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."
One wouldn't know it by that comment.
“And you allow your troops to do so without restricting them and adding additional risk to their lives.”
God forbid that we abide by the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict.
First, I was talking about restricting the troops from engaging the enemy while he hides in mosques.
Second, what 'right' do the terrorists have to the Geneva Convention?
“First, I was talking about restricting the troops from engaging the enemy while he hides in mosques.”
You mean those very same mosques that we have attacked in the past because of the enemy hiding in them?
“Second, what ‘right’ do the terrorists have to the Geneva Convention?”
Well O’clueless one, WE meaning the United States is a signatory of said conventions that means that WE must abide by them eventhough our enemy does not.
You mean those very same mosques that we have attacked in the past because of the enemy hiding in them?
Only after getting permission to do so, even after being fired upon.
In fact, U.S. troops in some cases weren't even allowed to enter them, they have to have Iraqi's go in.
“Second, what ‘right’ do the terrorists have to the Geneva Convention?” Well O’clueless one, WE meaning the United States is a signatory of said conventions that means that WE must abide by them eventhough our enemy does not.
No, a terrorist is not under the protection of the Geneva convention, he is outside the laws of nations since he rejects them.
He is simply an armed criminal.
“Only after getting permission to do so, even after being fired upon.”
Our troops do not need to ask for permission to defend themselves.
“In fact, U.S. troops in some cases weren’t even allowed to enter them, they have to have Iraqi’s go in.”
Yeah God forbid that we allow the Iraqi’s to take more responsibility upon themselves.
“No, a terrorist is not under the protection of the Geneva convention, he is outside the laws of nations since he rejects them.”
Where did I say that terrorists have rights IAW the Geneva Conventions?
“He is simply an armed criminal.”
And that’s the logic behind the reason why the cut and run terrorist appeasing coward you support wants to bring back the failed policy of treating terrorism as a criminal matter.
Our troops do not need to ask for permission to defend themselves.
Ofcourse they do!
In many cases they must actually check with the AG to see if they can take out the enemy targets.
“In fact, U.S. troops in some cases weren’t even allowed to enter them, they have to have Iraqi’s go in.” Yeah God forbid that we allow the Iraqi’s to take more responsibility upon themselves.
And that wasn't the reason they weren't allowed to enter, they were forbidden so they would not offend. the 'delicate' Islamic sensibilities.
As far as I am concerned, the Iraqi's should be doing all of the fighting.
[No, a terrorist is not under the protection of the Geneva convention, he is outside the laws of nations since he rejects them.” ]
Where did I say that terrorists have rights IAW the Geneva Conventions?
You said that we have to give the terrorists under the protections of the Geneva Convention, because we signed it.
[ “He is simply an armed criminal.” ]
And that’s the logic behind the reason why the cut and run terrorist appeasing coward you support wants to bring back the failed policy of treating terrorism as a criminal matter.
No, it is you that wants to treat the terrorist as if he has 'rights' and you clearly said so.
I think they should be hunted down and killed.
So by your own words, you would give the terrorists the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Stop your double-talking!
“Ofcourse they do!
In many cases they must actually check with the AG to see if they can take out the enemy targets.”
BS!
“And that wasn’t the reason they weren’t allowed to enter, they were forbidden so they would not offend. the ‘delicate’ Islamic sensibilities.”
More BS!
“You said that we have to give the terrorists under the protections of the Geneva Convention, because we signed it.”
I DID NOT SAY THAT!
I said that WE are a signatory of the GC.
I DID NOT say that THEY were a signatory
I DID NOT say that they have protections under the GC.
“No, it is you that wants to treat the terrorist as if he has ‘rights’ and you clearly said so.”
Nice try LIAR, but I never said that.
“So by your own words, you would give the terrorists the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Stop your double-talking!”
I SAID “WE” MUST ABIDE BY THEM AND BECAUSE WE ABIDE BY THEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TERRORISTS ARE “PROTECTED” BY THEM.
YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THE DAMN DOUBLE TALKING.
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.