Thread: Ron Paul's vision fer old peoples and children...

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

At what point do people take responsibility for their behavior? Kids don't want to take care of their parents, but in the past adults, children, grandparents all used to live together and help each other. Whose fault is it that the elderly didn't save their money? Is it mine and that's why I have to pay into social security and medicare? It's easy to say "care for those who can't care for themselves" and make emotional appeals but I want to know why I have to pay for people who have had a lifetime to earn and income and failed to do so.

ahoy AjaxPress,

not to take me own thread off topic, but this be somethin' i've always wondered at meself also - why didn't the elderly save on thar voyage to old age?

why is it, when folks have a lifetime to prepare fer old age, and evidence abounds that old age can be an expensive proposition, do folks willfully do so little to save fer it?

here be me answers;

1) whilst they hadn't prepared financially by savin', at least they were spending all thar lives, thereby stimulatin' economic activity, so thats not so bad, aye?

2) 'tis a cultural thing, americans on the whole just aren't that good at savin'. then again, the cost 'o healthcare be so preposterous in our nation, maybe 'tis not reasonable to expect most folks to able to save the titanic sums necessary...

3) 'tis alot like folks who set thar clocks five minutes early...an attempt to trick themselves into actually bein' on time. it doesn't work, fer in the long run they just adjust thar own behavior and they use up that margin anyway, dawdlin' around...doin' this and that. since our swabby's know the safety net be out thar, they whittle away at whatever savings they have.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by adaher

Rep. Ron Paul is not going to take away your Medicare.

That’s what the Republican congressman from Texas told a room full of senior citizens in Concord, N.H. Friday night.

“I would try to preserve it,” said Paul at a small assisted living community.

Health care was one of the top concerns of those in the room, who asked Paul to explain his view that churches and voluntary institutions could take over the delivery of medicine.

ahoy adaher,

as me parents have aged, i've looked into the cost 'o assisted livin' and taken a perusal 'o what things like open heart surgery and replacement hips cost.

no church is goin' to "take over the delivery of medicine", not unless folks suddenly are inspired to tithe quite a bit more than that which fills the donation baskets on sundays.

- MeadHallPirate

Thing is, the taxpayers can't do it either. As a general rule, if the average family cannot afford something, society cannot afford it.

Originally Posted by adaher

Thing is, the taxpayers can't do it either. As a general rule, if the average family cannot afford something, society cannot afford it.

ahoy Adaher,

are ye equatin' livin' six years in an assisted care facility with a difficult medical condition with ownin' a Ferrari Enzo*?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

* - i drove a client's Ferrari once, the feelin' was impressive. i felt me maleness expandin' exponentially with each mile i roared o'er...the torque, the feelin' 'o luxury and power...the sensation that i was sittin' in seats made 'o whole, slaughtered cows instead 'o the cheap pressed leather 'o me Nissan that i owned at the time. the cultural strength 'o Italy...i pondered the rise 'o fascism, the couture 'o Milan, the differences between Emporio and Armani (was thar any?)...all these things raced through me mind. aye.

I don't quite understand your sudden dislike of Ron Paul MHP... he is alone among the contenders that would let you smoke your favorite herb in peace.

Originally Posted by tsquare

I don't quite understand your sudden dislike of Ron Paul MHP... he is alone among the contenders that would let you smoke your favorite herb in peace.

ahoy Tsquare,

though imma shamed to admit it, that alone be almost enough fer me to campaign energetically fer him. to show up door to door, swathed in mittens and hat, clutchin' damp flyers, entreatin' folks from thar early evenin' reverie to sincerely lecture them on the vissitudes 'o the gold standard, the inherent tyranny 'o the fed...to utter plain homespun truths, all so i can go home and roll meself a fattie filled with the finest hydro this side 'o Hawaii without the DEA breakin' down me door with thar body armor, thar cans 'o mace, and thar Miranda recitation...

i just think, at least fer a moment, we ought to consider the other ramifications 'o a Paul Presidency.

me sudden dislike isn't so much dislike...'tis more like an honest musin' on an inventory 'o shortcomings that so many grooms go through in thar head before they go out ring shoppin'.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

RP has stated that he knows SS/Medicare would require a phase-out over time to accommodate the fact that many people are completely dependent on them. Generally, if done gradually, he feels those programs could be reduced/eliminated without undue hardship on people. He would let people opt out if they wanted (young people generally) and gradually phase things out that way.

Originally Posted by tsquare

I don't quite understand your sudden dislike of Ron Paul MHP... he is alone among the contenders that would let you smoke your favorite herb in peace.

I dont' see any dislike. It's a question of Paul re: his policies and beliefs. I know as a partisan you can't go beyond concept of hating the "opposition", which varies depending on what Rush/Hannity/O Reilly/Limbaugh tell you. However if you sit back and listen you might grasp that sometimes people have reasonable concerns about things and issues. Not everyone gives a crap about over-hyped bullshit like racist newsletters or presidential birth certificates.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

RP has stated that he knows SS/Medicare would require a phase-out over time to accommodate the fact that many people are completely dependent on them. Generally, if done gradually, he feels those programs could be reduced/eliminated without undue hardship on people. He would let people opt out if they wanted (young people generally) and gradually phase things out that way.

ahoy Disllusioned_1,

i be in me early forties. i paid into these programs fer o'er two decades....what kinda phase-out do i get? be it the kinda phase-out whar i pay fer the last babyboomer that was jettisoned from a post-war vaginal canal, just so i can arrive at the trough and find it empty?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Disllusioned_1,

i be in me early forties. i paid into these programs fer o'er two decades....what kinda phase-out do i get? be it the kinda phase-out whar i pay fer the last babyboomer that was jettisoned from a post-war vaginal canal, just so i can arrive at the trough and find it empty?

- MeadHallPirate

I haven't heard him clearly state any details other than allowing people to opt out and that there would be a 'transition' period (he avoids the use of the word "phase out", that was my term because in my mind that is the implication). He has also said that we can pay for those programs by shutting down our worldwide military empire. I'm of a similar age range as you, so I'd be in similar waters if the programs were 'phased out'.

Originally Posted by dblack

Would you put any limits on such a 'safety net'? Or is it open to all who apply? If there are limits, what about those who lie just outside those limits?

You mean would I give handouts to genuinely lazy, but otherwise healthy people? No. Would I handout enough to buy big screen tvs? No. Would I hand out enough for food, and shelter? Yes. The clothing could come from charity, as they could handle that. Of course what I would do would require the social safety nets to be reformed.

Today, there are genuinely people in need that do not qualify for help, thanks perhaps to prior reforms.

Charities locally here are no different. Our food bank at a church requires that you have a job, plus children at home. It is ludicrous. The federal social safety nets also have requirements that basically leave out so many that actually need help. I guess the pubs reformed it. I don't think it is easy to get food stamps, if you lost your job, and your unemployment has run out. You are fucked.

Ron Paul would do well to take some advice from a Republican who was a successful President:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Originally Posted by adaher

Thing is, the taxpayers can't do it either. As a general rule, if the average family cannot afford something, society cannot afford it.

the average family cannot afford a space program, a superhighway system, or an F-22, or an aircraft carrier, yet the society has somehow managed to afford them.
And other societies manage to afford health care for all, and a robust social safety net.
What is so wrong with this society that we can afford mega yachts, McMansions, the most expensive military the world has ever seen, and we can't afford to care for seniors who find themselves unable to care for themselves?