Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Starbuck]

There was a comment from someone talking about us still evolving still that came up with a good point. What he said was, When Shakespeare time, one out of three lived to be twenty-one; during the time of Darwin, one out of two lived to be twenty-one, during our time – ninety-five percent lived to be twenty-one. The reason we live longer is because of health care and safety standards we have placed into law.

During our time, with ninety-five percent of the population lives to the age of twenty-one: a woman has to produce on average 2.1 children per-female to keep the population stable. If we look at the nineteen century, with one out of two lived to be twenty-one: an average woman had to produce four plus children per-female to keep the population stable.

Women in the twenty-first century can hold off with marriage and having their first child into their mid twenties. That gives her the ability to get a college education, and be able to produce something of worth to the economy. If we look at a woman of the nineteen century, with needing to produce four or more children to keep the population stable, and in fact produce more children to increase the over all population during that century. The woman would have to have a much earlier marriage and have their first child much earlier then now.

We understand the economical problems with young women in their teenage years having children – less educated, lower overall income that last for the rest of her life, a higher cost with welfare that only increases taxes with higher income families that had their first child later in life.

Do not think we want to go back to the nineteen century, with the average lifespan was in the forties, an early marriage for both sexes, less higher education for both genders, and woman needing to be pregnant at a very early age with their fist child and have more children then we have today by a factor of twice the average family of today.

There is this love from the right of America that is in love with the values and ethics of the nineteenth century. Question is, do you want a fifty-fifty change you will live to be twenty-one. If you pass that, have an average lifespan in the forties that is now in the seventies. Then, starts a family at a much earlier age, that the American right blast as unethical with teenagers having children in their teens: but was the norm in the nineteenth century.

Maybe, the universal heath care looks to be a less of a cost now, than it would be if we were in the nineteenth century. Does the right love their 401(k), with only a very few ever got to that age in the nineteenth century. Does the right love the ability they can if they want, have grandchildren and be in good heath? Or, having half of their children live to be twenty-one; and their children, only half to live to be twenty-one – if you have four grandchildren twenty-one and older, in the nineteenth century, you would have one.

With me, I really like to live to be very old and in great health: what about you.

 

[madasheck]

Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?

Because it wouldn't. Asking the medical industry to regulate their prices to consumers is comedy at the extreme.

Yes, that whole "competition controls the prices" thing NEVER works in any OTHER industry, so why would we think it would in medicine?

Have you always been this stupid, or was there a catastrophic head injury somewhere in your past? Perhaps THAT is why you're so eager to make other people pay to keep your worthless ass alive.

Thanks for the name calling. It shows you have nothing to argue with.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?

Because it wouldn't. Asking the medical industry to regulate their prices to consumers is comedy at the extreme.

Yes, that whole "competition controls the prices" thing NEVER works in any OTHER industry, so why would we think it would in medicine?

Have you always been this stupid, or was there a catastrophic head injury somewhere in your past? Perhaps THAT is why you're so eager to make other people pay to keep your worthless ass alive.

Hmmm. So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating issues. Conservative, right? You made a comment earleir about "all those people dying waiting for healthcare in those danm socialist countries" and other such nonsense. So a simple question:
How many of those countries have you lived in and received healthcare in?

I mean, I've seen your posts regarding the MSM so surely you're not foolish enough to believe all this BS just because the MSM tells you it's true, right? So which country or countries have you received this horrible health care in?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because it wouldn't. Asking the medical industry to regulate their prices to consumers is comedy at the extreme.

Yes, that whole "competition controls the prices" thing NEVER works in any OTHER industry, so why would we think it would in medicine?

Have you always been this stupid, or was there a catastrophic head injury somewhere in your past? Perhaps THAT is why you're so eager to make other people pay to keep your worthless ass alive.

Thanks for the name calling. It shows you have nothing to argue with.

Ahhh, more dodging. You must enjoy being laughed at.

Call me when you grow a pair and can respond to a topic instead of finding anything and everything to whinge about in order to avoid it, little girl.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because it wouldn't. Asking the medical industry to regulate their prices to consumers is comedy at the extreme.

Yes, that whole "competition controls the prices" thing NEVER works in any OTHER industry, so why would we think it would in medicine?

Have you always been this stupid, or was there a catastrophic head injury somewhere in your past? Perhaps THAT is why you're so eager to make other people pay to keep your worthless ass alive.

Hmmm. So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating issues. Conservative, right? You made a comment earleir about "all those people dying waiting for healthcare in those danm socialist countries" and other such nonsense. So a simple question:
How many of those countries have you lived in and received healthcare in?

I mean, I've seen your posts regarding the MSM so surely you're not foolish enough to believe all this BS just because the MSM tells you it's true, right? So which country or countries have you received this horrible health care in?

Riiiight. The rest of the world is a socialist paradise, and we're just being lied to by the mainstream media, which of course is always trying SO HARD to promote the wonders of the United States.

Before you run off thinking you get to fire off questions and demands, dumbass, how about you try to see past your kindergarten tattling mode to the actual point of my post (I know, that requires a lot more reading comprehension than your kind usually produces)? I'll spell it out for you, out of the goodness of my heart: competition controls the prices in most industries, including health care of the non-essential kind, so why would anyone with a teaspoon of brains assume that it wouldn't have the same effect on more essential healthcare?

Let me know if you or your sniveling little compatriot ever get the stones to actually address the topic. I won't hold my breath.

Once you do, maybe I'll grant you the respect needed to let you ask me questions. Until then, "Must be conservative", huh? So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating the issues. If you can't be bothered to see the rest of the post, I see no reason why I should, hypocrite.

 

[Staidhup]

Simple answer, the country is broke, living off credit, with Medicare, and Medicaid still in place can not afford it. Second, what right is it that the government feels it has under the commerce act to impose on the people the obligation to purchase health care, furthermore, what right is it that of the government to dictate health care options and procedures available to its citizens. If a person feels they are invincible let them play and pay for their stupidity. Until the free market is permitted to function and state barriers are broken down allowing true competition no one will know what the true cost of health insurance could be. Health care is not a right its a responsibility that rests on the shoulders of every citizen. Should the government help or lend assistance in the purchase of health care, do away the Medicare and Medicaid then yes, but not within the context of government control. For the sake of god those idiots in DC cant even balance their check book and you think that turning control of your health over to them is a wise move.Can you say Looser!

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yes, that whole "competition controls the prices" thing NEVER works in any OTHER industry, so why would we think it would in medicine?

Have you always been this stupid, or was there a catastrophic head injury somewhere in your past? Perhaps THAT is why you're so eager to make other people pay to keep your worthless ass alive.

Hmmm. So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating issues. Conservative, right? You made a comment earleir about "all those people dying waiting for healthcare in those danm socialist countries" and other such nonsense. So a simple question:
How many of those countries have you lived in and received healthcare in?

I mean, I've seen your posts regarding the MSM so surely you're not foolish enough to believe all this BS just because the MSM tells you it's true, right? So which country or countries have you received this horrible health care in?

Riiiight. The rest of the world is a socialist paradise, and we're just being lied to by the mainstream media, which of course is always trying SO HARD to promote the wonders of the United States.

Before you run off thinking you get to fire off questions and demands, dumbass, how about you try to see past your kindergarten tattling mode to the actual point of my post (I know, that requires a lot more reading comprehension than your kind usually produces)?
So basically, all this did and said nothing - just a reflection of you're uh, "personality". Hmmm. Weren't exactly captain of your debate team were you?

I'll spell it out for you, out of the goodness of my heart:

Your first actual point. Let's call it "1". competition controls the prices in most industries, including health care of the non-essential kind, so why would anyone with a teaspoon of brains assume that it wouldn't have the same effect on more essential healthcare?

Let me know if you or your sniveling little compatriot ever get the stones to actually address the topic. I won't hold my breath. More of your "personality". Dale Carnegie graduate, were you?

Once you do, maybe I'll grant you the respect needed to let you ask me questions. Until then, "Must be conservative", huh? So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating the issues. If you can't be bothered to see the rest of the post, I see no reason why I should, hypocrite.

Wow. You're quite the angry little thing, aren't you? Obviously the answer to my question is that you have never lived in a country with universal health care - which is why you dodge it and stomp your little feeties etc...

So fine. I'd be happy to show how issues / questions are addressed directly. Then you will have something to aspire to!

Yes little angry person, competition can help pricing and service. In the USA, it does not do a sufficient job though. If it did, everyone would be able to afford basic health care and no one would file bankruptcy due to medical bills.
You rant all that time for one point (which has obviously been spoon-fed to you): The only way to provide any product or service is through competition.
This kind of dichotomous (ask a Liberal to explain that word to you) thinking is common among the ignorant and unsophisticated.
You're simply wrong.
There are many products and services that are delivered by the government without ANY competition. One of the best examples is libraries. They provide both a service and a product. They compete directly with book stores. They enable those who could not otherwise afford books (or prefer to simply get them for free) to enjoy reading. Did libraries put bookstores out of business? Nope. There is room for both. Are you against libraries? Do you consider libraries "Socialist"? No, of course not. Those who feed you your opinions, haven't told you to feel negatively about libraries.
But you have told to believe that the government providing health care must be bad. So you believe it. They prey upon your basic socio-political leanings and convince you there is reason in this foolishness. Oh well. Life in America, eh?
Allow me to educate you: Using tax dollars to provide for the welfare of our citizens doesn't make us a Socialist country. That too, is the product of ignorant and unsophisticated thinking. We have had social programs since before we were a country.
But it's okay. It's not like you think for yourself. If you did, I wouldn't be able to easily predict all of your opinions on over a dozen, unrelated political issues - which I can. Of course, you cannot do that with me because I think for myself.
So simply put. You're right in that competition can help pricing but you're wrong in that you think this is the only way in which pricing / service can be efficiently delivered. If you were right, there would be no Sherman Act.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

India marks milestone in fight against polio
Thu Jan 12,`12 – India will celebrate a full year since its last reported case of polio on Friday, a major victory in a global eradication effort that seemed stalled just a few years ago.

If no previously undisclosed cases of the crippling disease are discovered, India will no longer be considered polio endemic, leaving only Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria on that list. "This is a game changer in a huge way," said Bruce Aylward, head of the World Health Organization's global polio campaign. The achievement gives a major morale boost to health advocates and donors who had begun to lose hope of ever defeating the stubborn disease that the world had promised to eradicate by 2000. It also helps India, which bills itself as one of the world's emerging powers, shed the embarrassing link to a disease associated with poverty and chaos, one that had been conquered long ago by most of the globe.

The government cautiously welcomed the milestone as a confirmation of its commitment to fighting the disease and the 120 billion rupees ($2.4 billion) it has spent on the program. "We are excited and hopeful. At the same time, vigilant and alert," Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said in a statement. Azad warned that India needed to push forward with its vaccination campaign to ensure the elimination of any residual virus and to prevent the import and spread of virus from abroad. The polio virus, which usually infects children in unsanitary conditions, attacks the central nervous system, sometimes causing paralysis, muscular atrophy, deformation and, in some cases, death.

With its dense population, poor sanitation, high levels of migration and weak public health system, India had been seen as "the perfect storm of polio," Aylward said. Even some vaccinated children fell ill with the virus because malnutrition and chronic diarrhea made their bodies too weak to properly process the oral vaccine. In 2009, India had 741 cases. That plunged to 42 in 2010. Last year, there was a single case, an 18-month-old girl named Ruksana Khatun who fell ill in West Bengal state Jan. 13. She was the country's last reported polio victim. Part of the sudden success is credited to tighter monitoring that allowed health officials to quickly hit areas of outbreaks with emergency vaccinations. Part is also attributed to the rollout of a new vaccine in 2010 that more powerfully targeted the two remaining strains of the disease.

Under the $300 million-a-year campaign the government runs with help from the WHO and UNICEF, 2.5 million workers fan out across the country twice a year to give the vaccine to 175 million children. They hike to remote villages, wander through trains to reach migrating families and stop along roadsides to vaccinate the homeless. Philanthropist Bill Gates, whose foundation has made polio eradication a priority, hailed India's achievement as an example of the progress that can be made on difficult development problems. "Polio can be stopped when countries combine the right elements: political will, quality immunization campaigns and an entire nation's determination. We must build on this historic moment and ensure that India's polio program continues to move full-steam ahead until eradication is achieved," he said in a statement.

More http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120112/ap_on_he_me/as_india_polio

 

[IndependntLogic]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

[/url]

[/QUOTE]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.

 

[dblack]

Basic healthcare, like a basic education, should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay.

And what else? There are quite a few things we depend on as 'necessities'. Shouldn't government be responsible for providing us with those as well?

 

[logical4u]

Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?

Because it wouldn't. Asking the medical industry to regulate their prices to consumers is comedy at the extreme.

Does "laser eye surgery" mean anything to you? It is a prime example of a medical treatment that had a few doctors using it at a very high cost. As more doctors learned the proceedures, the prices came down, and quality was maintained.

That must really scare you, something works without a bureaucrat stamping it (increasing price and decreasing efficiency).

 

[logical4u]

And you feel that is the right of the insurance companies to operate in any state in the union, the way that they want to, by what is afforded or allowed them in those states, even if they are gouging the hey out of their customers, hoping that no one will intervene what so ever in the situation? My friend is paying $125 dollars a week right now for coverage for him and his wife, and he went to the doctor the other day for a serious problem he has with acid reflux (desease), where as the doctor gave him a prescription for Nexium to take, so he began taking the purple pill each day, and it brought huge relief and results towards his condition, but guess what, the insurance won't cover this pill for him to take now, so the cost is around $200.00 dollars a month if he wants to keep the pill going each day in which he cannot afford to do...So now I ask what good is insurance if one can't use it, and all one does is pay for it, but don't you dare use it now ?

Medical insurance is not for regular health maintenance. It is for emergency or catastrophic care. Tell your buddy to skip nexium and eat an apple every night.

Oh so you are suggesting that people listen to a person like you, tell them to eat an apple a day, yet to what maybe keep his symptoms away? Apples are full of acid ya know, and so now you have killed my buddy with your prescription coming from a repub who would rather tell someone something this crazy, by suggestion it is the alternative and is good for him when it would not be, and all in hopes that they would believe it (?) or is it that you should be someone who should be helping my friend fight for the services by what he is paying for, or no if you were that person, you would be attacking the aggregious bottom line of the insurance company, who is gouging my friend, and thus trying to give nothing back to him as far as product or service goes, and this regardless of what he is paying them for, so no you can't be that person can you, because the clique won't let you now will they?

Did he try it?

 

[logical4u]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.

Sure it's a right. It's amazing how easily The Machine has brain-washed so many Americans into believing that of all the things our tax money should go to, this isn't one of them. We're probably about the only country in the world whose citizens fell for that one.

So all the countries in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East "receive" health care at "no cost".... just sayin' if it is a right, it should be "everywhere".

 

[logical4u]

There was a comment from someone talking about us still evolving still that came up with a good point. What he said was, When Shakespeare time, one out of three lived to be twenty-one; during the time of Darwin, one out of two lived to be twenty-one, during our time – ninety-five percent lived to be twenty-one. The reason we live longer is because of health care and safety standards we have placed into law.

During our time, with ninety-five percent of the population lives to the age of twenty-one: a woman has to produce on average 2.1 children per-female to keep the population stable. If we look at the nineteen century, with one out of two lived to be twenty-one: an average woman had to produce four plus children per-female to keep the population stable.

Women in the twenty-first century can hold off with marriage and having their first child into their mid twenties. That gives her the ability to get a college education, and be able to produce something of worth to the economy. If we look at a woman of the nineteen century, with needing to produce four or more children to keep the population stable, and in fact produce more children to increase the over all population during that century. The woman would have to have a much earlier marriage and have their first child much earlier then now.

We understand the economical problems with young women in their teenage years having children – less educated, lower overall income that last for the rest of her life, a higher cost with welfare that only increases taxes with higher income families that had their first child later in life.

Do not think we want to go back to the nineteen century, with the average lifespan was in the forties, an early marriage for both sexes, less higher education for both genders, and woman needing to be pregnant at a very early age with their fist child and have more children then we have today by a factor of twice the average family of today.

There is this love from the right of America that is in love with the values and ethics of the nineteenth century. Question is, do you want a fifty-fifty change you will live to be twenty-one. If you pass that, have an average lifespan in the forties that is now in the seventies. Then, starts a family at a much earlier age, that the American right blast as unethical with teenagers having children in their teens: but was the norm in the nineteenth century.

Maybe, the universal heath care looks to be a less of a cost now, than it would be if we were in the nineteenth century. Does the right love their 401(k), with only a very few ever got to that age in the nineteenth century. Does the right love the ability they can if they want, have grandchildren and be in good heath? Or, having half of their children live to be twenty-one; and their children, only half to live to be twenty-one – if you have four grandchildren twenty-one and older, in the nineteenth century, you would have one.

With me, I really like to live to be very old and in great health: what about you.

Do you think that health care was a "right" when the overall health and welfare was improving? Do you think that forcing people to provide health care (for people that are unwilling to care for themselves or take responsibility for their lives) will increase life expectancy or decrease life expectancy (if you take those that are healthy and give them impossible burdens, all you have left are the unhealthy)? Do you think that other countries that provide minimum care for their citizens while allowing the people that paid their way are moved to the end of the line feel good about the gov't leaving them to die, after the promises of "healthcare is a right" and your care is assured? If you hate insurance companies, why are you insisting the ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy and pencil pushers are added between you and your doctor? You speak of ideology, yet there is little practicality in your words. How do you force people that are working to support "their" families to support people that refuse to support themselves (that are fully capable, but choose to "freeload")? At what point do you draw the line? Will 50 % of the population be forced to support the other 50% (isn't that slavery)? Will 25% be forced to support 75% of the population (do you think that is sustainable)? Think about it: at what point were you willing to become a "subject" instead of a "citizen"?

 

[logical4u]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

[/url]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.[/QUOTE]

Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way. Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"? Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers? Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately? Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.

Sure it's a right. It's amazing how easily The Machine has brain-washed so many Americans into believing that of all the things our tax money should go to, this isn't one of them. We're probably about the only country in the world whose citizens fell for that one.

So all the countries in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East "receive" health care at "no cost".... just sayin' if it is a right, it should be "everywhere".

LOL! So you think Rwanda for example, is an example of a country that offers the kind of human rights you want for America???

Ummmm yeah. Strong argument there junior.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

[/url]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.

Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way. Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"? Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers? Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately? Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?[/QUOTE]

Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it.
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?
But the idea of using tax dollars for the well-being of the citizenry extends only within the parameters you've been led to believe are "acceptable".
So your ignorance on this subject is understandable. You've been programmed to believe something by those who prey on certain metaprograms in your political and cultural ideology & preferences. You don't know any better than to believe the bs they feed you, you just do.
You believe you think for yourself and that it's a "coincidence" that I can tell you all your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues, with 90%+ accuracy but that you can't do this with me (it's that free & independent thinking thing).

 

[dblack]

Sure it's a right. It's amazing how easily The Machine has brain-washed so many Americans into believing that of all the things our tax money should go to, this isn't one of them. We're probably about the only country in the world whose citizens fell for that one.

So all the countries in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East "receive" health care at "no cost".... just sayin' if it is a right, it should be "everywhere".

LOL! So you think Rwanda for example, is an example of a country that offers the kind of human rights you want for America???

Ummmm yeah. Strong argument there junior.

C'mon! You're not going to invoke Somalia?!?!?

 

[dblack]

Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it.
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?

Heck. I didn't know you were a Ron Paul fan! Welcome to the fold, bro!

 

[IndependntLogic]

Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it.
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?

Heck. I didn't know you were a Ron Paul fan! Welcome to the fold, bro!

Oh hell yeah! Well, about 2/3 of the time, anyway. I just wish he didn't keep shooting himself in the foot - and then the leg - and the the face.
But there is SO much I agree with him on! It's just the stuff I find completely out in left field that I disagree with.