Posted on 12/13/2007 10:58:57 AM PST by traviskicks
John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on Youth Appeal, Opposition to Medicare, Medicaid
"20/20's" John Stossel interviews Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, exclusively for ABCNEWS.com. Paul wants the government out of health care, and opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and federally mandated children's health insurance. (AP Photo)
Over the last few months, I've heard from hundreds of viewers who said that I should interview unconventional Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. So I did.
In our interview, published exclusively on ABCNEWS.com, we talk about the Iraq war, when war is justified, the proper role of government, immigration, drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, and more.
In this segment, we discuss the 72-year-old Texas congressman's surprising popularity with young people, and then, at greater length, his thoughts on health care. You can watch the full interview here.
Rocking the Youth Vote
Paul's libertarian platform of individual freedom, and freedom from most government regulation, has resonated with young voters.
He's the most Googled presidential candidate, and his videos are the most watched on YouTube. He's a hit on the Internet, a space mostly inhabitated by young voters.
"Freedom is a young idea. Tyranny is an old idea," he told me.
"Young people tend to be more principled, and they like that, and they know I've been dedicated to the principles of the Constitution, and they welcome the idea of somebody that talks about leaving them alone, letting them run their own lives."
Struggle for Health Care
When it comes to one of the thorniest issues in the presidential race — health care — Paul has firsthand experience.
He is an obstetrician-gynecologist who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. In his practice, he never accepted Medicare or Medicaid — the government health insurance programs for the poor and elderly — because he objects to government involvement in health care.
"We've had the government involved in our medical care system since the early '70s, we've had managed care. And all of a sudden, nobody's happy with it," Paul said in our interview.
Paul has even gone as far as taking the lonely position of saying government shouldn't provide health insurance for poor children.
What would happen to those kids under his administration? Paul replied by talking about his early experience as a doctor.
"I worked in a church hospital ... and I was paid $3 an hour in the early 1960s. There was no government insurance. But everybody got taken care of. And nobody was charged."
Paul says that private charity will step in to care for the poor.
"Should we move to, toward a socialized system, or should we look to the marketplace to help us sort out the problems we have in medicine? My argument, of course, is always looking for the answers in the free market, in private choices, and in individuals dealing with those problems, rather than depending on the state."
Opposing Medicare and Medicaid
Paul also opposes Medicare.
I asked him, "How can elderly people be taken care of without a big government program like that?"
"Right now, it's difficult," Paul said, "because we made a whole generation who are too dependent. But the question that we ought to ask is, if we continue to do what we do, how are we going to finance it? There's no funding for Medicare. It's under a greater threat than Social Security.
"Government interferes too often," he argued. "We've become complacent and dependent on the government to protect us, and they fail, and they don't provide the services that they claim."
Paul says government cannot be our guardian and protector.
"The failure of government is becoming more evident than ever before ... the failure of taking care of the victims of Katrina, the failure of the war, the bankruptcy of the Social Security system. The government hasn't protected us from lead in paints ... it just goes on and on."
Good point.
“If he does succeed with both then how can he make all medical care tax deductible?”
If he were to get rid of the IRS and the income tax, one of the most abominable kinds of taxes, then I wouldn’t CARE about deductibility any more. I’d HAVE my money in my pocket, to get whatever sort of health insurance I wished... I’d surely even forgo the mortgage interest deduction... wouldn’t you???? His deductibility issue now is based on what currently IS, not what he WANTS... you know, current realities and all that???
“If I recall correctly, when this nation was founded, no one asked if there was a “plan” in place to ease the transition from the monarchy to freedom, they just went and did it.”
Yes, but that was a different kind of people, independent individualists who wanted nothing but to be free and to be totally responsible for their own lives and knew any price was worth paying to obtain that freedom.
Today’s society is comprised of people whose only concern is security and they are all, like most of those on this thread, willing to sell themselves into any amount of slavery to purchase that security. Most of them hate Ron Paul because he appears to be a threat to their precious government provided security.
Hank
“After paying into it for 30+ years I would like to get a refund myself if someone does away with Medicare...”
You paid into it for all that time? You trusted the government? Well, if Medicare is done away with you’ll have learned a lesson—and when the system goes bankrupt you’ll learn it as well.
By the way. Do you vote? Well, see, you are part of the problem.
Hank
I think you may just have the right of it...
I'm a balance sheet kinda gal, which doesn't allow me to think of one kind of real deduction or real credit as "good", but others are "bad", beyond the question of whether or not I take them.
I prefer lower tax rates to deductions & credits, because reduced rates are totally about NOT having to pay as many taxes, as opposed to government social engineering using the tax code.
I'm gonna have to adjust for inflation.... Let's see, $20 in 1977 would be how much today? (since I'm not going to do all of the research to find out what it really would be, I'll pull a number out of thin air)
Take $1000 and start a manufacturing company today & after you've pulled it off, get back to me & I'll be happy to let you lecture me about risk taking.
“... & I’ll be happy to let you lecture me about risk taking.”
I have no interest in lecturing you or anyone else about anything. Those who want freedom will have it, those who do not realize it is, after the ability to reason clearly, the most important value in life, will not. If you don’t want it, no one is going to force it on you, or even lecture you about it. Enjoy your slavery.
Hank
You keep making assumptions about people & their motives for opposing things your guy has proposed. First, it was we're all clinging to security & now you're assuming I'm a slave to it. When I said you were "lecturing", I was using hyperbole.
Are you self employed?
The dialog of progress:
"This is a problem, we should try to do something about it."
"Do you know how to fix it?"
"No."
"Then shut the hell up."
Paulbot "I will get rid of XYZ"
Freeper: How do you plan to do it?
Well the founding fathers just do it?
What does that have to do with getting rid of XYZ?
If you vote you are the problem?
What?
Shut the hell up Troll...
You turned your brain off right there.
“A little thing called Laws...Ever hear of them?”
Oh, yes, I know all about those things slimey politicians write to justify their oppression, confiscation of people’s property, and intrusion into eveyone’s private life—and the gullible think because they’re called “laws” they are arutomatically “right.” Most man-made laws are nothing but a presumption of power to control other people’s lives.
Do you vote for men who make these “laws?”
Hank
It’s not about the idea, it’s about the person/people.
How will he accomplish what he wants to do if he is elected?
( I never hear him talk about an action plan. He just seems to talk. )
As long as everybody votes like you, we'll keep getting RINOs and Democrats, and there won't be a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.
If you don’t believe the government must make good on its promises, then you should go somewhere else.
Perhaps you should find out more about exactly what it is that was "promised" you. Contrary to assertitions of the assurances of the liars in government, they have no legal responsibility to pay anyonea dime. All of these schemes are pay-as-you-go operations where money comes in one door, is grifted by various government leeches, then goes out in a somewhat reduced volume to its recipients. There is no account with your name on it. The government has already disclaimed any implied liability in court. They felt so strongly that they had no legal duty to accept liability, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Just because someone lives in a fairy tale world where governments are moral beings like people are doesn't mean the reality of the situation is like what they so despirately want to believe.
Another thing to keep in mind is that all of these promises to pay by the government is based on one, and only one thing, the taxing power of the U.S. government. Well, that's not so bad at first glance because the tax slaves of this country have been doing so well for them for quite a while. Well, the problem with that is a 3-dollar word: demographics. You see, we haven't been producing enough babies in this country to keep the ponzi schemes needed to pay all these unfunded liabilities afloat. In order for these schemes to work, the base of the pyramid has to be larger than the top. Well, when they were initially created that was, in fact the case. Social Security (sic) was actuarily sound. There were 10 or more tax slaves paying for each person who managed to make it to the ripe old age of 65.
Problem is, in the 20th century lifestyles changed, and longeity increased, but the retirement age was barely even tinkered with around the edges. Not only that, but many people were placed into the recipient pool that never paid into them, such as those with various disabilities and "surviving children". So, at this late in the scheme, you've come to a point where, rather than have 10 or more people supporting each recipient, you have 3.
Now, looking towards the future, you're really into stickier territory. The government used to publish, as a part of annual budget figures a table in an appendix at the end of a budget document produced by OMB that described what level of taxation was going to be necessary upon future generations to pay for the projected liabilities they were going to incurbased on the assumptions made in the budget document. Clinton put a stop to that because it had become to horrible to withstand scruitiny. The people demanding all of this largesse didn't want to see the reality of what it really means down the road close up in personal. Even the Clintons realize a general 80% rate of taxation was not realistic.
However, that's what you're asking for.
How do you sleep at night knowing the government could just cancel all the money there is ?
Same way most folks do, realizing that life is not without risk. Since you're the one who brought up the idea of "cancelling money", I'd like to ask if you've read any history at all? Many countries based on fiat money have revalued currency. Heck, our fine upstanding neighbors to the south have done it several times just in the last 30 years.
After all, it has no intrinisic value. It is just a promise from the government. If government’s promises are no good, then money is no good either.
Well, you at least somewhat understand what money is, but in fact, the value of American money is based on many things, primarily the "full faith and credit" of the government. Basically what that boils down to in essense is the ability of the government to tax the populace.
Now, as much as I dislike taxation, because it is theft of the very stuff of our very lives, our time, I can't say that all taxation is evil. Well, I'd rephrase that to say that while it is evil, it is a necessary one.The real problems come about when government thinks it has a monopoly on us, and essentially treats us as tax slaves to further their own power, not to perform those delegated Article I, Section 8 powers put forth my the Constitution.
You may notice, if you ever take the time to read that rather critical portion of the Constitution, that none of the programs that you support so strongly are mentioned there. Imagine that!
If true, that would be the only area where he does not differentiate himself from the rest of the field.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.