# The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445 "2010-05-23T08:12:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/321 "2010-05-29T00:55:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Seems to me all he’s saying is that he wants to change the definition of who is a citizen in order to exclude the children of people who are here illegally. That is hardly controversial, … No? Then what’s all this conversation about, then? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/322 "2010-05-29T15:39:26Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > So the people who wrote it and voted on it are useless to determine what the “original” intent was? That’s not what I said. Other than the text of the document itself, we have no way of knowing the “original intent” of the many, many signers who left no written commentary at all. Remember, we not only have Congressmen in Washington voting on these amendments, but legislators in all the individual states voting during the ratification process. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > In the context of the portrait of libertarianism posed by the OP, yes, that is what I am saying. Well, I’ll admit that I didn’t read the entire OP, and I doubt many other have. Can you cite the part where he says this-- ie, that the Constitution should never be amended? > [@](#): > > The OP has consistently portrayed Rand Paul as a constitutional scholar who sees the Constitution as a suicide pact that is inviolate. That doesn’t make sense. Changing the constitution by amendment cannot be construed as violating the constitution, since the constitution allow for amendments. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/323 "2010-05-29T15:48:28Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Because that is what it says in the Constitution. Libertarians are originalists in that respect, so advocating a position that contradicts the Constitution is hardly evidence of libertarianism. That’s just silly. And even if it were true, it would not make him ignorant of the Constitution. If he advocated a repeal of the amendment authorizing the income tax would that make him less libertarian? I can’t believe you are making me defend this asshole. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/324 "2010-05-29T15:50:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Besides, how is that increasing the cause of liberty to tell an innocent “you can’t have any”? So why deny citizenship to those born abroad of non-citizens? Aren’t they innocent enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/325 "2010-05-29T16:39:58Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > So why deny citizenship to those born abroad of non-citizens? Aren’t they innocent enough for you? Hmmm. Maybe because the US Constitution doesn’t grant it to them, prolly because we have no jurisdiction over them. They’re plenty innocent enough, I’d wager, but they don’t meet the criteria outlined in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/326 "2010-05-29T16:58:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not what I said. > > Other than the text of the document itself, we have no way of knowing the “original intent” of the many, many signers who left no written commentary at all. Remember, we not only have Congressmen in Washington voting on these amendments, but legislators in all the individual states voting during the ratification process. Personally, I think it’s fine to go with the “concurrence” theory. If they had anything different to say they would have said it. It’s like the USSC. You have a majority opinion. That gets written. If you agree with the decision, but it doesn’t say something you want it to say, you write a concurring opinion. Similarly, there’s a dissent. Again, if you agree to dissent, but need to say more, you write an opinion. Legislators do the same thing via speeches and writing. So, the people who voted for/against the Citizenship clauses either felt that someone had already said what they had to say or that they didn’t have anything worth saying. Either way I would argue that we have TONS of evidence as to the original intent of the Framers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/327 "2010-05-29T17:07:17Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Personally, I think it’s fine to go with the “concurrence” theory. If they had anything different to say they would have said it. It’s like the USSC. You have a majority opinion. That gets written. If you agree with the decision, but it doesn’t say something you want it to say, you write a concurring opinion. Similarly, there’s a dissent. Again, if you agree to dissent, but need to say more, you write an opinion. Legislators do the same thing via speeches and writing. That’s making a very big leap, and comparing the process used by 9 Justices to that of 1,000s of legislators in dozens of states. Not to mention the fact that those very justices often disagree about what that original intent was. > [@](#): > > So, the people who voted for/against the Citizenship clauses either felt that someone had already said what they had to say or that they didn’t have anything worth saying. Either way I would argue that we have TONS of evidence as to the original intent of the Framers. Having tons of evidence isn’t the same as having all the evidence, nor is the same as saying that all the evidence points in the same direction. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/328 "2010-05-29T17:08:21Z")
> [@](#): > > If you believe that local government can’t be “overrun by special interests” and answerable primarily to certain powerful groups and individuals, you are much too naive to be having ANYTHING to do with economics or politics. > > The reason that federal government control has a valuable (limited) role to play in civil society is not because federal government is inherently any more nice or moral than anything else, but because its incentives to some extent counterbalance the incentives of other institutions, such as local government and businesses. > > What we as citizens need is not to put our trust in any rosy-tinged vision of any one institution as a source of benevolent and disinterested leadership, but rather to surround ourselves with various limited institutions that all provide some leadership and all counterbalance one another’s influences. Local governments, corporations, small businesses, state governments, unions, federal government, civic groups: you can’t really trust any of them, but if you give them all a finger in the pie, you can at least trust their mutual jealousy and greed to help keep an eye on each other’s behavior. Any government can be overrun by special interests. Local government, it has been proven, is far more answerable to the people and more responsive to their needs. When the federal government does something, it affects everyone. When a state or local government tries a new law or regulation, it affects only its constituents. If you don’t like that law, you can move. You said this: “The reason that federal government control has a valuable (limited) role to play in civil society is not because federal government is inherently any more nice or moral than anything else, but because its incentives to some extent counterbalance the incentives of other institutions, such as local government and businesses.” That is what I am saying. I never said eliminate the Federal government. What I am saying is that it has gotten way too much power in relationship to State governments and small business. And the deficit is far too high. Our federal government is overrun by bureaucrats and consumed by an unmanageable debt that cannot be sustained. That is my point. > [@](#): > > It’s not true that anything that works well for consumers is run by free market principles, nor is it true that nothing run by governments works well. > > You really need to understand that we’ve all heard these exaggerated hyper-libertarian generalizations before, from other posters here as well as outside sources, several times. They weren’t true or convincing when Liberal was making them years ago, they weren’t true or convincing when Sam Stone was making them during his more hardcore anti-government phase, and they’re not true or convincing now. Just because these ideas are a big exciting revelation to you doesn’t mean that the rest of us haven’t been dragged through the same dog and pony show several times before, and had plenty of opportunities to notice the flaws in it. As a general rule, I think that statement is absolutely correct. I am sticking by it. Competition and choices are great for the consumer. A government run monopoly is not. Government generally destroys competition and provides inferior services. In fact, why don’t you tell me all the federal government programs that have been brilliant successes in recent years? A 3.8 Trillion dollar budget and it seems clear to me that that money is going to corporate interests and bureaucracy rather than the people. If you mention Medicare and Social Security, remember that these two programs contribute to over one hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. People my age will pay into social security and get nothing when we retire. It is a criminal theft from one generation to another. They work (sort of) but you have to ask yourself: in the absence of these programs, what type of private options would be available to people to plan for retirement? What would medical care be like if we didn’t have a near government monopoly on its distribution? My belief is that if people were able to keep more of their own money and we had a healthy economy more people would be able to provide for themselves and not need government assistance in the first place. More charity hospitals would exist (as they did before government involvement in medical care). The ingenuity and creativity of the free market (that is, free people entering into mutually beneficial relationships with one another) would devise ingenious solutions to our most pressing problems. I don’t think this is simply blind ideological dogma, rather simply the objective evaluation of the facts. Yes, we need a federal government for some tasks. But we should recognize that it does most things worse than private industry (small business not corporate monopoly) and free people able to exercise their rights. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/329 "2010-05-29T17:16:24Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > See, this is why your arguments aren’t taken seriously. Because when they start to approach actual FACTS they veer into paranoid fantasy. You classify an absnce of perfection as failure. An “absence of perfection”? Are you kidding me? Anybody with a brain should be able to see that our public schools are some of the worst in the industrialized world and that is due to a myriad of reasons. Teachers Unions are a big part. Lack of any school choice. Lack of parental or local control of the education process. I don’t think it is a paranoid conspiracy theory to ask the question: Why would the federal government want us to be well educated? Well educated citizens are a major threat to power. Look at this video from George Carlin about why education standards are dropping in this country: > **[Dailymotion](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd87z)** I think thats pretty much on target. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/330 "2010-05-29T17:19:55Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > You know what else you’ll see? > > Roads. Who said I oppose government spending on roads? Our infrastructure is crumbling in this country because the money is being spent on illegal wars, corporate welfare, bombs, bailouts and bullshit. We should cut all that out and rebuild our infrastructure. That is one of our government’s primary obligations. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/331 "2010-05-29T17:23:21Z")
> [@erez](#): > > What? Did you just cite one of the most regulated industries out there as your example of a “free market”? Do you realize how tax breaks on employer-sponsored insurance distorted the market? Do you know the effect of government-mandated health benefits on the rates? Did you hear about the laws regulating insurance companies’ abilities to exclude hospitals or doctors? How about the guaranteed issue laws, laws requiring insurers to limit premium differences across individuals, or laws mandating that health plans provide direct access to some specialists? How about laws preventing health insurance companies from competing across states? Fail. Exactly. Great post. The problem is people generally don’t know what a Free Market is. People are not exposed to Austrian economics. People think whenever corporations get benefits or people make profits that equates to “free enterprise”. Most corporate misconduct has nothing to do with free markets and capitalism. A libertarian definition of a free market and sound money would be much different and would take power away from the lobbyists and corporate power and level the playing field for competition from small business and innovation in the marketplace. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/332 "2010-05-29T17:30:00Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Just because something doesn’t jibe with how **you personally** think the Constitution ought to be interpreted doesn’t mean that it’s actually unconstitutional, or even illegal. > > Once again, your attempts to intimidate other posters, by implying that if they only had a reasonable modicum of common sense or thoughtfulness or intelligence or intellectual curiosity they’d realize that you’re right, simply aren’t going to cut it around here. They don’t accomplish anything except to convey an impression of ludicrous smugness and arrogance. I am not trying to intimidate anyone. How about this, I’ll give an example: On war, The Constitution says: **[Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;** This means that Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. Any war not declared by Congress is unconstitutional. Period, end of discussion. The last war we declared was World War II. Every war since then has been unconstitutional. That is a simple example. It is really not that hard to check whether or not a governmental policy is unconstitutional or not. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/333 "2010-05-29T17:39:09Z")
How do you know that Congress has not “declared war” since 1941? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/334 "2010-05-29T17:41:29Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > That is a simple example. It is, it illustrates how dogmatic, narrow and inflexible certain people’s interpretation of the Constitution are, coupled with the fact that they think any other interpretation is impossible. The Constitution doesn’t say “any use of force must be a declared war, and only Congress can declare that war.” It simply says that one if Congress’ functions is the declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/335 "2010-05-29T17:45:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeah, yeah. Every time the market superficially appears to have failed at something, up pops a libertarian to explain why this doesn’t count as an example of market activity. It’s the No True Scotsman argument par excellence. > > In any case, since consumers in fully government-run healthcare systems are on average much more satisfied with their systems than we are, I don’t think you’re going to get very far arguing that government involvement is the problem. You have to first admit that health care in this country is not and has not for fifty years been a free market in any capacity. Don’t skirt the issue. Man up and admit your mistake. Secondly, you have to admit that other countries health care systems are flawed as well. Look at the state of the European Union relating to their budget and the worldwide economic crisis. They cannot maintain their government health care schemes. And, you must admit the flaws in those systems. There is rationing, there are waiting lists, and many people get sub par care. Many people are forced to leave the country to get proper treatment for their medical conditions. There are good doctors working in very bad systems, just like there are here. Our system sucks and so does theirs. Does “not being able to pay for it” mean anything to you? I mean, we cannot possibly afford government universal coverage, nor would it be desirable. Look at this. Obama and the democrats are cheering on their “success” in passing the health care bill, but given the new rules and regulations, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years. So the government promises care, but there will be no one to treat these people. Great. Bravo. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html) Non of this would happen in a Free Market. Doctors would be rewarding for spending a decade in medical school. Patients would have many choices for care, alternative doctors included. There would be charity hospitals and doctors treating people for free. And non of this would add to the national debt. Remember, we USED to have the best healthcare system in the world, before Nixon mandated the HMO system. And before Lyndon Johnson created Medicare. The fact is that for decades the government has imposed managed care and regulation of the industry and corporatism and health insurance lobbyists running the show (who wrote the health reform bill). And the liberals are still be blaming the free market for our problems. It is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/336 "2010-05-29T17:53:37Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I’m bewildered as to the sudden emphasis of Libertarians that the U. S. Constitution actually supports their stances, as it has always seemed to me that should that party ever gain sufficient power, their first goal would be to rewrite it. What? What are you talking about? The “sudden” emphasis on the US constitution? Libertarians have always emphasized limited, Constitutional government and a strict respect for civil liberties. Why would we want to rewrite it? We should always be looking to “amend” it if necessary. The issue is, we should follow the Constitution, not ignore it. The US Constitution supports a limited Federal Government. If you dispute that fact, you need to go back to school and take a Civics class or something. Libertarians also support a limited federal government. The Founders supported States Rights, Free Markets, national sovereignty, and individual liberty. That is what I support. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/337 "2010-05-29T17:59:28Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > k-12 education is already controlled by local school districts. Universities have much more Federal involvement. Guess which system works better? K-12 education in this country is a joke, with students lagging other industrialized countries. On the other hand, our University system attracts students from all over the world. > > You have no leg to stand on here, most local govts do a piss poor job. Why do we have a Department of Education then? We have had “Head Start”, “No Child Left Behind” and similar federal initiatives for a long time. The idea that K-12 is not heavily controlled by the Federal Government is not consistent with the facts. I personally don’t want any government involvement in education. The key is allowing every student choices for where they go to school. Money is not the issue, competition is. Would you support a voucher program? What if the Federal Government sent out a voucher to the parent of every child for, say $7000-$8000. And it could be used to go to any private school. Would you support this? It would give people choices for education and they could get out of the government monopolized school system entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/338 "2010-05-29T18:16:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s making a very big leap, and comparing the process used by 9 Justices to that of 1,000s of legislators in dozens of states. Not to mention the fact that those very justices often disagree about what that original intent was. > Having tons of evidence isn’t the same as having all the evidence, nor is the same as saying that all the evidence points in the same direction. Never said it did mean that. But given the complexities of the world as a whole, I think it’s ridiculous to pretend that one little paragraph can be intended to cover ever possible situation now (or then) and in the future. Like it or not, laws _have_ to be interpreted. Since we have to interpret laws and since the intent of the people who made the law can be a guideline as to what they would have done in an unantcipated situation with regard to the law they wrote. I think it behooves us to use what we can discern of that intent. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/339 "2010-05-29T18:39:12Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The United States has the most expensive health care system in the world, and has worse results than _every other industrialized country_. The United State’s also has the most private enterprise involvement in health care of any industrialized country. But somehow these clowns think that by going even further down that road we will make it better. > > I wish they were at least honest: “Yes, we know we are going to make things worse, but we think that having more freedom is worth a higher infant mortality rate and shorter life expectancy”. Let me ask you a question: What is better for the poor and needy in this country, Having the government pretend it can take care of people and provide services it can’t (due to fiscal realities) or come clean and reduce the tax burden on these people, try to take care of people dependent now and wean people off the government dole over time? If we wait we will experience a dollar crisis that will wipe out the middle class and lead to straight up failure of our government institutions. This is much sooner than you think. Do you think the government is some magic institution that can provide for people indefinitely and the laws of economics don’t apply to it? What is your thinking? The issue is the cost. I’m going to tackle this one specifically, because it is beyond dumb: _The United State’s also has the most private enterprise involvement in health care of any industrialized country. But somehow these clowns think that by going even further down that road we will make it better._ We don’t have private enterprise involvement. We have Corporatism, lobbyists, Drug company lobbyists, government regulations and government involvement in all accounts. We have hardly any free market involvement whatsoever. The only areas where there is free markets is with alternative doctors, vitamin sales and nutritionists. All conventional medicine is the antithesis of Free Markets and Free Enterprise. Here is the question you need to ask yourself: From 1930-1970 we had by far the best health care system in the world. This wasn’t in dispute. And we had more or less free markets, competition and choice. Most people paid for doctors visits out of pocket. **Since then, we have seen the quality of health care go way down, the cost skyrocket and people very unhappy with the outcomes. This has been in direct correlation with increasing government involvement at all levels. Why do you think this is?** For the Authoritarians and the central planners the answer is always more government intervention and further restrictions of peoples choices in the marketplace. The answer is always to blame the Free Market for our problems in order to gain more control of an industry. This is rarely the case. DanBlather, you really should learn to think outside the box for a change. It sound like you are simply repeating Democrat talking points you heard on TV. It pisses me off when many of the liberals hold up certain European countries as the model that we should base our country on. There are good aspects to many European countries, including long and rich histories and cultures. However, there are many people who are unhappy with the health care systems in other countries as well and you shouldn’t ignore that fact. Mandating Universal Coverage and then having people die on waiting lists or rationing based on “need” is not compassionate or just, especially when the Free Market could have taken care of many more people less expensively and more efficiently. Why did the United States have the best health care system in the world up until government started getting involved with Lyndon Johnson, then Nixon? Unless you suffer from Cognitive Dissonance, you should be able to put two and two together. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/340 "2010-05-29T18:45:56Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > You are another one of these liberal “gotcha” folks trying to slime Rand Paul by pointing out what he said. I vehemently disagree with Rand Paul on that point. I believe he was playing defense when he said that and he will come around to the correct position on this point. His father has always been against the War on Drugs and I think his son is as well, despite what he said there. Like I said, Rand is not used to politics and has said some stupid things in the past couple of weeks and made mistakes that a more skilled politician like his father would never have. If Rand is only 80-90% libertarian, I think he would be better than most in our government. I hope he gets elected, learns the ropes and overtime I believe he can become a political force for libertarians. He has made some rookie mistakes. I give him a pass because I understand the underlying philosophy. I think he will learn over time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=18)