RON PAUL!

/getting that out of the way early on

Look at him, he's an attention whore.

I love big brother Ron Paul. He jacks off to pictures of the American flag, pisses freedom, and shiats liberty. If I can become a thousandth of the man Dr. Congressman Duke Ron Paul Esq. III, His Royal Highness, is, I will consider my life a complete and total success.

Hopefully, next congress forces clothes companies to stop charging me higher prices than small children just because my clothes require more material to make.

I personally prefer the Veterans Adminstrations version of the bill.

Smellvin: Hopefully, next congress forces clothes companies to stop charging me higher prices than small children just because my clothes require more material to make.

Wait, what?

I hope somebody does a DNA analysis of Ron Paul and then informs him that his genetic predisposition for mental illness will prevent him from being an effective congressman.

Grandpa, it's time to take the onions off the belt. It's embarrassing.

Ron Paul hates fat people?

Ron who?

I'm trying to decide if he or George Bush is more embarrassing to Texas. I think the nod still goes to Bush.

DrySocket: I hope somebody does a DNA analysis of Ron Paul and then informs him that his genetic predisposition for mental illness will prevent him from being an effective congressman.

HA HA HA .. ROFL

/Awesome

Did someone say RON PAUL?!?

/RON PAUL

Smellvin: Hopefully, next congress forces clothes companies to stop charging me higher prices than small children just because my clothes require more material to make.

Yes, because people who need health care the most shouldn't have access to it. It might cut into our profits.

How, exactly, does a libertarian vote against that?

Isn't that like a Catholic priest telling someone to get an abortion?

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

GINA?

mcwebe0: Yes, because people who need health care the most shouldn't have access to it. It might cut into our profits.

So if you have a 10% extra chance of getting sick, your insurance should be exactly the same price as everyone else's? Alternately: when companies can't charge sick people rate at which they can turn a profit, what happens to the non-sick people's rates?

Robo Beat: RON PAUL!

Craig341: Ron Paul.

DrySocket: Ron Paul

hockeyfarker: Ron Paul

mikeandeichmann: Did someone say RON PAUL?!?

/RON PAUL

MATT DAMON

/amidoinitrite?

Ron Paul isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.


/the more you know

Smellvin: So if you have a 10% extra chance of getting sick, your insurance should be exactly the same price as everyone else's? Alternately: when companies can't charge sick people rate at which they can turn a profit, what happens to the non-sick people's rates?

Don't worry about insurance companies, they'll be fine. (new window)

Smellvin: Hopefully, next congress forces clothes companies to stop charging me higher prices than small children just because my clothes require more material to make.

I pay extra for my Dockers with the balloon seat and heavy-duty gussets.

Jesus, will Wonkette ever stop referencing Ron Paul? We get it. You don't like him. That's hardly reason enough to blog about his candidac and then non-candidacy every single day. It's unseemly and boring.

Smellvin: So if you have a 10% extra chance of getting sick, your insurance should be exactly the same price as everyone else's?

Yes. You shouldn't need to be rich to receive necessary care.

Alternately: when companies can't charge sick people rate at which they can turn a profit, what happens to the non-sick people's rates?

We share the burden together. We collectively bear the expense of ensuring that our fellows (and fellowettes?) can be receive treatment so that they can live their lives.

Donald_McRonald: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

GINA?

followed closely by the Veterans Administration Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Agency

VAGINA

Surely Ron Paul would support that.

Smellvin: So if you have a 10% extra chance of getting sick, your insurance should be exactly the same price as everyone else's? Alternately: when companies can't charge sick people rate at which they can turn a profit, what happens to the non-sick people's rates?

This is a horrible idea... You will pay for these people's health care one way or another. You will either pay for it through your insurance (will cost less) or through taxes (will cost a hell of alot more)

DogPollen: I'm trying to decide if he or George Bush is more embarrassing to Texas. I think the nod still goes to Bush.

Don't forget Ross Perot!

He's crazy too!

Herman Borrach: I personally prefer the Veterans Adminstrations version of the bill.

Your joke was too subtle for some.

DNA isn't mentioned in the Bible, which likely makes it doubly evil in Paul's book.

My guess is that with the freedom of association and all that Paul is comfortable with discrimination between individuals. If it was the govt doing the discriminating he would be all against that but to use the govt to force people/businesses to restrict their actions is kinda the opposite of freedom.

Smellvin: Hopefully, next congress forces clothes companies to stop charging me higher prices than small children just because my clothes require more material to make.

If you were trying for some sort of analogy there, you failed miserably.

Where in the Constitution is Ron Paul mentioned? I don't believe he wrote it.

Saiga410: My guess is that with the freedom of association and all that Paul is comfortable with discrimination between individuals. If it was the govt doing the discriminating he would be all against that but to use the govt to force people/businesses to restrict their actions is kinda the opposite of freedom.

So, they have the freedom to screw us over?

Guy is a complete loon.

Ryan2065: This is a horrible idea... You will pay for these people's health care one way or another. You will either pay for it through your insurance (will cost less) or through taxes (will cost a hell of alot more)

No, see, they're gonna get rid of medicare, and all other free-ish health care systems too. The only thing you'll have to pay for with your taxes is corpse removal.

Smellvin: So if you have a 10% extra chance of getting sick, your insurance should be exactly the same price as everyone else's?

If it could be proven that some minorities had a higher risk of contracting certain diseases, you'd be all for letting insurance companies charge them more? That's already against the law.

Phil Moskowitz: Guy is a complete loon.

Would you like a cracker, Polly?

I love how all the people talking about how insurance companies and their profits are destroying healthcare, and accusing opposition to this measure of helping the insurance companies, neglect to mention why the healthcare/insurance industry is so oligarchical and expensive- it's so permeated with government control that it might as well be called "government-run healthcare" right now. Cutting out the corrupt corporate middlemen (who have been some of the staunchest supporters of every new regulation to come down the pike) and their profits might marginally reduce costs, but in the end that doesn't address the real problem- that the failure of this "free market" actually occurred in a "market" where every possible market force except profit motive has been squashed by government fiat. You know, things like "competition", "reputation", and "consumer choice" which are practically nonexistent in the American healthcare/insurance market.

Those who are rightly lamenting the miserable state of healthcare in America shouldn't carelessly, or dishonestly, blame the "free market" as the source of the current problems. Doing so creates the dishonest false dichotomy of this debate being between the status quo and a government takeover, rather than the real debate we should be having- an actual free market vs. a government takeover.

Ant: If it could be proven that some minorities had a higher risk of contracting certain diseases, you'd be all for letting insurance companies charge them more?

Letting? Sure. Any voluntary interactions should be legal, period.

As for the question you're implying and trying to conflate- "you'd be all for insurance companies charging them more?"- of course not.

Ant: If it could be proven that some minorities had a higher risk of contracting certain diseases, you'd be all for letting insurance companies charge them more? That's already against the law.

It CAN be proven that some minorities have higher risk of contracting certain diseases. The only difference between racial discrimination and genetic discrimination is that genetic discrimination is based on non-visible genetic characteristics that require a fancy test to observe (actually, racial discrimination is a subset of genetic discrimination).

You're right, though. If you're opposed to insurers being able to use skin color to set rates, you should be opposed to them being able to use DNA to either. And for the same reason: it's unfair to make people pay more based on something they are born with and have no control over.

I have a list of Ron Paul good ideas, and a list of Ron Paul 'wtf is he thinking?' ideas.

I'll write this one under the 'wtf is he thinking?' ideas.

Churchill2004: Letting? Sure. Any voluntary interactions should be legal, period.

I would agree with you if we lived in a world where there was healthy competition between health insurance providers and freedom of movement between them, therefore keeping them from using their power to get away with abusive practices. Sadly, that world has never existed and will never exist outside of libertarian fantasies. In the real world, there is no non-abusive option and most people don't even get to choose their own health insurer.

redscape: Jesus, will Wonkette ever stop referencing Ron Paul? We get it. You don't like him. That's hardly reason enough to blog about his candidac and then non-candidacy every single day. It's unseemly and boring.

Seconded.
Of course, it usually assures a thread filled with a metric assload of stupid.

jake3988: I have a list of Ron Paul good ideas, and a list of Ron Paul 'wtf is he thinking?' ideas.

I'll write this one under the 'wtf is he thinking?' ideas.

He's an extremist. That means he'll be really right when he's right, and REALLY wrong when he's wrong.

rcantley: How, exactly, does a libertarian vote against that?

Because you're not quite sure what that word means. It means individuals are free from goverment intervention; having the goverment telling them what to do. Sounds good eh? But....

Corporations get the same pass; they can do as they please also, including DNA testing, checking on your banking records for 'unhealthy purchases', GPS tracking for cars for insurance purposes (you speed your rates go up) and even internet providers blocking sites for any reason they wish or charging more for access to 'non-partnered' sites. (no porn for you!).

Mnemia: I would agree with you if we lived in a world where there was healthy competition between health insurance providers and freedom of movement between them, therefore keeping them from using their power to get away with abusive practices

Let's do both then.

Mnemia: Sadly, that world has never existed and will never exist outside of libertarian fantasies. In the real world, there is no non-abusive option and most people don't even get to choose their own health insurer.

Ah, "That's not the way it is now, so it can never be?"

Two fundamental human rights, protected by the Constitution, are the right to freedom of association and the right to freely enter into contract. This bill (yes, I read it) violates both of these Constitutional provisions (and the Tenth Amendment). If you don’t like the way a company does business, don’t do business with it. You can’t be discriminated against by someone you have no association with. And you can always start your own insurance company and charge everybody the same rate, regardless of risk.

Churchill2004: Ah, "That's not the way it is now, so it can never be?"

Consider a vote as currency. In a free market people purchase with currency. Libertarianism, Objectivism..is indeed correct. However, no one is buying it---it's a failed product in the marketplace of ideas.

optikeye: Because you're not quite sure what that word means. It means individuals are free from goverment intervention; having the goverment telling them what to do. Sounds good eh? But....

Corporations get the same pass; they can do as they please also, including DNA testing, checking on your banking records for 'unhealthy purchases', GPS tracking for cars for insurance purposes (you speed your rates go up) and even internet providers blocking sites for any reason they wish or charging more for access to 'non-partnered' sites. (no porn for you!).

I'm a "personal" libertarian. I'm all for libertarianism for individuals, but I don't believe corporations have rights. Rights are a function of humanity.

Ryan2065: Smellvin: So if you have a 10% extra chance of getting sick, your insurance should be exactly the same price as everyone else's? Alternately: when companies can't charge sick people rate at which they can turn a profit, what happens to the non-sick people's rates?

This is a horrible idea... You will pay for these people's health care one way or another. You will either pay for it through your insurance (will cost less) or through taxes (will cost a hell of alot more)

Not if we get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and all other government handouts.