next »

[Paul Eres]

"On the eve of Saturday’s Nevada caucus, Ron Paul sits down with Piers Morgan for a revealing interview, during which the Republican from Texas shares his views on rape and abortion: "If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.""

i think he's referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzpe_regimen

[i wanna be the guy]

Okay but
The Yuzpe regimen isn’t used anymore

[peanutbuttershoes]

Well. Looks like he isn't a doctor. Wooooooo

[Paul Eres]

Okay but
The Yuzpe regimen isn’t used anymore

where did you hear that? according to the wikipedia article it's still used:

Many common combined oral contraceptive pills could be used for the Yuzpe regimen[3], although their manufacturers did not label the pills for this use. Such off-label use of approved medications is legal and commonplace in American medicine. Further, in February 1997, the FDA declared emergency contraceptive use of certain birth control pills, following the Yuzpe regimen, as safe and effective.

[googoogjoob]

Well. Looks like he isn't a doctor. Wooooooo

he was a gynecologist at a texan practice for several decades i thought

that is, he is very much a doctor

[i wanna be the guy]

where did you hear that? according to the wikipedia article it's still used:

several female friends in reaction to his comment
this

It has been superseded by a progestogen-only hormonal regimen.

[Paul Eres]

hmm, makes sense. but i'm not sure if that means it's totally unused at all anymore, or if it's just rarely used

it's not particularly surprising to me that RP would make that mistake, tho; from what i gather he hasn't worked as a doctor in a couple of decades, he's been a congressman for a while (since 79 or something), a ton of his knowledge is probably out of date

[rob]

My favorite thing about Ron Pul is that his son raped someone and is a Senator now.


EDIT: Well, I decided to actual research my awesome joke and realized he didn't rape anyone. He just tied somebody up and forced them to worship a false god. Whoopsies.

[Paul Eres]

My favorite thing about Ron Pul is that his son raped someone and is a Senator now.


EDIT: Well, I decided to actual research my awesome joke and realized he didn't rape anyone. He just tied somebody up and forced them to worship a false god. Whoopsies.

even if it were an actual rape and not a fraternity prank (he also forced her to smoke pot, from what i remember, although she never pressed charges), it'd still be no worse than obama assassinating american citizens without trial, torturing hundreds of people, killing tens of thousands of civilians in afghanistan, etc.

it's hardly the worst thing senators have ever done either; ted kennedy once killed someone in a drunk driving accident but because he was a senator they couldn't prosecute him. there are tons of stories like that, i think a large percentage of congress has a criminal record

[Cow]

My favorite thing about Ron Pul is that his son raped someone and is a Senator now.


EDIT: Well, I decided to actual research my awesome joke and realized he didn't rape anyone. He just tied somebody up and forced them to worship a false god. Whoopsies.

even if it were an actual rape and not a fraternity prank (he also forced her to smoke pot, from what i remember, although she never pressed charges), it'd still be no worse than obama assassinating american citizens without trial, torturing hundreds of people, killing tens of thousands of civilians in afghanistan, etc.

you should write a history textbook

[Capntastic]

"On the eve of Saturday’s Nevada caucus, Ron Paul sits down with Piers Morgan for a revealing interview, during which the Republican from Texas shares his views on rape and abortion: "If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.""

I wonder who would pay for that unfortunate emergency room visit, given he also seeks for privatization of health care (and other essential services).

[Paul Eres]

emergency rooms have to treat you whether you can pay or not

also, RP's platform is that by cutting spending on the american empire, more money will be left to go into medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. -- so i think you're misrepresenting his position on it. it's not a part of his platform to privatize medical care

[Capntastic]

"No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. "  -Ron Paul's website.

He also says that maybe if the government weren't providing people with health care doctors would see the error of their ways and give away medicine and treatment for free, because when you're 100% corporately owned in the free market, charity somehow 'happens'.  The counterpoint to this is, like with many Libertarian wishes, is recorded history.  So yes, emergency rooms do currently treat you whether you can pay or not.  It's also true that emergency room visits aren't free, and that you do get billed an unreasonably high amount.  Because they've already rendered the service that you desperately need to survive a gunshot or prevent being forced to give birth to the child of your rapist, you can't 'shop around' beforehand.  It's exploiting victims of extreme misfortune as it is currently.  Ron Paul explicitly stating that no one has a right to health care says that he intends to take a step back by not ensuring that you'll recieve those services in the first place.

Yes, he has some good, very true points about health care in America being screwed up, but it's pretty clear that a good deal of this is due to corporate pressure.  Doctors in the U.S. get paid per service provided, per treatment, per drug prescribed, incentivizing illness.  It's not too hard to see that a better, more empathic system exists in Europe's socialized health care, where doctors are paid for keeping their patients healthy, with their paycheck coming from the state (who has an interest in a healthy population) rather than a company (that has an interest in selling things to people that need them).

[Paul Eres]

saying that no one has the right to medical care doesn't mean that he'll cut it or privatize it. you'd have to read his actual platform to see the specifics

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Health_policy

Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families:[201] He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.

    H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.
    H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees 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. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
    H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.
    H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.

as an aside, not believing you have the right to something doesn't mean the government shouldn't do that thing: as an example, i doubt ron paul (or anyone) believes that people "right" to a space program, or to national parks, or to student loans, but that doesn't mean he's going to end those

there are also many things which are rights which are impractical to provide. for instance, you could say that people have a right to transportation (freedom of movement) and communication (free speech), but it'd be impractical (currently) for the government to provide free transportation to everyone, or free internet access to everyone

[Capntastic]

Who's claiming right to space travel or transport or that freedom of speech means internet access?  You're coming up with some pretty skewed theoreticals that don't really exist to substantiate your point.

"Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others? Very few individuals would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a compulsory health insurance system?"  -Ron Paul website.

Again, this straight up claims that taxes spent on health care is forcefully taking funds from people to subsidize something he claims no one has a right to.

I will note that you literally copy and pasted around the part where it says:

He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation,[205] but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government

You keep jumping around between arguing what he believes would be best, and what he theoretically intends to do. 

But alright, if we're going to discuss what rights the U.S. government should hold dear and enact, let's start from this:  Rights are a social fiction, designed to make society work.  Without a government to enforce them, they do not exist.  History has shown that without governing forces stopping people from doing harm unto others.  Many industries, without regulation, will operate as they see fit to siphon wealth, regardless of what damage they shift onto others. In these situations, aren't people's 'rights', as even a libertarian would define them (non-aggression, etc)- being stomped upon?