle it, is that they suck at it.
They try. Or at least some of them try. But they suck at it.
That is why the secular governments had to take over.
Because letting the churches do it, didn't work.
@@Andrewcranky I don't think what we have now works better, and I think the notion that the gov't stepped in because "it didn't work" isn't true. I was for single payer until the lockdown. I never fully understood the danger Dr. Paul and others were warning against, but I respected his opinion. But just LOOK at the result of government interference in medicine! Look at the medical tyranny that's unfolded with the "threat of covid". There's one thing I think is CLEAR now, and that is government should have absolutely no involvement in medicine. I see now what they were warning against.
@@officerfarva3666 i dont see any dishonesty here, the title and description are both ambiguous, the video itself is ambiguous. How is that dishonest?
@@GiantOctopus0101 if we dont have any government involvement in sectors like healthcare it will quickly become monopolized and heavily regulated by the corporations that run it. One way or another there are regulations, either ones put in place by private companies/corporations, or the government.
Wolf Blitzer acting like people would just let everyone die if health insurance wasnt mandated.
yes that is the plan. and people are already being allowed to die due to not having healthcare
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Tell me MORE about how the government is "helping"!
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Health insurance was created during the depression as a way for hospitals to have passive income. You can go back and research the cost of hospital stays, surgeries, etc prior. In the 20s a major surgery was like a few hundred dollars adjusted for inflation. Hospitals did used to be charitable organizations
Before Nixon
@@jakesmall8875 No, I did pretty deep dive into this for a research paper a few years ago and compared services from hospital services under the fee for service (pre insurance) system compared to after, adjusted it all for inflation of course. A major surgery was like a couple hundred bucks adjusted for inflation. Nixon removed the gold standard completely which caused the monetary inflation to runaway which is something different. But you're too stupid to think into it anymore than by saying "durr nixon"
I feel maybe hospitals have made technological advancements since the 1920s.
@@dragline. Except technology makes things cheaper when the government doesn't get involved.
@@pinkkfloyddexactly. Robots work for cheap.
I remember that the media did everything they could to make people feel like they would be an idiot to vote for Ron Paul
Yeah I remember that too. Now we have Trump. UGH
The media didn't need to, just look at this.
They would indeed.
They would be. He completely avoided the let him die question. Never was a fan of Ron Paul after this very cold uncaring answer.
Well Paul certainly helped them out in that regard
The 30-year-old didn't have insurance, not because he's stupid and negligent, but because, as the hypothetical states, he didn't want to pay $200 or $300 dollars a month. If Ron Paul had his way with healthcare a healthy 30-year-old wouldn't pay anywhere close to that for catastrophic insurance.
@Shawn Brink Actually, society functioned much better before the push for "socialism"/communism in America. America actually prospered and more people were actually more HEALTHY and financially free than ever in the 60's (before the push for socialism in the 70's).
@Shawn Brink Yes, it's only "not" applicable today because we are DRENCHED in socialism and a welfare system already. We would be living in a much better world with less government.
@chui e: So, why do you support white supremacy?
@Shawn Brink Well, let me specify. Our MONETARY system functioned better. No, it wasn't the best, but it was better. Hell, it was better before the creation of the fed in 1913.
The problem is that you've never been exposed to any other economic system, so you fight to keep what you have.
Look up Austrian Economics. That's a way better option than harder socialism, which created this monster in the first place.
@@MorpheusOne I support equality as much as possible. Within the realm of real and fair capitalism, not crony capitalism.
I love Ron Paul
for no reason since he'd gleefully let you die if you're poor and you get sick.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 We get it, you're economically and politically retarded. Keep licking the State's boots.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 We get it, you're a statist moron who thinks if you don't want government force to do something, we don't want it done at all. Lick the State's boots some more while they rob the citizenry, strip you of your liberties, and fuck you over and over again.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
The problem with healthcare isn't who pays, but the cost. If you were able to make healthcare cost less the government wouldn't have to cover it because everyone could just afford it. That's how it used to be when Ron Paul actually worked as a doctor, and we didn't have all the sick people out on the streets then.
I think I just threw up. This crowd seriously just cheered?
Do you understand what they were cheering for? Was it for death?
Jiggle Billy so to you its unacceptable that the very richest pay slightly more tax so the very poorest dont die. you are not even rich, so presumably this policy would help either you, or people you know. why have you got such a hard on for the rich?
its mostly the middle class that are hardest hit by the increases to taxes to prop up the inadequacies of the irresponsible btw, not the "very richest". You're going after the hard working doctors, lawyers, accountants engineer's money when people like you want free shit, dont forget that. The rich all use their businesses to avoid as much taxes as possible.
I'm ok with people living their lives the way they want to and accepting the risks of life as they see fit.
That's "pro-life" Republicans for you HAHAHAHAHA. Fucking heartless cunts.
@@tomj210 It's unacceptable that every part of your life is taken care of so that you don't have to strive and can simply become a strain on society. People without health care insurance should be taken care of by private charity so that they understand what a burden they are and shape up. This is a move towards RESPONSIBILITY and away from ENTITLEMENT.
Were there seriously people in the audience cheering "YEAH" when Biltzer asked if the hypothetical man should die?
They were saying yeah to the question.
@@FixdalOK Meaning they said "yes", they answered in the affirmative. To his credit, Ron Paul said "no", but those in the audience, oh, you better believe it. They said "yes".
@@luisdotespinal You sure? Maybe they were applauding the question itself. I mean, it's a good question.
@@FixdalOK Keep moving the goal post in a 9 year old video brownshirt.
@@1988Pipboy Dude, I'm a socialist from Scandinavia. I just honestly thought that's what they said yeah to.
How can Ron Paul claim to be against wars when he drops a major truth bomb on this entire audience????
nothing he said here was truthful or realistic
@@godemperorofmankind3.091Okay, bootlicker!
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 No, you're a just a boot licker who's been conned into thinking we need the government to take care of us.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 How so?
@@godemperorofmankind3.091LOL okay, enjoy those last 2 brain cells fighting for first place every day, waste of space.
The nanny state advocates "personal responsibility" only when it's profitable.
No freedom to smoke a blunt
The nanny state free loaders, who pay NOTHING into the insurance pool, expect to be helped for free. That selfish irresponsible and greedy mentality needs to end.
conservatives want to dismantle things like the post office so that corporations can do it and it's profitable to them. Weird that you guys only see greed and corruption in the faceless "government." Nanny State just means you don't like it because it doesn't benefit you enough. Sometimes, things aren't about you.
@Akshay Natu then your burning house is your responsibility and I shouldn't have to pay for a fire department to save your house? I guess whether it bothers you that your taxes are used to help other people sometimes comes down to whether you're selfish. Being selfish is a hallmark of a Libertarian.
@UC3a3ito4X9Oo_BGTW5WhC4Q well out of 7 billion or so people in the world we've established you only care about people you are friends with or are related to. That you "just don't care" about the rest. You just got done saying "I'm not selfish, I'm just pretty selfish" You realize your whole life depends on soooo many people you aren't related to and aren't friends with. Right? Your whole concept of how to relate to the world and realize your position in it is rather monstrous. None of your relatives or friends built that hospital and you don't care about anyone there so why should they treat you?
"Which family, friends and church can pay amounts like $500.000 in costs for somebody who is seriously sick?"
Would you voluntarily contribute towards the healthcare of the uninsured? If your answer is yes then you've solved the problem. If the answer is no what, right do you have to advocate forcing others to pay?
Because that's what insurance is in the first place. That's how insurance works, and medical care in the US is the most expensive in the world, because of private insurance, prescription drug companies etc. profiteering off of sick people
If your answer is "yes," you still haven't solved the problem. People given hundreds of millions in charity annually (myself included) without volunteering to entirely pay for any single individual's health needs. This is kind of the point of charity being an aggregate (I.e., community) endeavor.
The prices are set so high because the government subsidizes this health care program. It's the same issue with government-subsidized student loans. There is no incentive for the insurance companies to lower the prices because they know that they will get the money.
Why are they uninsured? Everyone should be covered. Everyone uses healthcare.
@@crazyjkass wrong.
This guy is a genius. Can’t believe he didn’t get a standing chance. No support from media. He’s a stand up guy!
He was on stage more to promote libertarianism than to win the presidency. If he really wanted to be president in 2012, he would have cut back on a lot of the anti-military/pro drug stuff. Even today you couldn't win the Republican presidency with that type of rhetoric.
@Josh W He wanted to do both, and wasn't going to compromise on his morals to pander. That's integrity.
@@gamemediafan1714 And that's why the nice guy will always finish last.
@Josh W I'm pretty sure a "nice guy" is more like someone who changes their stance depending on the audience they're in front of in order to look better/more appealing. That's not what Ron Paul did, he spoke the truth.
And he was a doctor
$2-300 a month? Sign me up. Wtf
Its alot cheaper then taxes
i’d be happy to sponsor someone with it aswell 2 for 1 deal aslong as i didn’t have to pay tax. i’d still save a shitload of money heck i might even pay for 3 people
I'm not sure what this comment is referencing it's been 3 years
@Magnus Rothmann You earn quite a bit if you got 75% taxes
It was before oboma care went into effect plus they said he was healthy
😆 I love that people can watch this and still think that he saying “let him die!” Actually listen for once and realize Ron Paul is explaining why the entire system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Sylvester Hannah You should sit down while the adults are talking.
Sylvester Hannah I see you had to edit your response. Is that because you misspelled something? Oh the irony.
Sylvester Hannah I see you deleted you comment where you told me to “fuck off” 😆 sounds like someone who has lost. 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 pathetic
Sylvester Hannah you seriously can’t see how corrupt the government is??? Politicians because millionaires by lining their pockets. Every politician is owned. We don’t live in a democracy America is completely controlled by corporations and big pharmaceutical. We are dumbed down by a failing education system and healthcare cost are through the roof because of the change in system which only benefits the rich. Any upgrade to an already failed system is like dumping money into a business that is failing... oh yeah we already did that with the big banks. Having “free” healthcare is the biggest sham ever they will just take more taxes and screw up an already painful system while continuing to murder brown children in other countries. Keep believing in the government I also used to believe in Santa too
Sylvester Hannah libertarianism doesn’t gain traction because people would rather have security than freedom. People love to have their hand held like you.
"Should society just let him die?"
Crowd: Yeah!
America's a sociopathic nation god damn
You are welcome to step up and pay for it out of your pocket if you'd like.
@Critique Everything Nobody asked for yours too
Because two people cheered? How about the room of people cheering when he says the community, family, and churches should help if he needs it?
@Critique Everything ok
But they're right about it. It's his responsibility. He had to think for himself "should I keep health insurance for the possibility of me becoming sick or not?".
He chose not to, and the results are his problem. If he dies it's his own problem.
Here in germany the government does everything and doesn't give a fuck about freedom or liberty. And taxation is high as well (38.9% for the average worker)
Under the assumptions that blitzer gave then yeah sure. He painted it as if he has a good job and living, thus showing the free market is indeed working for this individual. If he actually wanted to ask a serious question, he wouldve asked the same hypothetical by replace it with someone living in poverty who cannot afford insurance.
Paul has already answered you, poor people would be treated by civil society (churches, humanitarian hospitals and such). In the first half of XXth century, doctors worked free extra hours to treat those in need. And people were in mutual aid fraternities (book: From Mutual Aid to welfare state by David t Beito) who also treated those in need.
If u think society is too egoist to help others, how can sometimes those who want to socialize medicine(democrats) win elections? Or how can people like Ron Paul have such an audience of people that want free market medicine so prices are lowered making healthcare more available to poor people?
The question is actually perfectly framed. People make dumb decisions about their health every day. The correct answer is to always give a dying person medical treatment. It wasn’t a hard question 🤷🏼♂️
"yeah!". LMAO 🤣😂🤣
Sorry but I can't afford to buy $300 health insurance a month. If the government forces me to buy it I won't even be able to meet my basic needs of shelter. I will be homeless with health insurance.
LOL
WhitusFoggs if this is still the case for you then that’s why you need to vote Bernie 2020.
Just buy a house!
@ taxes on the wealthier means the wealthier cannot afford to give their employees the same benefits. Only solution is removing government, and letting people decide where they want to work.
@@arik2916 you won't understand what I'm about to say, because you are uneducated, but you just said that he should let his children or possibly grandchildren die
Ron pretty much said grow the fuck up and buy insurance like the rest of us.
The cost of healthcare is so high because unelective healthcare treatments, by their definition, have inelastic demand.
Normally, when the price of something goes up, the demand goes down. This is how prices are kept low in a functioning market.
But how much would you pay to see again if blind? To walk again if crippled? To not die if sick or wounded?
Everything you have.
And that is precisely why health care costs are so high.
What I find curious is why, after working in the industry, Ron Paul remains ignorant of this dynamic.
Either he’s incredibly naive, or he doesn’t want people to know the truth.
Because once you acknowledge inelastic demand, you have to face the face that the free market simply will not work for health care.
Live in the real world. Doctors don't charge the same, and you can actually ask doctors how much they'd charge.
If demand was so inelastic, you'd have lots more doctors with people hedging their lives on having the knowledge to take care of themselves. Also, private insurance would work to spread that risk and reward mechanic.
@@acctsys "Live in the real world"
You're a troll. But, this once I'll play.
You can not ask doctors how much they'll charge until you are far down the road with them. Basically, until you've gone through all their diagnostic processes that are, themselves, highly inflated.
An MRI in the US can cost upwards of $5,000.00. In Canada? $1,000 or less.
We do have some forms of demand pooling in the US, and these are segmented by state for public and private health options, or by employer if the employer is large enough.
While this does allow a limited form of collective bargaining, it is no where near as effective as a single, nation-wide pool would be, aka single-payer.
"If demand was so inelastic"
You obviously don't understand the term "inelastic" as it applies to economics, and you're ignoring the examples I gave of the types of conditions that drive that. You clearly have never been in a life-or-death situation.
You also don't understand the effort required to become a healthcare a specialist. I mean, shit, there are tons of high-paying tech jobs advertised every day for software developers in this country, yet US companies resort to importing qualified talent from India, China, and elsewhere.
I do live in the real world. Question is: where the hell do you live?
I don't buy this inelastic demand people keep bringing up. The supply the medical industry produces isn't just produced for people with inelastic demand like the ones you mentioned. Also, you could say calories are an inelastic demand, you need them to survive, yet we don't have a malnourishment problem in the US. It's actually the opposite. Even if you take it as a given that there is an inelastic demand, there isn't a natural inelastic supply, which Ron Paul basically mentions at the end with the comments on competition and alternative medicine.
Also, as an aside, the examples you gave aren't even inelastic. I've known someone that chose to not walk again instead of going through the process of healing. It wasn't even a money issue.
The answer to "Who pays?" is that WE all do, when the hypothetical man with a condition has to go to the emergency room because it's all the healthcare he can get.
You're literally correct, but I think missing the point. That is the status quo. The question is how Paul envisions him getting care in his hypothetical system.
@@evanstein3011 A healthy man who doesn't obtain health insurance and then later needs it after the fact should not expect fellow taxpayers to foot the bill for him. That incentivizes bad decisions.
@@sclibertarian348...yeah, that's basically Paul's position which I was pointing out.
@@evanstein3011 And he also pointed out that there's a voluntary role for Churches/Charities/Friends etc in taking care of such unexpected emergencies.
Krónika then question becomes what kind of insurance. Will the insurance have a cap on the type of coverage say only cover medical up to $200k or no cap and allow coverage up to $2B in cost. And then how do you justify some getting better coverage than others therefore you might say everyone gets equally the same coverage meaning only 1 choice which is the best insurance the govt can afford. Meaning as the govt crashes and burns my health is literal tied to their success or failure which imo is frighting and I would rather rely on my own success and not the govt. Which leads to me not having any choice especially if the only thing insurance will cover is ovarian cancer and I choose to identify myself as a male.
12 years later--still right!
Sociopath
i'm a simple man, i see ron paul, i click
Much love for Dr. Paul
he doesnt care about you he wants you dead to save a nickel
@@smooa1889 I don’t care about you
@@larnolarno6800 i care about you because your a conscious living thing with sentience. I want to maximize your well being and happiness. I want social equality. Freedom.
@@smooa1889 You can have social equality, or you can have freedom, but you CAN’T have both.
@@TheMattj88 freedom is equality
"What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself."
Wolf: Oh the horror!
I work in the ER. It is against the law for us to ask for your insurance until after the doctor does a medical evaluation, and people have the right to be stabilized. This doesn't mean that we will remove a non-lethal bullet. This doesn't mean we will do a surgery for a minor fracture that could be handled as an outpatient. We follow the law, and we do what is ethical, but listen up. This audience and Ron Paul is wackos if they think health services should be denied if someone doesn't have insurance or can't produce their insurance. If you are insured and you come into the ER unconscious because of a heart attack or a car accident, but you left your wallet at home or your wallet is scattered across the floor of your vehicle, you would be grateful if the fire department, the ambulance and the hospital performed their duties in good faith in a system like Ron Paul's or the audience's where no one was treated until they could produce cash or an insurance card that could be validated to be current and capable of covering the potential services.
And I love his response, which is basically to rely on charities. Imagine the situation, you are in an ambulance and need to get a heart cathertization for a STEMI and the closest cath lab is not a charity hospital, but there is one a few hours away, so the ambulance goes out of their system to drive someone dying of a heart attack two hours away, except, when they arrive, the line for free healthcare is long, so he dies waiting. Meanwhile, that hospital has real costs with performing something for free, so they have to raise the insurance premiums and procedure costs for paying members, so in essence, people still pay for someone else, but you know, the government doesn't have to do it and the hospitals aren't forced to do it, so all is good.
@@jirace People don't die waiting for care in free market systems like what Ron Paul wants. They die in government run systems like the VA www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/index.html
Ron never said someone should be denied if an insurance card is not produced. He operated at a time before most of this insurance BS and people were not turned away then either. It’s a hypothetical situation that does not come up. The idea of having a “right” to someone else’s skilled services eventually becomes very problematic though. Does the hospital pay you? Or do they have a right to your services as an employee?
I love Ron Paul, Tomas Massie seems to be doing good work for us in DC and I enjoy following his career to.
People clearly didn’t understand his position here. His position was not that the man should be allowed to die, it was that private charity should pick up the slack. That’s why he said “when I was practicing medicine, we never turned anyone away because the churches would help them if they couldn’t pay.”
Exactly!
The Churches don't help anyone but themselves. Be sure to pay that 10% to that preacher, but sorry he can't pay your hospital bill. He needs a new jet.
@@Susieq26754you are spot on my friend!!! Churches don’t even feed the poor. That’s why the government does. If church fed the poor there would not be entire families with babies on the street corner begging. Jesus is going to be busy with those apostate/ churches when He returns. That includes the entire congregations as well.
But that's not the system anymore, and therefore is a terrible policy. Universal healthcare is non-negotiable.
@@j-mshistorycorner6932it's not the system because we rely on uncle Sam! Universal health care is a terrible idea
*Its 2020* they really did mean it
even for themselves
That's what freedom is all about, and it turned out to be right, again.
Oh yeah, I want to the government to take care of me, I need to be forced to have medical insurance, so I need these laws!
Im for Medicare for all but atleast he stood on his principles
Yes, and notice he said "No" 00:54 to the question "should society let the uninsured die". His system encourages churches, charities, and private entities to handle these problems, NOT the government. People can disagree, but they shouldn't mischaracterize what he's saying.
@Matt Guitar apparently it is. Countless comments completely overlooking self-responsibility and overlooking the idea that forcing one to contribute to another is the literal antithesis of liberty, while squashing out the ability for people to help eachother on their own fruition. It's unreal.
Freedom comes with responsibility. Simple concept that people don’t wanna understand.
@Matthew Apsey How dense must you be to think taxation is theft? Taxation is investment. If you pay a bit extra in tax, it covers you if you have a heart attack and need to spend a few days in hospital. The U.S. healthcare system runs at huge profit.
@@thatbloodypanda6989 so if you don't pay taxes what happens? the government uses violence on you, so theft, just get rid of the insurance companies and go cash transaction free market, your healthcare is solved, in Canada our government supplies terrible healthcare and to expensive, it's collapsing. you have a crony capitalism healthcare system, you just need a capitalist healthcare system
It's completely dishonest to suggest that churches would somehow make up the enormous amount of money required to keep all uninsured people alive. He should be honest about his ideology and admit that all these people would die.
Yea he lives in la la land!
You completely missed the second half of his response where he breaks down exactly what is driving that price gouging.
It's strange to me that the questioner, or anyone else, would think this is a
"gotcha" question, but I know a lot of people think that way. The taxpayers aren't responsible for
other people's health, education, housing, although most Americans think so. It's only when money is stolen
from people by the government that these things are done. Common sense. 😊
Every time Ron Paul speaks, he makes me realize we live in the upside down world. That feeling you get when you realize everyone around you is wrong and thinks you are the idiot
By law , a hospital has to care for people don't have health insurance
So, who will pay for people who are in a hospital and don't have health insurance
Explain
@@steveavecillas1114 the tax payers.... as always in the end
Society≠government
Society doesn’t equal corporations. Government is supposed to be by the people for the people of the people. But it’s just owned by corporations. Especially private health insurance companies the ones Ron Paul likes to defend.
@@MrSiad123 ultimately that is a failure of govt. Ron Paul despises the unfair bottlenecking and regulations that the corporations impose to stop competition.
@@MrSiad123 corporations get their large market share through bottle necking market regulations
@Akshay Natu because exactly as you said, one day it could be you.
@Akshay Natu its not their responsibility. But they still can do it voluntarily out of kindness.
An audience of absolute sociopaths
When Wolfe says just let him die? a few people in the crowd yell "YEA"....all I can say is karma will get them...wow
any day now
You were right, karma did come, a few of them probably got covid
I don’t think they were yelling yeah for letting them die
You missed the whole point. Immediately after the audience member says yeah, Ron Paul says no! then explains how they will definitely be taken care of, using his own life as an example.
@@fredstriker2042 whether or not he expounded on it, those people absolutely said yes to letting him die
I swear even I underestimate/forget how much an impact he had on my formative years. So ahead of his time, and it prepared me for what's going on right now. He's right about people not taking responsibility for themselves and their neighbors. If we actually all knew our neighbors and took stock in the well-being of our communities we'd be a force to be reckoned with. Problem is we've even lost who we are in the first place, which is part of the plan unfortunately.
Marxism, in other words.
Man I miss Ron Paul. What a fantastic man.
Are you kidding?
@j-mshistorycorner6932 no, he is very well respected and admired. He's been the only one to be accurate about the federal reserve and inflation for decades.
@@michaelmaniloff9297 LMFAO
Translation: Being unable to afford healthcare is "freedom of choice." Also, dying is "taking responsibility" for poverty. I'm really sad that I live on the same planet as such moral derelicts.
I don't think you understand what he said.
I'm quite happy not to understand the ravings of sociopaths.
So you would rather force people to pay for the health care they can't afford? Dumb argument.
All these comments on here insinuating that Ron Paul would leave someone to die because they aren't being taken care of by the government....HE NEVER SAID that listen to it again, he said that they NEVER turned anyone away, someone in society would step in (to include CHURCHES).
we are already paying for it, 800 billion military budget. cut that bitch in half and get us our health care, not insurance. health care. control the price like everyother civilized nation.
The legend what a great representation of America we need much more like him in D.C.
actually that's definitely not why the cost of healthcare is so high. Healthcare at the individual level reflects inelastic demand, when you need it you need it. You can't say no when you're unconscious, and drug companies and hospitals cost whatever they want. Medicare costs way less per person than private insurance. When governments or big groups of ppl bargain for big contracts healthcare costs go down. We spend as much in TAXES for healthcare as in countries that have universal healthcare!
gurbbymanz, the fedgov involvement in medicine is the chief source of soaring costs...
@@imscobol except its not.
Lol it’s the opposite
Healthcare goes up when governments involved.
Prices go down when people can shop around.
@@xxxxxx-kk7mh Except it is.
Text book example of "First Principals".
Why does the man NEED health insurance to live?
I love Ron Paul. I am so happy I got to meet him in 2012 when I was a delegate for him to the RNC in Tampa
Cool story bro
Like this man Paul. He is all correct!
That just might be the best answer to any debate question ever
Saying that someone in society part of the private sector will always take care of somebody in need (church, charity, philanthropy..) Is just saying: I trust more people than the government.
or corporations amusingly enough.
Yes billionaires are so much more trustworthy with their money lmao both sides of the same fucking coin😂
Humans do in fact have a morale responsibility to one another I believe. But to try to accomplish that through government is a cheat that simply does not work. We cannot abdicate our duty to one another. It must be done voluntarily and local.
it not onyl does work, its the only reliable method.
if you're in a car accident, right after you lost your job, what do you want a civilization to do? let you die? if there is a big economic collapse and you lost your job, and it will probably take a year to find something else, what do you want to happen? for the country to tell you to fuck off and starve? what if no one voluntarily helps you? thats why it should be required that the government help their citiznes by law. it should be illegal for them not to help
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Health care is not a right. Goods and services are never rights. You aren't owed anything just because you exist. Also, "What if no one voluntarily helps you" is just as outlandish as thinking the government has ever helped anyone. And nothing is ever free. The only way the government can "help" the citizenry is by stealing wealth from said citizenry.
I’d rather have this than the dystopian big government hell we’ve had for the past 16 months.
Define dystopian
@@blenderbanana anyone who’s read Nineteen Eighty-Four doesn’t need it to be defined.
Let Liberty ring!
Who can afford to pay their own health insurance nowadays...people can barely make enough to feed their families....If I didn't have health insurance through my job I couldn't afford to pay $400 a month to cover my family...this is ridiculous...we can barely pay for rent and gas!!!!!!!!! At the end he does say that alternative healthcare should be covered...I'm on the fence with this guy.
IG IAMTHEPRETTYBARBER The whole point is to break the current system that lines the pockets of big pharma . The topic at hand is cherry picked in order to never fix the real problem.
@@bobbybrown5196 you're a crackpot
He never said cover he said Allow
If not for the SSA and the AFA most if not all people would be covered by their employers. If you don’t have an employer then you’re obviously well off enough to afford healthcare (which would be cheaper if not for the SSA and the AFA). If you don’t work or do anything for society you shouldn’t expect society’s help.
@@theamazingcj5708 thankfully crackpots like yourself have no power
Conservatives always say the good hearts of citizens will take care of the poor and needy so we don't need government to do that. If they really mean it, citizens should put their money where their mouth is, instead of making token donations to a "get well fund" for Tracy just because she got cancer, pay your taxes and help Tracy get health insurance.
Forcing taxes at the point of a gun to pay health insurance does not a good heart indicate.
@@NwoDispatcher The difference is that, in normal theft, you give your money or your life and get nothing in return. In tax theft, you give your money (often times a frankly tiny percentage of it) or your life - and if you give the former, then the second you need help, the society that stole from you is happy to give back. Meanwhile health insurance requires that you give many times what society would steal, but hey, at least you're not forced to, right? Oh, woops, you got cancer and nobody can help you since you couldn't afford insurance.
So yes, taxation is theft. So?
Taxation is theft. Advocating for government force is not compassion. Charity and voluntary action is always more effective and more efficient than any stupid ass bureaucratic government action you seem to advocate for. Keep licking the State's boots.
90% of people took "let him die" as Ron Pauls only answer, but did not grasp on what he is trying to say. When the questions was asked, "should we let him die?" Ron said "no", audience said "yes".
They tried to make him seem evil but hes on the side of freedom
He is evil. He doesn’t care if people die. It’s a crying shame that we have people like him who are fine with death.
Yes he's on the side of FreeDumb!
@@blubberman911 And you're on the side of authoritarianism.
Liberals cannot stand him. He is way to smart for the nanny state.
Whether or not you support universal health care, we should all acknowledge that it is perfectly possible for a society to use tax money to do this successfully. It is done in numerous other countries. Canada, for example, has both better health outcomes and higher user satisfaction than the U.S.
Whenever someone says it cannot work, they are simply ignoring the facts from countries like Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. If people are opposed to universal healthcare on principle, they should be honest about their reasons, not claim that it cannot work.
Jonathan Lynch I'm against Single Payer and support free market healthcare for this reason. Would you prefer a system where everyone is taken care of but taxation is required, or a system where everyone is taken care of and requires no taxation?
Everyone is taken care of with no taxation? That's a fantasy. Nothing is free.
Can anyone provide a real world example where everyone is taken care of medically without taxation? I think it does not exist.
Jonathan Lynch Sir, you seem to have fallen victim to the lie that “all Scandinavian countries have a universal healthcare system.” This is utterly false. Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, etc. actually embrace free markets. They have much less government intervention in the economy compared to the U.S. What they do have, however, is a large welfare system. This is what’s known as the Nordic model- almost completely free market with a large welfare net. This is NOT the same as universal healthcare
Jonathan Lynch My mom relies on Canadian healthcare and has been on a waitlist for almost two months for a surgery to treat a condition that almost killed her. A friend of mine waited two months to get into surgery for a leg broken in several places. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Canadian healthcare.
0:54 Never thought "I practice medicine" could become the new "I have black friends." LOL
You forgot the rest of it. The part about him NOT TURNING DOWN PATIENTS, and that they would NOT be left for dead. The audience cheering yes are the ones at fault in this video.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
You all have to face up to the fact that your society has failed, the private sector has failed and you need to start looking after each other as you will all need help in the future.
You cannot keep thinking that everything is ok it's not .
You fucking idiot, its not the private sector that failed, its the government
You would not be paying for him, you would be contributing to having a society that takes care of those in need.
Where children, the elderly and the sick are not baggage. It is about taking responsibility, not lacking it, in common path. On this level America is at the stone age.
You say this as if we didn’t already have methods and institutions for taking care of one another before Medicare/Medicaid. Were they perfect? Of course not. However, it provided a strong incentive for you to take care of yourself and to treat your family and members of your community with respect, because at some time you may need their help.
Look at low-income Americans. They have much higher rates of obesity and tobacco use. Two of the biggest killers. Do you think these people are too stupid to realize the consequences of their decisions? Or is it possible that compassionate government policies have altered their behaviors negatively?
Even if we went to a single payer system and were able to reduce pharmaceutical costs due to the US gov’s buying power and cut out third party payers we still are left with a society that makes extremely poor health choices. Resources are scarce which means healthcare will have to be rationed in some way and freedoms will have to be infringed upon. Waiting lists, death panels, hospital wards instead of rooms, taxing or restricting foods and ingredients which are deemed unhealthy, the possibilities are endless.
We will eventually end up with a single payer system and it will be great for the poorest Americans. For the rest of us we will pay more in taxes and get less quality.
That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.
yep. And if you work and maintain good relationships with people, they'll be there to help you out and vice versa. Make your way. It's what this country was founded on.
Going bankrupt because you got cancer is not "freedom," you demented fucking sociopath.
It is result of living in a backward, cruel, heartless country.
@@vsmith1688 at the beginning in USA, healthcare was provided privetly (with no corporativism) and people who couldn't afford it were treated by voluntarian associations (mutual aid fraternities, church hospitals, and such) and they people were pretty altruistic (highest percentage of GDP in the planet voluntary given to help others; and today there are actually 105 million americans dedicating their time to help others). The system was diminished by *_crowding out_** effect* of governtment spending and taxation: starting with Income Tax and with roosvelt and hoover interventionist mentality that continues until today.
Read about the *Crowding out* Effect it's very interesting. Have a nice day 💪
Being born into a world were you can't do anything without money is not a world of taking risg. It's financial dependency on the property class just like slavery.
@@clup3136
Charity never worked in history.
when society progresses from allowing to die to actively killing you
I bet these are the same people who scream "SAVE TERRI SCHIAVO"
And will demonize those who get abortions
there's a huge difference between pulling the plug on a vegetable compared to someone in the U.S dying from a curable ailment due to being uninsured and lacking the sufficient funds
@@forman208 That's like saying "And will demonize those who commit murder."
@@joemartinez8105 Nice try. Abortion isn't murder, bucko.
Blitzer - "Should society let him die?"
Dr. Paul - "No, society should take care of each other"
Holy hell... the government isn't there to be a beacon of altruism and compassion. All of you saying "so the government should just let people die?" What if someone smashes his car into Lamborghini and doesn't have insurance? Should he be responsible for the bill himself? What kind of government would let someone be accountable for his own irresponsibility!?
There is a fine line between personal responsability and just letting people die
Serban Andrei Marin Also it’s not my fault if I get leukemia just because it runs in my family, and I’m not about to go into debt for that.
@@GpH1936 if you don't want to go into debt, then get health insurance. Don't risk not being covered. And get a life insurance policy, so that your family has money if/when you die of leukemia. If you don't want to pay for the insurance, then it's on you.
Ether 12:27 You’re being real generous to those companies for thinking that just cause you can get insurance doesn’t mean you can’t get into debt. I’ve seen it happen, and I’ve seen it ruin families. It’s also assuming you can afford insurance easily, which some folk just can’t.
@@GpH1936 It's amazing that because of the ACA, I, as a teacher, cannot afford insurance because of soaring premiums.
Beautiful. They thought they had him with that one, he schooled them. 🏫
Did CNN really post this? 😂
charles allan fuck us for not making him president in 2008
CNN used to be kind of moderate now not so much
Yeah, it's almost as if the narrative you've made up in your head isn't true.
Also, this made Ron Paul look bad, LOL.
Cnn posted it. It's the only way they'd get thumbs up
@@LiberalSquared If it made Ron Paul look bad why are all the top rated comments complimenting him?
A visionary. Calvin Coolidge on roids
Yes. If he cant afford the healthcare either with insurance or out-of-pocket then that is his problem. That should not be a government issue.
Then why does the US govt spend more per capita on HC than any other country on earth? You know Canada with Universal HC? Their govt spends half.
How about we privatize the military instead and socialize medicine and education. The reason for conflicts are usually economic and this affects the rich cats the most so let them fund the war machine and start the wars with no help from the middle/working class!
Freedom equates to responsibility more so than rights.
Yea both Democrats and Republicans seems to have forgotten
People are not responsible for the bad baviour the business class wants to put on the masses while keeping them poor and exploited. Most people end up not having any choice at all. The economic system was build that way ! This personal responsibility bullcrap is corporate propaganda.
Freedom without Responsibility is simply Narcissism.
@@DansEarway
Freedom without financial security = dependency on the shitty behaviour of other greedy people.
That is not personal responsibility ! They have no choice to make other decisions.
And there is not such thing as poor people with no money investing in a busniess. You cannot spend money you don't have. And wage slavery is not gonna do it !
@@Koevid-IVFPandemieAngstPornoNOyou need a skill set not a job
Government is the reason cost are so high. We need a true freemarket in healthcare, not more government.
Get rid of the gov. totally if u want (yes, they are bad in some ways
and i am not a liberal) but the GREED has out done things. too many
people in the medical industry including hospitals do price jacking
WAAAAAAAAAY beyond cost, insurance companies try to maximize profit and
minimize even valid claims and create complex paperwork and costs etc.
while spiritual charities, which is the real answer, are lacking.
In USA, if you're parents die to some unfortunate reason and you were
born with a pre existing conditions that no insurance company or charity
is able/willing to cover, liberals wanna put that cost on others
through force of government, while most conservatives and libertarians
at most (might) donate so little that you end up dying a slow painful
death. Side note: Disclosure of hospital prices so people can shop around would require FORCE from the gov. and they don't want it.
I think none of the people i stated in this comment knows what real
Dharma even means. Have fun ignoring or trolling etc. my comment since
my notifications are broken anyway.
Playitalready There is a reason for that, in the US we have a over use of Third party payment thanks to Medicare, Medicaid and employer provided insurance which is encouraged by the income tax. In a free market system the patent would be more incharge because insurance (like in any other industry but healthcare) would only cover catastrophic things that are unlikely to happen, everthing else would be paid for out of pocket which would bring in competitive pricing which is nowhere to be found in the current system. Ending the government regulations on insurance companies like restrictions on state and international lines just to name one would boost competition and encourage better practices.
I know/agree medical insurance SHOULD only cover
catastrophic things, n everything else SHOULD be paid for out of pocket BUT again, getting rid of even ALL gov medical programs would not assure that happens like that, and even if it did... a result "which would bring in competitive pricing" is just your bias theory NOT fact. i already mentioned that to get that, you'd have to use the gov to FORCE it unless people in the industry become less greedy (which wont happen cause the gov AND parents fail to educate people properly). Obamacare resulted in HIGH out of pocket costs, many plans are like catastrophic only, yet nobody can shop around, thus debunking your theory. rarely are prices disclosed in advance in hopspitals for out of pocket costs. same thing happened before Obamacare. Cutting income tax doesnt guarentee getting rid of the 3rd party payer that happens with employers.
There is no federal restriction on state lines. States have the right to restrict insurance within their state (10th amendment ensures this will not change) however as a for profit company, let me go to any state and i shall choose the state with the least rules... that allows me to give the least power/rights to patients and minimize their rightful claims to max out my profits, and with enough freedom i will take the liberty to buy up as much competition to get a monopoly (or close to it, depending on if the gov stops me or not) and be a big, bloated tyrant.
I worked in the industry and know all the arguments and your talking points, i knew you might bring up the state lines thing and you'd ignore a lot of what i said, like for example you ignored how if youre born broke/an orphan with early stage cancer and nobody is able/willing to help you...your comment proves you'd let him die a slow painful death since you didn't even bother to at least throw out some talking point that might sound good in theory and convince some simpletons it would work. I got lucky i saw your comment before i closed this page...and luckily you can ignore/spin etc. the argument cause my stupid notifications arent getting fixed so i wont see it anyway. And youtube is so big they don't need to value me to help me fix it, and lack of gov intervention ain't goona help me either. Again, the problem is people don't even know what Dharma means, let alone fully or truly understand it. Oh well, God fixes all sooner or later.
Playitalready Just because some people pay more out of pocket under Obamacare that doesn't mean it's enough to make a difference, the vast majority of Americans still don't. There are some doctors in the country that don't take insurance at all yet they're prices are much lower because the customer is in charge, if that became the norm in the US (other then catastrophic events) prices would plummet. Also about state lines ever if it is a state issue it's still a failure of government non the less. I don't wanna get rid of all healthcare programs over night, we've breed a society of dependency so the right thing would be a long term transition period.
Playitalready Also ever I'd insurance companies would be attracted to states with the least regulations competition would promote good practices, nobody wants to by covered by a insurance company with a bad reputation. About the kid with cancer, that's a very unlikely what if situation, insurance would be much cheaper making it more likely the family would be covered and I'm the small chance there not covered their is St.Jude, assuming St.Jude would be unable to help they could still get treatment but go into debt, however overall prices would be so much lower than now the debt wouldn't be nearly as punishing.
In Ron Paul’s free society healthcare would be much more affordable so the hypothetical situation would be so unlikely. Healthcare is so expensive because of bureaucracy and special interests
THIS. If I was Ron Paul I would have started here. "First of all, a healthy 30 year old wouldn't be paying anywhere near 200 or 300 a month for health insurance (which isn't even a bad deal by today's inflated standards). That's absurd and wouldn't happen in a free market system"
Free market bullshit !
Let's face it, America is NOT the best country in the world.
Miss you RPaul
Still upset that this man was never given the presidency in 2008 and 2012. A president we needed but didnt deserve.
All these comments on here insinuating that Ron Paul would leave someone to die because they aren't being taken care of by the government....HE NEVER SAID that listen to it again, he said that they NEVER turned anyone away, someone in society would step in (to include CHURCHES).
Petrovinsky Ron Paul is turning his back on the 45,000 people a year who die from lack of healthcare insurance. No Church or Charity is there to save them.
news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Libertaire Do the charity yourself.
casasasl Try coming up with a real argument troll. You know I can’t provide healthcare for 30 million uninsured Americans, unless I was Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.
Libertaire Charity is made by several people, and seeing how there are millions of people worried about this that shouldn't be a problem.
casasasl You are right that millions of Americans are worried about this. Healthcare is the #1 issue Americans care about according to research. There will continue to be much dialogue about healthcare in US politics until there is healthcare coverage for every one. Single payer is the only system that can do that. And 74% of Americans support it. Everybody needs medical care so it makes perfect sense that will all put into it. We should decrease the inflated military budget like Ron Paul says but also focus on improving the welfare of Americans.
The title of this video is disingenuous and misleading clickbait that completely misses the point that Dr. Paul was making.
I think Ron Paul is a genuine guy but his position on health care is absolutely wrong. In the free market health care does not work because private insurance companies are trying to profit off of all the people in the pool. Insurance by definition means you pay for other people's health care when they get sick and people pay for your health care when you get sick. However in a free market the health insurance company will look for any excuse to either deny claims or demand large deductibles before they cover a penny since they're more concerned with their own bottom line. I'm not saying everything should be nationalized, but Healthcare is something that every person will need at many different points in their lives.
Now, if health insurance is non profit and offered by the government in a single payer system, it has tremendous advantages.
1. It's significantly more efficient and fair. Every single person is covered and pays into it through taxes. Meaning that a hospital never has to offer their services free of charge to people who cannot afford it, then overcharge the hell out of the next person who walks into the hospital that has really good insurance to make up for it. Doctors never have to fight to get insurance companies to pay up, further saving time and money.
2. No one has to fill out form after form of 'i want this covered, I want that covered, etc etc' if you change your insurer or you want to change your plan. No. In a single payer everything would be covered and it would just be far more simple.
3. No one goes bankrupt from medical debt. No one dies because they can't afford Healthcare. That benefits society as a whole.
This isn't rocket science. Virtually every developed country in the world has some form of another of a national healthcare system. USA needs to catch up.
Racer BR free market healthcare works fine look at india 1 dollar for doctor visits on free market
How can someone be so right about everything?
If this is the best system America can come up with then why is it the only country to do it ?
Americas current system is certainly not that.
Democracy isn't rational. The state isn't rational. What is doesn't mean what's good. What's good doesn't mean what is.
@@AtlasFullsun You're an idiot.
100% AGREE - freedom and responsibility.
None of this would have been a problem if the Churches had done their jobs. And, if you don't like government helping the needy, it's not too late for you and your church to put the government out of the social safety net business.
It’s pretty simple: if you choose to not pay for insurance u become responsible for taking care of yourself
In a civilized society we take care of each other.
I don’t want your handouts
@@pascho1057 it’s our money. I’m talking about using our tax dollars to take care of the American people.
@@johnwesley5119 You do not meet a moral end by using immoral means.
@@timothywenners936 nothing immoral about it.
@@johnwesley5119 Since when is violating the labor of another not immoral ?
The TRUE PROBLEM IS...that IT HAS BECOME A BUSINESS For PROFIT!!! There Is NO CAP ON WHAT THESE INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN CHARGE!! And BIG PHARMA IS JUST AS BAD, If Not WORSE!!! The SAME Medication That Costs $5 In The UK...Costs $150 HERE!!!
The price cap comes via competition, which in health care is not allowed by government bureaucracy. There's no cap on food prices either, but competition keeps the prices low. Freedom is the only thing that has ever brought prices of anything down to where people could afford it
When he says "society", what he really means is "the government". Society is normal people. People can choose to help him if they want. What does it mean for the government to help him? IT means we ALL are forced to help him, whether we like it or not.
People are selfish, so yes they should have to do it. You cant rely on the average person to do what's right, government needs to step in. There should be a right to life, it's disgusting we don't have medicare for all in this country without putting people in a debt hole they'll never escape from. How very Christian, for a country that pretends to hold it in such high regard. Its a profound selfishness, and that's what the republican party is based off of, "f you, ive got mine". But the government should be there to serve the most amount of people possible, and the ones who need it most, not the like 10% who are rich and sad theyre going to be taxed more because it might go to someone struggling, instead of making their pockets fatter. And keep in mind like 35% of people are living paycheck to paycheck, they cant possibly save enough to afford medical bills or insurance in the first place. The wealthy have way more than their fair share from exploiting others, and its not like theyre going to suffer if this happens. Theres a disgusting amount of wealth disparity in this country, that anyone can see it and accept that's the way it should / has to be is beyond me.
@@something215Spot on.
If you actually listen you would realise ron paul comes up with brilliant solutions that cost way less than the healthcare/insurance system we have today
This clip shows the insanity of America.
The inmates have been running the world for a long time. Only in a crazy world would liberty and personal responsibility be seen as insane.
Nanofuture87 Oh please. In what sense are you free? Your freedom is directly tied to how big your bank account is. Wealth = freedom. No wealth? No freedom. Just wage slavery. And you think that’s “freedom.” LOL.
@@XXgamemaster I am free to choose, free to control my own life. There is no such thing as "wage slavery," only consenting individuals exchanging their labor for mutually agreed upon compensation.
@@Nanofuture87 he's right, and this "mutually agreed wage" thing you mention is far from the truth,greedy people demanding so much along with unions backing their demands have forced companies to outsource and destroy the country's economy. Then on the other hand, you've got tightass rich pigs who dont wanna pay the workers who made their name worth something anything over $3 an hour. Capitalism is just a huge shit show and letting the sick die because they're poor only proves that point conclusively.
@@grizzly6018 "this "mutually agreed wage" thing you mention is far from the truth"
It's not, except in the cases where the government has gotten involved to force wages.
"Capitalism is just a huge shit show"
Less of a shit show than the alternatives.
"letting the sick die because they're poor only proves that point conclusively"
The other options are to force doctors to treat people, an actual form of slavery, or seize property from people against their will to pay those doctors, a form of theft. Which should it be? Do you want to enslave people, steal from people, or have people be responsible for themselves?
More people would pay for health insurance if the U.S. health care system wasn't such trash
I’m a democrat but i would have totally voted for Ran Paul he would have been a awsome president.
He was supposed to be our Happening.
I'm a Canadian and I would have totally voted for him.
@@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406 Why? Do you not like your healthcare/taxes in Canada?
So many people here ignoring the second part of what dr. Paul said. He explained why the cost of healthcare is so high. Healthcare is lacking competition and has become a bureaucratic hell.
lol
The real question that’s not being addressed is “Why is Health Care so expensive if it requires insurance to pay for it?
To those who claim it’s because of the greedy business owners, employers, doctors & insurance companies, do you think relying on DC, a “greedier” group that “requires” an annual budget of 4 TRILLION dollars with a debt of close to 20 TRILLION Dollars is a better idea?
You are too caught up in your feelings and won't accept the facts that public healthcare programs throughout other countries run substantially better than the US Model.
You're so bad at economics you think the national budget is like a household budget. The government gains money from having "debt" with banks. It's the smart thing to do with money.
Shout out to the people who said yes.
Hope you enjoy your price gouging healthcare.
Here’s a premium.
Here’s a deductible.
Here’s a co-pay.
On top of that here’s the bill you’re partially responsible.
Oh you have cancer.
Oh , you’re declaring bankruptcy too bad you still have to pay the bill.
Imagine looking at all the evidence of things the federal government has fucked up, and thinking that they wouldnt also fuck up healthcare.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law