Agreed. Only what a politician does is important. Ron Paul's voting record impresses me, like Dennis Kucinich's and Cynthia McKinney's. Obama and Hillary are right wing war mongers, no better than the zionists they might replace.
>In that situation, the rational choice for most people
>is to stay rather than move to another state in search
>of the right tax/health care balance.
It is common here to relocate for better pay at a job. Better healthcare benefits could be seen as a sizeable increase in pay. That it might not come from the employer wouldn't matter.
>It is easy to see that
>this would result in overburdening the states with
>good health care system and a free ride for those with
>a bad one - the anti-thesis of efficiency that the
>free marketers purportedly champion.
Because increased healthcare needs also bring increased jobs in the healthcare services industry and a correspondingly increased tax base, it may make no difference at all.
On Thursday 07 February 2008, B. wrote:
>I've been complaining about Dr. Paul for awhile. Does
>that count?
lol Darn, I missed it.
>Can't say your answer about Ron Paul's
>health care plan -- i.e., there is none --
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474
generally describes Paul's health care reform plan legislation, which essentially includes providing dollar for dollar tax credit (not just a deductible) for medical insurance payments up to the total amount of income tax and allows tax free savings accounts for paying the high deductibles on insurance. This could help alot while the IRS continued to exist, which it might not under a Paul presidency.
>is all that
>inspiring. I've pointed out before the guy says he
>would refuse to take Medicare patients; he's simply
>too libertarian for that.
But he'll take them based on their ability to pay or free if needed since he refuses to profit on federal taxpayer money. The guy is amazingly consistent in living up to his principles. And voting on them. He openly refuses to bring home any congressional pork barrels to Texans and yet they keep voting him in year after year.
>but if answers to these questions
>are like his position on Roe v. Wade -- that is,
>resolutely right-wing as hell -- I'm still colored
>unimpressed.
Paul's definitely anti-abortion, but his main point is that Roe v. Wade took away what should have been the states' right to make such decisions. That after the RvW decision, states have no authority to impose pro-life legislation is what he opposes. I see his point, though I don't agree with his position on abortion.
--tully