Write a Comment
43 Comments
Jeff: Obviously Ron Paul is a Republican (although he is really a libertarian) and I have corrected the error. And thanks for being so polite in communicating with me about the error.
Since when is Ron Paul a DEMOCRAT? Jesus everybody and their blind mother know's his some hack REPUBLICAN trying to become president. Those same everybodies and their blind mothers also know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning...I see your journalism degree is hard at work here....
Just to piggyback on Andrew's reply to Dan. Dan your comment also implies your lack of discernment about how people contract HIV without any intention of self-harm, (i.e.) children born with HIV, or people who contracted HIV through transfusions. Yes, many of those people are still living healthy lives. Let's not forget, women who have contracted HIV from their "down-low" partners, partners who themselves may be unaware of their own status. Or the many women who have contracted HIV from rape as it happens the world over. Or women who are victims of compelling poverty, who have little choice but to become sex-workers to keep their children alive. This happens, and I would bet that none of them woke up one day, and said to themselves, "Today, I'll go out and contract HIV!". Moreover, very few, if any, people "intend" to become positive. Individual circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I'll posit further that even if one "chooses" to smoke, the intention is never to come down with lung cancer. Really Dan...rethink your stance. Ron Paul's libertarian position is fragmented at best, and selfishly idealistic. Yes he is an old man with old ideas, however that's no excuse for his skewed, moralistic, and isolationist, viewpoint of a plague that is still misunderstood by many. His age has nothing to do with it. He' a dangerous man and gratefully, he will never become president. However I shouldn't be surprised if and when his "mini me", Rand Paul, runs for the position. Watch out for that one.
Dan, there is something very, very wrong with a person who would bring their sero snobbery onto an HIV website. Everyone with HIV knows that the road to infection is rarely as reductive and blameworthy as "choosing to have unprotected sex", as does virtually every negative person who doesn't have their head completely up their ass. There are two ways to see people with HIV. The first is the republican approach, where we are expendible sinners who deserve to die. The second is a libertarian approach, where the free market happens to be the most efficient way to alleviate the pressures everyone faces, regardless of their HIV status. The republican approach is, essentially, a form of punishment. The libertarian approach is an analytical and philosophical appreciation of what the market can do. Paul clearly falls into the former category. In choosing to volunteer that we are "victims of our own poor decisions", he is making moralistic statements about the people who get HIV, and judging us in a way that the a true libertarian would not condone. As a poz gay man with libertarian tendencies, I find Ron Paul to be a complete joke, and I find attempts to explain his statements away to be deeply offensive. He is not a libertarian, he is a republican. If he truly weren't a raging serophobe, he'd talk less about what "bad decisions" people with HIV have made, and more about how the free market would alleviate some of the problems we face. He would not accuse us of victimizing others with high health care costs, and would instead qualify his beliefs about free markets with explanations of how we are a captive audience with no choice but to consume antiretrovirals and medical care at a several thousand percent markup. He has not chosen to do these things, despite decades of political experience and the ability to say exactly what he means. His message is unambiguous. Paul has chosen to deviate from the libertarian line of defending the market, and strayed into a judgments about a group of people. His apologists should drop their attempts to cast him as a defender of economic liberty, and see him as the uncompassionate, sanctimonious republican he truly is.
Big insurance companies and Government ARE the health care industry! Yes, we would all like to go back to a time when the doctors made house calls and medicine was affordable. Then again, back in the day if you had a Staph infection, they would just lop off the offending appendage or tell your family to start planning your wake! Without the government subsidies and insurance meddling, we would not have the wonderful medications and research that we have today and while it sounds wonderful to go back to "Little House on the Prairie" Days, I doubt you'd think that when Half-Pint died from complications of a simple procedure because they didn't have life-saving antibiotics on hand. They are both necessary evils. The issue is to strike an equitable balance. The rationing that you speak of is often called Triage in most circles. Those that don't require immediate care are not put to the front of line. Of course there needs to be an amount of regulation and interjection from the government otherwise - like ALL businesses - the goal of profits exceed the human factor.
How about getting big insurance companies along with big government out of the healthcare business since both have caused the cost of healthcare to spiral out of control? Insurance companies are in the business to make money and they only want to cover healthy people because sick people decrease their profits. Big government programs that insure everyone are expensive and eventually result in the rationing of healthcare. Look at Communist countries like Cuba where everyone has healthcare but it's almost worthless since health care is rationed and those who are sick often don't have access to life saving medicines. Many of us would like to go back to the old days before healthcare insurance and big government programs when everyone paid cash for their healthcare and medicines. You could determine what a medical procedure actually cost and what medicines actually cost without the subsidies from insurance and government. My grandparents spoke of a time when medicine and healthcare was actually affordable. Doctors even made housecalls!
Ron Paul is really a Libertarian and his comments reflect his core values of limited government and free markets. To charge some consumers more for health insurance makes since from a strictly business standpoint in that health insurers are in the business to make money and people with HIV/AIDS cost more to insure than those who don't. Would Ron Paul have that viewpoint if he or someone in his family had HIV/AIDS and couldn't afford or obtain health insurance? Probably not! One possible solution to the lack of affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions like HIV/AIDS are the health pools that are run by many states. For example, eligible residents of California can apply for coverage through the state’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan program run by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board.
Davina
WELL THEN lets just deport all these people sure, oh wait these are the types of people who fight the wars that keep this country free. Ron Paul like any political person, has no idea how the world works at the level of the poor people who are the backbone of this country and every country.
February 11, 2012