Ron Paul votes to expand Federal healthcare program

Thorgrim · 05-24-2007, 07:50 AM

Title: To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers

To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act'.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO VETERANS.

Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(1)' before `The program'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 medical centers by not later than December 31, 2009, and at all medical centers by not later than December 31, 2011.'.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I thought he was all anti-government in healthcare whatsoever?

Is it possible he's trying to flip-flop after losing the spin-game to Rudy?

JaylieWoW · 05-24-2007, 09:08 AM

Actually he IS anti-government healthcare except when it comes to our veterans. He believes we treat them awfully when they come home from wars and as a nation that claims such passionate support for our troops, we should be doing much MUCH more for our veterans. It isn't flip flopping at all, he's always said we should be taking better care of our veterans.

Thorgrim · 05-24-2007, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JaylieWoW

Actually he IS anti-government healthcare except when it comes to our veterans. He believes we treat them awfully when they come home from wars and as a nation that claims such passionate support for our troops, we should be doing much MUCH more for our veterans. It isn't flip flopping at all, he's always said we should be taking better care of our veterans.

Why can't the free market do something? Is the free market evil without care for our veterans?

I don't see the need for the government to solve our problems here, is this some nanny-welfare state?

Ardentfrost · 05-24-2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why can't the free market do something? Is the free market evil without care for our veterans?

I don't see the need for the government to solve our problems here, is this some nanny-welfare state?

I've said before how eventhough I'm against nationalized healthcare, veterans have to be taken care of. The reason is that we've fucked them up over the past 60 years, and we have to fix the errors of our fathers, not abandon the people messed up by them.

So, if I got everything I wanted today, a few things would be the abandonment of current levels of nationalized healthcare, pulling out our forces worldwide, and providing healthcare for the veterans and military personel for the next generation (need would slowly decrease over a generation until the veteran hospitals wouldn't be as needed).

I do think veteran/active duty healthcare should be part of a military budget, but since I would want to MAJORLY decrease the size of our standing army, as well as shut down costly bases and installments around the world, it wouldn't be as large as it is now and we could afford what would be needed a lot easier.

That's just a responsibility thing. The country is responsible for going to war or even defense, and therefore should be responsible for those people affected by it. Ron Paul has said in vids linked on these very forums that he feels similarly. Veteran healthcare isn't something you mess with. But healthcare for everyone else should be optional and cheaper (naturally cheaper, unlike now where it's unnaturally expensive)

Fed Up · 05-24-2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Is it possible he's trying to flip-flop after losing the spin-game to Rudy?

Is that all you got? A health care attack on Paul?

Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans
by Ron Paul
Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans by Rep. Ron Paul

How is Ron Paul losing the "spin-game" to Rudy? You've been watching FOX News too long!

lew · 05-24-2007, 10:31 AM

He has never voted against giving aid to veterans.

He has also stated time and time again that he would increase aid to veterans when given the opportunity.

You would know this though thorgrim, if you were actually interested in learning about Paul and not just trolling.

Someone quote me, since I think I'm on his IL.

Ardentfrost · 05-24-2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by lew

He has never voted against giving aid to veterans.

He has also stated time and time again that he would increase aid to veterans when given the opportunity.

You would know this though thorgrim, if you were actually interested in learning about Paul and not just trolling.

Someone quote me, since I think I'm on his IL.

You forgot to mention how he's been linked a few times talking about this very thing on these forums.

motivez · 05-24-2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by lew

He has never voted against giving aid to veterans.

He has also stated time and time again that he would increase aid to veterans when given the opportunity.

You know, the same logic used to defend this type of government spending can be easily applied to the rest of the country.

Veterans defend the country and should be taken care of.
The elderly got us to where we are and should be taken care of.
The children and college students are our future and should be taken care of.
The current adults are the ones who fuel our economy and should be taken care of.

Almost everyone in the nation has a role to play in making our nation prosperous.

Ardentfrost · 05-24-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

You know, the same logic used to defend this type of government spending can be easily applied to the rest of the country.

Veterans defend the country and should be taken care of.
The elderly got us to where we are and should be taken care of.
The children and college students are our future and should be taken care of.
The current adults are the ones who fuel our economy and should be taken care of.

Almost everyone in the nation has a role to play in making our nation prosperous.

the elderly, children, and current adults are not put in their situation by the government, but themselves or those responsible for them. Veterans are sent to war by the government, therefore it is the government's job to take care of them.

It has nothing to do with any contribution to the nation.

lew · 05-24-2007, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

You know, the same logic used to defend this type of government spending can be easily applied to the rest of the country.

Veterans defend the country and should be taken care of.
The elderly got us to where we are and should be taken care of.
The children and college students are our future and should be taken care of.
The current adults are the ones who fuel our economy and should be taken care of.

Almost everyone in the nation has a role to play in making our nation prosperous.

I understand what you are saying, but they're not exactly the same.

Veterans entire livelihood is based upon how much the government gives them. That is the only segment of society that is like that. They have decided to sacrifice some of their own freedoms to join the military, and the military should do everything in its power to ensure that they are taken care of.

Stylerod · 05-24-2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I understand what you are saying, but they're not exactly the same.

Veterans entire livelihood is based upon how much the government gives them. That is the only segment of society that is like that. They have decided to sacrifice some of their own freedoms to join the military, and the military should do everything in its power to ensure that they are taken care of.

Well said.

DosEquis · 05-24-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

the elderly, children, and current adults are not put in their situation by the government, but themselves or those responsible for them. Veterans are sent to war by the government, therefore it is the government's job to take care of them.

It has nothing to do with any contribution to the nation.

They volunteered. They also put themselves in that position well aware that they could go to war, get wounded, or even die for their country. It is admirable and personally i think we should help them. But this just seems to be a selective thing as motivez says. Why should we not help those under the age of 18 also? They really have no choice in the matter at all in regards to their parents being legitimate and being able to provide for them in areas like healthcare.

Donkey® · 05-24-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I understand what you are saying, but they're not exactly the same.

Veterans entire livelihood is based upon how much the government gives them. That is the only segment of society that is like that. They have decided to sacrifice some of their own freedoms to join the military, and the military should do everything in its power to ensure that they are taken care of.

What? Because you served in the military you can't get a job?

Thorgrim · 05-24-2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You forgot to mention how he's been linked a few times talking about this very thing on these forums.

I'm sorry, there are like what 10 GOPers and 8 Dems? I did not research the nuances of every single position, thats what this is

Even if you're right (lew) there's no reason to freak out, I didn't say "This just in, Ron Paul is a fraud and anyone who follows him is an idiot"

And Arden, if I hear someone on TV talk ad nausem about reducing every single part of government, and I see an increase vote from them, i think that's worthy of a thread, you can't expect that I clicked all your guys little libertarian links, i may have a high post number and do a lot of political research but there are limits

motivez · 05-24-2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They volunteered. They also put themselves in that position well aware that they could go to war, get wounded, or even die for their country. It is admirable and personally i think we should help them. But this just seems to be a selective thing as motivez says. Why should we not help those under the age of 18 also? They really have no choice in the matter at all in regards to their parents being legitimate and being able to provide for them in areas like healthcare.

What he said.

If there was a draft and those people had no choice in the matter, then sure, I could understand your reasoning behind selectively allowing the Government to spend money on health care.. but they volunteered, they may not decide exactly where to go, but they decided to join the military and get that job.

How is it any different than any other federal employee? They also rely on the government as their employer.

And if it's not any different than any other federal employee, then why is it different than any employee in general who contributes to the country?

Everyone makes sacrifices in their lives at one point or another for their own reasons.. soldiers do it for a sense of patriotism, or for money for college, or for the opportunity to travel, other people often have many of the similar justifications for deciding to go to college or work for whoever..

If you think the nature of the job is the deciding factor, then what about people who take jobs that are also needed to protect the country? Crappy jobs but stuff that needs to be done in order for people to eat, or get to work to fuel the economy?

It's really saying "I think x is more important than y, so lets do more for x than y" IMO.

I'm one of these people who really likes what Libertarians have to say about a lot of things, but the entire "fend for yourself in all circumstances, and if you hit hard times, well if you can't pick yourself up or the market decides not to help you, tough luck" thing just doesn't seem right to me, which is why I'm in favor of some sort of social safety net.. too many people would get caught up in the churn of the market with that dog eat dog mentality IMO.

Thorgrim · 05-24-2007, 03:13 PM

I'm also curious why this country has a responsibility to a veteran who had a desk job in DC and got back pains by sitting in his chair a certain way, but a IRS employee with the same back pains doesn't get that treatment

How in God's name does that make any sense other than pandering to "always be for anything remotely vet-related" voter

Dumpy Dooby · 05-24-2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I understand what you are saying, but they're not exactly the same.

Veterans entire livelihood is based upon how much the government gives them. That is the only segment of society that is like that. They have decided to sacrifice some of their own freedoms to join the military, and the military should do everything in its power to ensure that they are taken care of.

I think this is a good argument for privatized military, or at least non-governmental subdivisions. It would be nice to make the Armed Forces divisions compete for funding, and compete for employees. I don't mind paying the bill, but I want to be sure that it's a reasonable price.

The idea would be to give funding based on how much we need their services, how cost efficient they are, and how many employees (soldiers) they have. A good way to bring in employees is to offer benefits, but rather than reaming the tax payers, it would be better to see them make the cost of those benefits remain low. And we certainly shouldn't be paying for services that aren't needed, so if the division is bloated, it's best to encourage them to trim the fat.

DosEquis · 05-24-2007, 03:38 PM

We basically use the free market for everything except soldiers. The soldier is employed by the government, but KBR, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Ratheon, etc are all competing for the contracts to build the equipment they use. The problem is we have this established military industrial complex that has such a strangle on the country it is nearly impossible to cut defense spending. If it costs 1,500 jobs that districts representative is going to do everything they can to keep whatever program alive.

If we cut our defense budget in half our unemployment rate would probably jump 2%.