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."
LOL I’m deeply into the BB myself, but am thinking of what is right, as I see it for posterity. You are totally correct in your assessment of course. I’d simply like things to be the way that they should be in America. Damn the Pols.
My previous post: “I was more into wishfully thinking about a real contender for the Presidency advocating withdrawal from the Free Market.”
Man did I screw up that post, or what!
Should have read: “I was more into wishfully thinking about a real contender for the Presidency advocating withdrawal OF THE GOVERNMENT from the Free Market.”
Oh well, you obviously caught what I meant in spite of my screwup. Thanks.
To stand there and sound like a crazy lunatic?
From my post: “I think the transition from Government meddling to Free Market policies is what really needs to be addressed, and then do it.”
Your post: “Who among them would be willing to give up the constituency?”
I think Right thinking Pols could accept responsibility to address as I said above in my post, but that also would require enough Ire from the electorate to promote change.
It would take some doing to illustrate the benefits to the electorate of how Free Market could be far more cost effective for them, as well enable lesser Government in which I also am an advocate.
OK, present value - that makes more sense :)
I suspect we’d all need a half million dollars of investments or more to pay for health insurance when we’re in our 70s and above.
No - you keeping your own money is not socialism. Or are you one of those who believes all income is owned by the government, and they allow us to keep a little ?
Maybe because I’m not a wage slave, ie I’m self-employed and pay my taxes quarterly, I see that NOT sending money to the federal government is KEEPING my own money.
Do you consider an ordinary tax refund to be socialism ?
And in this case, NOT paying for things I DON’T consume is NOT socialism. Agreeing to paying for things I don’t consume is private charity. Being forced to pay for things I don’t consume is socialism.
Got the distinction ?
“After paying into it for 30+ years I would like to get a refund myself if someone does away with Medicare...”
Your point is well understood. Been there too.
The Fed. Gov. wasn’t designed for this stuff. Politicians and their minions in the Judiciary have distorted the course of our history with equating “expression” to “free speech” along with other distortions to our Constitution, as well opening the Public trough to primarily feed themselves.
I’d like to see a fence not only on the border, but around the Public Trough as well.
Reducing Government in all phases other than the original intent would be...I know impossible perhaps, but the ultimate in Republican Governance.
The main reason is that a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that any honest threat to FedGov power is dangerous to the "party". Party always trumps principles or the people, which is one of the reasons Pres. Washington spoke passionately against them. There is also a large contingent of big government statists who find principled libtarian thought, especially on the economic front (though they disguise it mightily with being opposed to sideshows like the "war on drugs"), to be especially dangerous.
The whole concept of the limitations of Article 1, Section 8, and the 9th/10th amendments to the Constitution is a threat to their way of life. It threatens their worldview entirely. They've completely bought into the socialist state, yet refuse to admit that all they want to really do is tinker around the edges of their pet causes, rather than revolutionize the way we think about the state and, more importantly, what is legitimately a concern of government at any level.
I don't hang out in Ron Paul threads here much because they are so loud and obnoxious that their noise makes the signal in the thread irrelevant. I realize that this is their goal, but there is only so much one can concentrate on in one day.
Understand that there are some here who see what is going on. There really are people who understand what the real problems with government are, and are not distracted by the sideshows or bread and circuses.
Well, they've completely snookered you on that. That $100k you talk about is just another tax. Like Social Security (sic) taxes, it's just more money the government has stolen from you at the point of a gun. Do you think you have some kind of legal claim to that money? The courts say otherwise, time and time again.
Yes. We expect you to walk away from it in the name of what is doing right for the nation.
“Still waiting, WHAT is a Paul Administration going to do on this issue?”
Yeah, I’m still waiting for travishicks or whatever his name is to answer a simple question about how police and fire protection is supposed to be funded without property taxes.
As far as the unhinged village idiot congressman from Texas is concerned, he’ll just issue more empty slogans while appearing the alex jones show.
“What is his program to actually DO anything about this mess?”
He doesn’t know what friggin century this is, so how can anyone expect the village idiot to have any sort of plan? :D
“This article is just another bunch of slogans and demagoguery.”
Well that’s all the village idiot and his sheeple are good for.
“What is Paul’s plan of action?”
Beyond the empty slogans?
Nothing.
I can't agree more, but I'm still not going to vote for the man.
[The single biggest problem most Freepers seem to have with Dr. Paul is his foreign policy. I understand where Freepers are coming from on this, although I disagree, but I don’t understand why they have to be so hateful about it.]
National Security is the PRIMARY Consitutional function of the Federal government. In today’s age of technology where the world has shrunk such that our enemies are all within hours of striking distance, Foreign Policy is essentially identical to National Security. So why would you be surprised that Constitutional Conservatives can find Ron Paul’s position on this to be a deal-breaker no matter how much we agree with him on all the other Conservative points of limited government ?
Foreign Policy/National Security is the litmus test for any candidate. If he is wrong on that, then being right on all other positions is still not enough to balance that one failing.
If this is true, then Paul wouldn't enjoy the support he has. People are already aware of his positions, that's the thing. There's a sense of urgency here, the need to do something NOW instead of relying on the same-old same-old statist Republicans offering "cuts" and "credits."
With the increase of Baby Bloomers are getting on the Medicare Bandwagon it will be akin to playing with dynamite. This is one beast you have to kill by small increments.
Paul already said there'd be a transition period. With a drastically reduced bureaucracy & no illegals mooching off the system, there'd be money to help existing seniors and the disabled while giving younger workers their own options.
It's all part of the transition period. You pass the stuff that's likely will be approved by Congress while focusing on the long-term goals.
Of course I think I have a claim to it. I don’t need the courts to agree — that’s what I have a legislative body for, to make the law to protect my rights. I’ve been forced to pay at gunpoint for nothing more than a “promise” of eventual benefits. But as long as everybody like me votes for people that will keep the promise made, then the government will be forced to make good on that promise.
If you don’t believe the government must make good on its promises, then you should go somewhere else. How do you sleep at night knowing the government could just cancel all the money there is ? 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.
I think there are many ways to improve Medicare, but canceling it and leaving all the contributors high and dry is not a solution that can be morally defended.
I agree that national defense is the primary function of government, but I don’t believe it has to include expeditionary forces stationed all over the world. I believe it is possible to defend our home from home. The technology you speak of will allow it. Even if that were not the case, I couldn’t overlook the “Big Brother” ethos of today’s Republicans in favor of maintaining our bases around the world. I’d rather take my chances with basic freedom at home and count on the American public to defend that home.
BTW, thank you for your reasoned response.
An ordinary tax refund is simply a return of money I shouldn't have paid in the first place. Yes, witholding reinforces tinges of socialism, you pay your taxes, then the government give you some back. Really the wrong mindset, but that's why we have witholding.
NOT sending money to the federal government is KEEPING my own money
When NOT sending money to the federal government is conditioned on certain behaivior, in this case purchase of health insurance, it also approaches socialism. Health care may not be government provided under the Paul approach, but it is government financed, all of it.
Why do you think the federal government should pay for your health insurance?
Do you think the fact that the federal government rather than cinives is paying increases or decreases competition?
Will you shop harder for better rates now that Uncle Sam foots the bill?
Do you think insurers will become more competitive with Uncle Sam footing the bill for premium increases?
If you're self-employed you're getting screwed from a tax perspective, but the solution to that is ending the corporate deduction or considering corporate paid premiums income, not providing you with paid health insurance because corporate employees get it partially.
Right, increase government spending so you can cut it later.
As you probably know Paul introduced this bill in 2005 and 2006, this one is heading the same place, dead.
I agree, he probably claims expert status because he happened to be somewhere in the hospital when those 4000 babies were delivered.
And doesn’t he also try and promote himself as an “expert” on the Constitution?
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.