Feisty, I recently became eligible for Medicare. Since I've got excellent health insurance from work, and plan to stay on the job a number of years more, I investigated what I'd be best doing - enrolling in some or all, or waiting until it was time to replace the private insurance.

I had a number of choices. What I finally decided is my business, but there was nothing to coerce me into enrolling at all.

Ron Paul objects to Medicare, Social Security, and a long list of other things on principle as a Libertarian. That entire movement is simply loony, and has no proper place in a modern, first-world nation-state.

Jonh A.: That entire movement is simply loony, and has no proper place in a modern, first-world nation-state.

Yeah, cause $15 trillion in debt, $4 billion added per day is totally sane and a real good thing.

Wanting to audit the Fed reserve - loony too, I suspect.

Getting a bunch of great stuff for free - totally rocking and the American way. Except, it really has not worked so well for others. CCCP, Europe.

You know, these politicians who've been in Congress for a number of years, have, courtesy of the American taxpayer, great health insurance, steady income and when they retire they have very generous pensions and benefits as do their spouses.

How dare they suggest that the rest of us, who have paid into these funds, that we give them up or even reduce what we are entitled to. Really they should be paying us for the lousy jobs they do and all that they get, includings weeks of paid vacations, travel to exotic places and treated like royalty when they are traveling, supposedly on fact finding missions!

I, for one, am tired of these arrogant, overstuffed leeches, am ready to fire all of them, they should, at the very least be term limited.

Spanky -- what country, in your opinion, comes close to your ideal on spending, government involvement, taxes, etc.? Would American "exceptionalists" accept ideas coming from somewhere else?

first-world nation-state.

Do first-world nation-states......

Pass legislation using every political trick, buy-off, etc. to defeat bi-partisan support and majority will against it.

Pass legislation "so we can find out what's in it."

Pass job-killing legislation as the first act of an administration that has promised jobs were the first priority. The economy was creating an average of over 67,000 a month between the time Obama was sworn in and the time he passed he passed Obamacare in April 2009. Job number dropped to 45,000 in May and since as averaged around 6,000 jobs created a month - ONE TENTH THE JOB CREATION! The CBO didn't estimate how many jobs would not be created but they did estimateObamacare would cost over 800,000 existing jobs.

Pass legislation where the majority of states challenge if it EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL.

First-world?

Yea, for how long?

I would be very happy to opt out of social security and medicare. Give me MY money back and I can better invest it than the government can. I suspect by the time I reach social security age, it will be so mucked up by the government it won't be worth anything anyway. Medicaid is already a mess... very expensive if you are on it, unless you have supplimental insurance... and even then it's not free.

All this discussion about two programs that only provide the barest minimums to people that need it is really stupid... The absurd part is that the democrats use it as a political football to drive fear into seniors about the republicans. I am waiting for the day when republicans have a counter to the tactics of the democrats... been waiting for it, but it never seems to materialize.

Gingerbread Mamma - golly... you are sounding like a conservative with your statements about how the elected need term limits. I am going to assume you are talking about both republicans AND democrats since they all take advantage of the benefits listed in your post.

You and I have found common ground to agree on with what politicians take advantage of.

Spanky that debt you so like to display has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with social security and medicare needs work, but is also not the cause of the debt.

I think the debt was built from unfunded tax cuts, unfunded wars brought to us by the so called fiscal conservatives.

When you are done pretending you care about the debt, I will be expecting you to contact your congress person to raise taxes on the richest.

I see you also have no problem with the free money the rich oil companies are getting from our broke country. Yes, we can tell how much you really care about the debt. So much so you are willing to destroy America before raising taxes on the richest.

Next you will be telling us how you are the real American and the rest of us are just leeches.

Obama 2012 for the love of America

Off the top of my head kate, I ould'nt name a country. But there are many. amny countrries with much better tax systems and rates.

I love how Germany taxes money earned from exports. I like several countries rate schedules.

But overall this is the best country in terms of personal freedoms- it just need to get back to giving priority to private industry. The shift has been for the last 25 years to government, and that's bad.

THe government does not create anything. If it did the CCCP would be the dominate super power.

Americans First you are simply wrong.

Entitlements are the primary drivers of the debt, and will cause it to explode in the future.

But I'd love to hear you explain what you mean by "free money" to oil companies. Have you ever read the IRC? Do you have any understanding about depreciation and depletion?

And again, who is it that wrote those particular code sections? Do you have any idea, or any idea why they are written the way they are?

The government wastes billions and billions. You reign that in and then we can talk about more.

And isn't it funny how you ascribe this to me, yet Obama signed the latest tax rates into law, and it is obama who now calls for more cuts? In fact Americans First it is all the dems now.

So how is it you are so far on the wrong side of your own representatives?

Cause see in addition Obama is the Commander in Chief - he could end all the wars right now. So why won't he? What did he do to "fund" his tax cuts?

Nothing wrong with Medicare. I'm hopeful it becomes our Universal Healthcare so everyone buys into it and the young help take care of the old through it. Ryan is dillusional! Obamacare is not a good program but it is a start. And if it gets defeated by SCOTUS let's demand Medicare for all immediately. Maybe a creative internet geek can start a movement and get signatures to send Congress. I think you'll be surprised how many people sign the petition.

Spanky, so many questions.

Do you have answers? Or even opinions? Or are they the same rhetoric we have heard before? Or are you afraid to commit to a position? Or are you afraid you might be wrong?

Right out of the right-wing playbook...

Atta girl AnaB - Free stuff for all.

And yeah, O'care is terrific. How many waivers they up to? And of course when those waivers expire those policies go by-by.

Plus 10% of employers have already said they are all done with insurance once it kicks in, so that'll be great as well, right.

So how do you explain the polling? Must be Bad polling techniques right?

You ask, I'll answer.

Now, what would you ike to know fielden?

Whether I'm right or wrong is of no moment. I do not make laws or policies. And frankly like I said to Forrest a couple of days ago, whoever is in charge, whatever their policies, I'll be just fine.

Clean living and diligent planning.

So, shoot.

Wrong Ron Paul. "Obamacare" is more like Paul Ryan Hood's GrouponCare...well actually GrouponCare is worse because it's a mandate to buy health insurance from the for-profit (greedy, care rationing/denying) private sector -- But instead it's for seniors who cannot take the risk of being uninsured, and who are not insurable in the private sector. Genius I tell you!

You have it arse backwards, Ron Paul. If The Affordable Care Act was like Medicare, then it would be true health care reform. To date it is merely regulation of our existing broken system. The next step, per the president, is to find ways to lower health care costs in the first place, which are at the root of skyrocketing medical expenses.

The day we hear a GOP/TPer offer a viable plan for reducing health care costs is the day hell will freeze over. These right-wingers are in complete denial from health care to job creation to climate change to the important role of government, you name it, they have their heads...in the sand.

Spanky -- you can't pick and choose among systems! You like Germany's export tax, but would you accept the social net/health care, worker's rights in place? Do you think Germany would have been okay if it had not been bailed out after World War II (a war it instigated and lost)? What about the gastarbeiter program? You like the corporate tax rate here (but not the VAT tax) and you like the rate schedule there...perhaps you like the system of justice in one place, but the immigration policy of another. What I am asking is OVERALL, what country do you think we should model ourselves after (supposing that our system isn't the best)? There has to be a balance between pure capitalism (which works no better than "pure" communism) and regulated capitalism.

Entitlement like tax cuts for the rich that have cost our country 2.7 trillion and growing. But, those are the kind of entitlements that republicans like, for the rich.

Like I said before Spanky when republicans raise taxes and close the loopholes only then will I believe that republicans even care about the debt. The debt seems to be an excuse to cut social programs when unfunded wars with unfunded tax cuts caused the debt.

Of course you can kate. we can enact whatever tax provisions we want.

We are American, we don't copy, we innovate.

At least we used to.

Now were did fielden wander off to?

American First - I asked you a very specific question about your purported issue with tax codes.

Is this all you can come up with? Cause that sucks bro. It ios clear you have never bothered to read the very thing you rail against. That's just stupid. Go read the code, then come on back in here for a nice little chat.

But we both know you will not read the code. Why is that?

And why did Obama cut rates? Seems like Obama must like those"entitlements" too. Like keeping my money is a entitlement, right AF?

Spanky you can worry all about your questions and I will worry about what I want to talk about.

We both know this started with you pretending to care about the debt. I charged that without raising taxes it proves to me that the republicans don't really care about the debt.

What is your response, changing the subject.

Just how does changing the subject and not raising taxes on the richest help America?

Spanky - Don't even fuss over Americans First. He trusts the spending habits of the government. He doesn't realize that the federal government will spend every dime it has in it's possession. Tax increases only means more federal spending. They will find a way to spend it but never find a way to save it or pay down on the debt. His challenge is simple mindedness.

[What is your response, changing the subject.]

It's what he does best...he simply doesn't have any answers.

[Just how does changing the subject and not raising taxes on the richest help America?]

...no answer...{ring ring} Schpanky, it's for you...it's Glenn Beck...

[Is this all you can come up with? Cause that sucks bro. It ios clear you have never bothered to read the very thing you rail against. That's just stupid. Go read the code, then come on back in here for a nice little chat. But we both know you will not read the code. Why is that?]

You're hanging your entire argument on the tax codes? Really? You are a one trick pony, aren't you...

Spanky, take your tax code and do your best bottle cap impression...

...screw off...

Oh, by the way Schpanky...tick tock, my brutha...tick tock...

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
• He voted against the Iraq war.
• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Credit where credit's due; Ron Paul does have more integrity than probably anybody else in Washington. Sadly, too many of the policies he supports are balls-out insane.

Danita -- I've always praised Ron Paul for being his own man, not pandering to the Hawks about wars, or Evangelicals about abortion, or pretending to be a Libertarian--worse perverting Libertarian philosophies the way Teabaggers do. However, I also praise Bernie Sanders for being the same way, except he's on the correct path for the future. The gold standard is gone forever, regulations such as anti-trust laws are necessary, civil rights can only be protected with a central governmental system, isolationism is no longer possible, doctors don't accept chickens as payment anymore... Keynesian economics is the future.

Ash Plissken - his policies aren't balls-out insane. They are never presented in the proper light, and peoples assumptions kick in - it's the assumptions that are balls-out insane.

Here's a little truth to this article:

Ron Paul does not want to just overnight tear down the "safety-net". One of the things that makes him so viable is that he recognizes that people are dependent on these programs. He has no plans of forcing people off them. If you have paid into social security - as I have, then you will still be eligible for it. He is not cutting your benefits or any of that.

Yes, one day he hopes that we can get rid of these programs. But there are steps involved in getting to that - which includes people NOT needing them, or having alternatives to them.

Why does he seem balls-out insane? Because people assume differently. And people who support the programs are all too happy to misrepresent things in the most extreme manner they think they can get away with.

The way you get people from needing these programs to start with goes to monetary policy and economics.

The current monetary policy is a constant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. This is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and why under the current system more and more people are becoming poor.

When new money is created, it gets it's purchasing power from the existing money. Lets say there is only $100 in existance, and 10 apples in the world to buy. Each apple has a value of $10 basically. You have $10, you can buy 1 apple. Now, add in another $100 from the fed. Each apple is now worth $20. With your $10, you can only afford half an apple. But your money was never touched! The prices went up, and in the process you were robbed of your purchasing power.

Ask anyone on welfare or fixed income and they will know very well this effect. Your money is unable to buy the same things it could before. You have the same amount of money, but because everything is more expensive you become more poor.

Meanwhile, the rich - the ones who get that newly created money, are the ones who are receiving the purchasing power. That is where that newly created $100 goes. When banks got bailed out - your purchasing power got robbed. And you probably noticed it at the grocery store, at the gas pump and so on.

So that is where the real change starts. By stopping the constant transfer of wealth away from the poor. When people are able to retain their purchasing power, then the poor can maybe start to get out of poverty.

Wouldn't it be better for people to be able to provide for themselves and not need such help to begin with? I believe so.

He is a doctor btw. So he is experienced with these things. If IIRC, he's delivered babies for free rather than accepting medicare.

"So that is where the real change starts. By stopping the constant transfer of wealth away from the poor."

If you think Ron Paul has any interest in stopping the increase of the wealth gap, then I'm afraid you have no understanding of Libertarians.

Thanks, Dennis, hadn't heard this. It's nice to know that Frist, a republican, is being honest.

a republican, is being honest.

Apparently Mr. Frist didn't get the memo.

Unfortunately, without everybody participating via the individual mandate, it pretty much defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

You have to be a "former" majority leaders to say something sane. We see where that got Gingrich and what he said about right-wing social engineering, and how extremism is bad no matter where it comes from. The Tea Party ranks below all other groups in the polls for a reason.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion... Come back after the election to either gloat, or cry. The democrats will not decide the election, that's an absolute.

No wonder Republicans support the balanced budget amendment that would result in an immediate 30% cut to all Social Security, Medicare, and Veteran benefits, but refuse to eliminate tax loop holes for corporations or the wealthy.

Republican's death panel.

it is a puzzlement.

Jody,

Medicare "as we know it" as they like to say, is not what it seems - not a guarantee at all - since it cannot pay for itself with the revenues it takes in. The projected unfunded liability is now into the tens of trillions of dollars. Even President Obama has said that the medical entitlements cannot continue in their current form. To bring costs in line with revenues benefits will have to be cut. We don't know what a solvent Medicare system will look like, but it will not be nearly as generous or compassionate as the system we have today.

The government's massive intervention into the healthcare market through the entitlement programs (and health insurance legislation) is largely responsible for the spiraling healthcare costs that we are experiencing. By breaking the economic relationship between medical providers and medical consumers, the pricing mechanisms that contain costs through competition and choice are disabled and costs rise without a commensurate rise in the quality of care. The only reliable method to control costs available in such a system is to reduce or ration benefits.

There is nothing wrong with people planning for their retirement and their future medical care, and nothing wrong with accumulating savings or purchasing insurance for the future. However, the idea of forcing people to pay into a system that provides a sub-standard return, or that cannot guarantee any return, or that undermines the economics of an entire industry, is not consistent with a free society. If I could opt out of Medicare and Social Security, I would do so in a minute, because I am certain that I could achieve a much greater return on my investment than is currently provided by the government. But I do not have that choice, even though I am living in a supposedly "free" country.

The capital that languishes in these inefficient programs could do much more to improve the healthcare industry and provide better value and higher returns if it was directed by consumers themselves.

We could get better supposed 'medicare' if it were from competing privately owned companies. That is all Ron Paul wants.

From Ron Paul's book:

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.

"I don't trust the government to make health coverage decisions with my best interests at heart; I'd much rather leave it in the hands of unelected, profit-motivated corporate executives whose job is to provide the least care at the highest cost!"

"I don't trust the government to make health coverage decisions with my best interests at heart; I'd much rather leave it in the hands of unelected, profit-motivated corporate executives whose job is to provide the least care at the highest cost!"

Government has become little more than the bag man for the corporate mafia. Why progressives continue to delude themselves that it is otherwise is beyond comprehension.

Dunno... maybe it's because they believe in progress

If we are making progress, then why are we now ranking so low in terms of healthcare, education and so on, after all these years of these programs? Sometimes below 3rd world countries.

We are also starting to rank way down there in freedom measurements as well.

And yet, before these federal programs, we ranked #1 in all these categories.

And yet, every single politician that gets elected has their own programs, and promise they will be making things better. And instead we get worse.

We are certainly on the move, and we are "progressing" in a direction, but I honestly don't see how that can be considered a good thing.

"Just once, it would be nice if the press asked Ron Paul and all the others why workers paying into a system that will provide them with a guarantee for medical care when they are elderly is wrong. It is a proven fact that the health and lives of seniors greatly improved when medicare was established; it also provided doctors and hospitals a guarantee of payment for services. It has benefited the elderly and disabled citizens of this country greatly. Yet Paul and others like him, in the name of small government, are determined to destroy a program that provides for a basic necessity in seniors lives--health."

You are falsely equating advances in medical science and technology over the past years with policy.

They live longer and are healthier because of our advances in medicine. Not because they were suddenly getting coverage they were previously denied.

Big difference.

I don't understand you, Anna.

We both agree that we need honest politicians.

But when they are honest, and speak about things that they feel are 'bad' (and even have a voting record to back it up), they get flamed.

Wouldn't you rather they were all honest, and you picked from amongst the lot?

Deriding them for honesty, especially honesty that you don't agree with, is the very cause of the decline of the post-industrial society and something that, as an educated person, you should be quite critical of.

Anna Molly---I work with a lot of seniors in my practice and my own father is 91 and I have never heard one of them complain about Medicare. Most everyone I talk to also recognizes that if some changes have to be made to keep it solvent that would be OK but no one wants a "Groupon" system.

I would also point out, Eisenhower didn't believe in deficit spending at any levels and his government 'moderation' would definitively include no subsidies or bailouts of any sort.

I think this quote is taken out of context.

If you think so check it out for yourself by Googling it. It's a letter Ike sent to his brother Edgar.

Source: The Presidential Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower

Document #1147;
November 8, 1954
To Edgar Newton
Eisenhower

I did. Same document, next paragraph.

I no longer think you tooke the Ike quote out of context.

I, now, know for a fact that you did :)

"You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of "controls," presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, "run away" inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration."

very nice tek.

I, now, know for a fact that you did

Nice anal extraction. Exactly how do you equate price controls left over from WWII rationing with Social Security, farm subsidies and unemployment insurance? Typical misdirection. Apparently you did read the first paragraph or you are an idiot. He was answering different points in reply to his brother's letter.

You are the typical disingenuous Libertarian, GOTP troll.

Not even close, so no cigar for you.

Isn't there some kind of medication this guy should be on?

Aricept isn't it?

Paid for compliments to OUR tax dollars...

Isn't there some kind of medication this guy should be on?

If he isn't he should be and if he is they should double it.

No kidding. Let's end all healthcare for Congress. It's too much like Socialism. How kooky will Paul be without his meds?

That's an idea, Tom,Yreka!

Imagine how much could be saved by ending healthcare coverage for all of Congress, current and past. I can't imagine what the bill is to keep Dick on this side of hell.

I can't imagine what the bill is to keep Dick on this side of hell.

Holy Crap! LMAO! It's probably why the debt sky rocketed!

I feel the same way about republicans trying to end abortions in many states. They want to force you to have a baby then starve it to death with no food, no jobs and no health care. That is the christian way.

Funny thing about abortion, a lot of people seem to be against it UNTIL their own underage child gets raped & impregnated by a pedophile, then suddenly they slip off into the night with their daughter to get an abortion.

One of the only times my dad (a retired minister) and I had an argument as adults, was over the abortion issue. I painted a grim picture of my sister (then 17) being raped by a group of men and being impregnated ... I even made it a racial picture since my dad is so old southern Baptist. When I asked him what he would do if my sister was crying and didn't want to have a baby. I asked him ... would you make her have that baby? My dad was speechless, slammed back the chair he was sitting in, and went to his bedroom and slammed the door closed. He stayed in that room the entire day; I really felt badly about it because he and I had rarely ever had harsh words. But, I think I got my point across as to why there were issues about abortion.

We bounced different ways, then.

I was very pro-choice until I had children of my own. Now it's unfathomable. Not that I'd make that decision for other people, but for me and my kin?

Sure my daughter would have the child of a rapist and evil man. But that child would also be half her, as well. And that half would be all the redemption it needed in my eyes.

Dodderings of a father, right? :)

I love my family and I certainly would not make my daughter or sister carry the child of a rapist if she did not want it.

As a father you have no ideal of the emotional burden of the hating and fear of the rapist for 9 months you would be placing on a new mother. She would relive the rape every day of her pregnancy. Probably she couldn't wait to give it up for adoption so she would never have to see it or touch it again.

This is just the opinion of a woman who would never ever want to have an abortion.

tek - you sure you are a dem?

Nice work with devie. I suspect he won't engage with you any longer.

It seems to be their way.

I said I'm a Dem. I don't think peddling the past is the way to solve current and future problems, so I rift insanely with republicans on that front.

I didn't, however, say I'm a Progressive :D

Read below for my 'nationalize medicare' rant.

Americans First - Abortion was never about the fetus...it was always about taking control away from women. Of course the right will howl with dissention but it's an absolute fact. At some point in the process the right realized they weren't getting anywhere arguing women shouldn't have the choice to get an abortion so they switched tactics and made the argument about the fetus/baby. From that point on their cause got traction.

Not as a deity, but it does have responsibilities to protect it's citizenry. Even from each other.

I'd rather nationalize the whole medicare concept and take it completely out of the private sector, since the stature of the citizens who need it makes them uncompetitive in an open market.

We already do it for our military folks, and our military retirees. We have the infrastructure and methodology to accomodate over 10 Million americans, this very day. AND the military medical spending is very much controlled and not runaway. They employ the doctors, the pharmacists, the nurses and single-payer the pharmaceuticals.

. I wouldn't mind seeing the medicare folks going to military bases for their care, not one bit. Or just sprouting up some govvie hospitals.

But let's take those medicare patients away from private institutions completely.

For over 35 years the US government has taken FICA out of my paycheck ... I certainly didn't ask them too, and actually would have preferred that they just let me keep my money ... but NOOOOOOOOO, they wanted that money (selling it as a future benefit to the citizens of the USA) to squander on their frivolous little projects and unwarranted pay raises. Now that their little ponzi scheme is inverting, they want OUT ... screw the American people. Well, no way ... they'll give up their own Government Medicare before doing away with ours. These fat cat Repubs feel no obligation to fulfill promises ... they just make 'em and break 'em ... all in the glory of MONEY. Come 2012 Repubs are OUT.

Coincidently ... if they were lying to us THEN, what convinces anyone that they aren't lying to us NOW?

GOP obstructionism and Democratic spinelessness happened.

No, that's not what they are saying.

You need to get back on your meds and please hurry. The little voices in your head must be getting to you.

What they have posted are direct qoutes from Mr. Paul.

Snap out of it man!

How did it take two NBC journalists to be responsible for an 80-word article?