The mandate does not restrict liberty of the individual, it creates a law that forces an individual to assume their responsibility towards their personal health care and make sure that the individual liberties of rest of us are not burdened by the uninsured individuals liberty.
I do not care what you call it, universal health care, obamacare or whatever. I just do not want to be the neighbor Mr. Paul wants me to be. I want my neighbor(s) to be responsible for his/their healthcare.You can vote for who you want, although I don't think you understand his position well. When people question what used to happen when medical care was less regulated/subsidised, he is drawing on what happened in the past. If you want universal health-care then you shouldn't vote for Paul.
For me though, such a social program is bound to fail and go bankrupt as well as bankrupt the country.
It is possible for say, an experiment, to result in a hypothesis being dropped from a theory. But there is no logical compulsion for that to happen. One of the reasons why this is so is that there is no such thing as a pure 'fact' independent of theory. Accepting a 'fact' (say a experimental result) implies accepting several background hypothesis/theories. By questioning any one of these background hypotheses the 'fact' can be questioned. For example several theories are involved in accepting a particular interpretation of an 'experimental fact'. Any of these theories can be questioned to deny the 'fact'. This is what happened in the history of science as well. Another way in which a theory can be saved is by proposing ad-hoc hypothesis as I mentioned above.However, and this is both field and theory dependent, it is possible for a single fact to disprove a hypothesis depending on how central to the theory it is.
If the numbe of ad-hoc modifications needed to save a theory grows too much without any 'benefits' people begin to stop backing such a theory slowly moving onto a better one. But there is no logical compulsion which would force one give up a theory. The distinction is not between 'false theories' and 'proven theories'. It is between progressive research programs and degenerating research programs (This is the alternate model provided by Lakatos. There could be other models).
Unless the a standard of quality/extent/level of education can be defined, it seems to me incredibly obvious why it isn't a constitutional right.
Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, does not believe that the Global Warming is a threat. Hel cites extreme examples or anecdotes for his propaganda, rarely offers any real solution to the any problem. He consistently votes against federal funding for anything including disasters like Katrina, yet represents a congressional district that is among the highest federal grant receiver in the country.
Last edited by Sanz; 17-11-2011 at 07:44 PM.
Milton Friedman - Government Regulation - YouTube
Licensure =/= safeguard - see that video, again. People do not drive safely because they have a piece of plastic in their pocket. They have acquired skills to avoid crashes. To avoid death (theirs and others) and to avoid being liable for damage.
I disagree with Paul on evolution because he seems to have this mistaken belief that the theory of evolution is somehow still in the air. Much like his views on Global Warming although I think that is a more legitimate debate. Regardless, I am not worried. Paul is not for legislating his beliefs; that's what is appealing about him. If I were American, those issues would also be the least of my worries: I'd be more worried about the wars and the federal reserve/economy.Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, does not believe that the Global Warming is a threat. Hel cites extreme examples or anecdotes for his propaganda, rarely offers any real solution to the any problem. He consistently votes against federal funding for anything including disasters like Katrina, yet represents a congressional district that is among the highest federal grant receiver in the country.
Where are the extreme examples? Paul has the most concise plan I've ever seen for a politician. Have you looked at it? It was released not too long ago. Which other candidate has given a plan like his?
Paul is against FEMA because he thinks it costs the tax payer more to allow such a body to intervene. I think I once heard him say he'd rather they just give the states the money. The fact that his district is one which sees many natural disasters and the fact that he keeps getting elected shows he both knows the problem more intimately than we do and that his constituents agree with him.
Last edited by Ikki; 17-11-2011 at 11:06 PM.
It does matter; it could mean the difference in sentencing. If you had the federal govt regulating, everyone would be subject to the same laws and ideology to deal with crime. This way, states can try different rehabilitative means.
In the end, the Federal model is pretty much always better. If they produce a bad result, the other states see that and do not implement a certain criminal program. If they somehow take a novel approach, it greatly helps their criminal justice system; then other states will copy, naturally. The federal model, especially for a big country, is wonderful. It leads to competition and innovation amongst the states and drives the country forward.
You've lost me, which mandate? Once universal health care is mandated and all must participate therein the liberty is lost.The mandate does not restrict liberty of the individual, it creates a law that forces an individual to assume their responsibility towards their personal health care and make sure that the individual liberties of rest of us are not burdened by the uninsured individuals liberty.
Paul, IIRC, is more OK with letting people opt out of many social programs. If they are good, then they should compete with the market place and their desirability will attract those not involved.
Ironically, your position is exactly Paul's: the individual should be responsible for his own choices - and that includes healthcare.I do not care what you call it, universal health care, obamacare or whatever. I just do not want to be the neighbor Mr. Paul wants me to be. I want my neighbor(s) to be responsible for his/their healthcare.
Fear of Eating - NYTimes.com
FDA is not a perfect institution, In fact far from it and I know it first hand because I work in an FDA regulated industry and I know how big a pain it is but I also know how easy it will be for people to sell crap in the name of drugs.
I can't imagine having any confidence whatsoever in what a doctor prescribes without the FDA - it's certainly not perfect but the alternative is lunacy.
"Free market regulation" when it comes to something like food is such a terrible idea since it's such a non-transparent industry. It's the things you can't see that could kill you.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)