Do Senator Paul's conflicting positions on taxes and malpractice reveal a hypocrit?
Ron Paul has said in his essays that he will be end the federal income tax and abolish the IRS, while he also favors abolishing medical malpractice insurance to be replaced by insurance of "negative outcomes" paid for by patients who will–and here's the stunning contradition–a TAX CREDIT!
Being an obstretrician himself (second-highest malpractice insurance rates by speciality) it's no wonder the kindly old Senator wants to shift the burden for deaths and injuries caused by incompetent and dishonest physicians to the American Taxpayer. Is this man an idiot or merely a shill doing the bidding of the American Medical Association?
Ron Paul is not a Senator but a Congressman, of course. Sorry about any confusion. The contradictions I speak about can be found in his own writings posted to his congressional web-site.
For those who requested a link and the exact quote: "The free-market approach enables patients to protect themselves with “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment. Such insurance ensures that those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation.
I have introduced legislation that allows individuals a tax credit for the purchase of negative outcomes insurance."—Ron Paul quoted from his essay "The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis"
As the saying goes, read it and weap.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst033103.htm
For those who requested a link and the exact quote:
"The free-market approach enables patients to protect themselves with “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment. Such insurance ensures that those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation.
I have introduced legislation that allows individuals a tax credit for the purchase of negative outcomes insurance."—Ron Paul quoted from his essay "The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis"
As the saying goes, read it and weap.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst033103.htm
Not much to add to what you have already said, you have definitely figured this guy out. He is just a trouble maker, and like most of these, try to convince people how correct he is. In reality, he has his own agenda. If people are told some thing over and over for a long time, others will start the same story and carry it on, then he can end up saying, he did not say that. This is what most all politicians do about a year or so before they intend to run for President. This guy is no different, only one better at this than him, is her.
The American Medical Association opposes socialist healthcare.
They are just fine by me
References :
First off, hes a Representative, not a Senator.
And secondly, you may have a point. Hes raised 5 million dollars so far. I have some trouble believing that all that money comes completely from invidual contributions with no affiliations to any special interest groups or associations such as the AMA. So you may be right, maybe he is putting himself in some pockets to raise money. I dont know if hes released any information on where his funds are coming from yet, but if/when he does, check it out and see whos contributing.
References :
If you really think about it you are already paying for the insurance. The doctor simply passes this cost on to the consumer. I have not read this particular piece.
Could you post a link?
But if I can get a tax credit for something I am indirectly paying for where I do not get a tax credit now. It sounds like
it might be a good idea.
References :
First, Paul is a Representative, not a Senator.
Second, how about citing your sources for your claims and put them in context, please.
I have listened extensively to Paul speak and I have never heard him doublespeak. His message, as far as I know, has always been consistent: follow the Constitution.
He's my kind of representative. Too bad there's only one of him.
Finally, to answer you question, he is neither.
I have attached links to clarify what you have claimed.
References :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Not much to add to what you have already said, you have definitely figured this guy out. He is just a trouble maker, and like most of these, try to convince people how correct he is. In reality, he has his own agenda. If people are told some thing over and over for a long time, others will start the same story and carry it on, then he can end up saying, he did not say that. This is what most all politicians do about a year or so before they intend to run for President. This guy is no different, only one better at this than him, is her.
References :
Ron Paul is an isolationist and hardly a serious contender at 72 years old. His most ardent supporters are foreigners and liberals.
He is a hypocrite if you consider that while he can honestly say he has never voted for a tax increase or to expand the government, but since he was a member of the majority party for the last decade he also never tried to reduce government back to the scope as indicated in the constitution. He had a chance but never took it, not even a symbolic attempt… that to me indicates he didn't put his money where his mouth is.
References :
It doesn't make sense to give a tax credit if you don't have an IRS. I respect Paul's economic views, but he sounds confused here. He should just go for tort reform where the judicial system is capped on how much they can give for any medical suit. That will lower both malpractice and health care insurance rates.
References :
He's always voted to lower taxes. Your statement is moot.
References :
You or anyone else will not change my mind about voting for Ron Paul. He is my kinda guy!! He is "for" the American people. It seems that the Republicans are afraid of him & this is the reason for trying to bash him. He just might have a chance at winning. If not… He still has my vote!!!
References :
I suppose that we are supposed to look up your assertions because you didn't post a link? No thanks. What do taxes and malpractice have anything to do with each other. As a candidate for President his position on taxes is bar none. "He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay, and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system or take government-paid junkets." No where have I seen where he is opposed to medical malpractice. That's not even an issue in the race. Even if it was, are you saying you know more about the subject than a doctor?
References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice