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."
I would however happily cut every boomer a check just to get them to shut the hell up about what they are "owed".
No, he requested funds for his District for road development that his taxpaying constituents paid and had a right to
He has always voted against these agreements.
You anti-Ron Paul zealots love to operate in a vacuum, attacking Paul, but never saying who your guy is.
So, once again which conservative do you support to become the Republican nominee?
It is not a difficult question and any honest person should be able to give a quick answer.
Now, that was a very intelligent and well written post!
What you mean is that you have no great enthusiasm for them or for what they stand for.
I have noticed a great deal of apathy for any of the major candidates on FR.
Ron Paul supporters are zealous for his message of freedom, and it is that message of a return to the Constitution that gets us excited, not Ron Paul.
But you so-called conservatives gave up your zeal for liberty along time ago and are now very satisfied with the status quo.
Radical!
I say we keep 2%!
Only socialism could pit one generation against another!
As a 'baby boomer' I am willing to forgo everything I ever paid into the government to end its tyranny.
By the way, Bastiat's The Law is the best single work on the role of Government ever written.
Actually, I like winding you Paulbots up. Haven't you figured out that we're laughing at you?
You insult, you slander, you assume and you all think you're so tough. But really...you're`hilarious.
Look, give it a rest. I'm never going to back your Cut-and-Run Boy, your Blame America Champ or any other candidate that MoveOn and Code Pink seem to be enamored of.
I'll let you have the last word, because I know you liertarians like that. Besides, I'm too busy laughing.
Actually, I like winding you Paulbots up. Haven't you figured out that we're laughing at you?
And can't you figure out that we could care less what you think?
You insult, you slander, you assume and you all think you're so tough. But really...you're`hilarious.
Really?
Is asking you who you are supporting an insult or slander?
You must be very embarrassed!
Look, give it a rest. I'm never going to back your Cut-and-Run Boy, your Blame America Champ or any other candidate that MoveOn and Code Pink seem to be enamored of. I'll let you have the last word, because I know you liertarians like that. Besides, I'm too busy laughing.
In other words, you will not tell us who you are supporting-a very sad commentary on those other so called 'conservative' candidates and their tepid supporters.
“I liken terrorism to piracy and as such can be attacked whenever encountered.”
Fair enough. What if the pirates are given refuge inside a sovereign country and that country denies their presence ? Do you go in after them ? That is what happened in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Fair enough. What if the pirates are given refuge inside a sovereign country and that country denies their presence ? Do you go in after them ? That is what happened in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
As I said in the first paragraph, any nation harboring terrorists can and should be attacked as enemies.
But what needs to be done is destroy the enemy, not take on the responsibility of rebuilding that nation into a 'democracy'.
I wonder why we haven't at least bombed Iran since we know they are responsible for terrorist actions against U.S. troops?
Where is the strong retaliation against those terrorist acts?
We do not need to bomb Iran as a preemptive strike against their nuclear capability, but as a response to their actions against us in Iraq.
Saddam put his army in the way. We were still at war from 1991 and Saddam had violated the terms of the cease-fire. He was known to be harboring terrorists and had the expertise to create biological and other weapons. He wasn’t somebody I would want to turn my back on while I committed my forces elsewhere. There was also essentially nothing in Iraq in the way of democratic process that could overthrow Saddam outside of military action. (At the time, there was still a possibility that the democratic movement within Iran could do something. This was before Ahmanutjob, remember.) Had a clean extraction of Saddam and an overthrow of the Bathist regime been possible, we could have left quickly, but Saddam committed his forces and then was in hiding and not caught right away. After having to destroy much of Iraq, I’m glad we did the honorable thing by sticking around for reconstruction — political and infrastructure. I think if we hadn’t we’d look even worse in the world’s eyes.
First, I agree that we had every moral right to attack and defeat Iraq because it was not abiding with the peace agreements that it had signed.
But we should have removed Saddam right after the first gulf war, but we were fighting under the UN and thus, we listened to their demands.
So we had to fight him again in ten years.
Second, we owe no moral obligation to rebuild anyone, we did enough by freeing them.
They need to rebuild their own nation and I could care less what the world 'thinks about us' for not spending our taxpayer money on Iraq.
Third, if Iraq was a threat, what about Iran and why haven't we hit them for their clear terrorist acts?
It is the current Neo-Con leadership that is not serious about the WOT, but is more concerned about 'winning the hearts and minds' of people rather then defeating the enemy.
We saw how our troops were hamstrung in Iraq by government policies in dealing with the terrorists.
We have not won a war since WW2 because we have not declared one and committed to actually winning it.
Instead we shed U.S. blood and waste U.S. treasure on operations which do not advance U.S. interests but are rather for the cause of 'making the world safe for democracy' and thus, place U.S. interests under that of the UN.
I’ve picked more intelligence off the bottom of my boot than all of you paultards combined can muster.
“No, he requested funds for his District for road development that his taxpaying constituents paid and had a right to
He has always voted against these agreements.”
Excuses excuses.
FACT is your lying heerow funded the NAFTA Superhighway.
And that is where you fail your history lesson.
We put restrictions on Germany post WW1, we didn’t help them in any way, and their economy and society crumbled.
What came about was hitler with his promises to restore their sovereignty, and this and that and whatever.
THAT view of not having any “moral obligation” is what caused WW2.
To keep it from happening again, we helped to rebuild Japan and Germany just as we are helping Afghanistan and Iraq.
Terrorism is bred in a petri dish of a stagnant economy, crumbling society, and no hope mixed with radical hatemongering.
That is also how the nazi’s came to power because the nazi party and hitler whipped the people up into a frenzy to lash out at those who they perceived as the ones harming them
If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.
Ignoring terrorism, and using “pin prick” strikes didn’t work
Treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter didn’t work.
ron paul has chosen to ignore the history lessons that were taught to us.
You win the hearts and minds of the people, you defeat the insurgents (terrorists) because they no longer have the people supporting them.
Counterinsurgency 101
And you allow your troops to do so without restricting them and adding additional risk to their lives.
Winning 101.
And that is where you fail your history lesson. We put restrictions on Germany post WW1, we didn’t help them in any way, and their economy and society crumbled. What came about was hitler with his promises to restore their sovereignty, and this and that and whatever.
The Western powers put the war debts on Germany under the Varsailles Treaty.
They were far more generous with Germany then the Germans with the Russians when they knocked them out of the war.
The Treaty was harsh, but it ended up being the Americans who ended up paying the bill since Germany borrowed from us and never paid us back.
Moreover, they did find money to rebuild their own military under Hilter while repudiating the war debt.
THAT view of not having any “moral obligation” is what caused WW2.
No, what caused WW2 was the Allies not enforcing the provisions of the Treaty which forbade Germany to rearm.
Had they done that, Hilter would have never had been able to rebuild the German military.
To keep it from happening again, we helped to rebuild Japan and Germany just as we are helping Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, after WW2 we did help rebuild Germany and Japan, but it was under our terms, not theirs.
There were no more factions blowing up our troops and those that resisted in post WW2 Germany were found and executed.
Both nations understood that we had won the war and we were in charge.
Terrorism is bred in a petri dish of a stagnant economy, crumbling society, and no hope mixed with radical hatemongering.
Islam doesn't need a stagnant economy, it is terroristic by its very nature.
We should outlaw Islam in Iraq as we outlawed Nazism in Germany-if we were serious about defeating it.
That is also how the nazi’s came to power because the nazi party and hitler whipped the people up into a frenzy to lash out at those who they perceived as the ones harming them
No doubt, but it was the weakness of the Allies in not enforcing the Varsallie Peace treaty and allowing Germany to rearm that caused the problem.
The Allies should have reentered Germany as soon as Hilter began rebuilding his military violiting the terms of the Treaty, but they did not have the moral courage to do so.
If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.
And we have to learn from history the correct lessons, when you fight a war, fight to win, something we have not done since WW2 because we do not have U.S. interests as our primary objective.
Ignoring terrorism, and using “pin prick” strikes didn’t work Treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter didn’t work.
Terrorism is a military problem that needs to be dealt with by the military, not the politicans who are more concerned about Iraq's opinion of us then U.S. lives.
ron paul has chosen to ignore the history lessons that were taught to us.
Ron Paul has grasped the lessons very well, when you are going to fight a war, declare it and define its objectives and fight it for U.S. interests, not for the UN.
Excuses excuses. FACT is your lying heerow funded the NAFTA Superhighway.
No, that is not a fact.
He voted against funding it, but once it was voted that it would be funded, he asked that his District receive some of the money allocated, as was his responsibility as their Representative to do.
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.