Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Controversy = Relevance. Ron Paul Jars Establishment, Media, Pundits

In the latest GOP Presidential debate hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express, Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul made news tickers buzz with his "controversial" statements about health care and foreign policy. Reactions from left and right attempt, rather ridiculously, to paint Paul as anything but what he is. From Mother Jones and the grossly uninformed Rosanne Barr on the left, to booing Tea Partiers and neocon blogs on the right, Ron Paul raises the ire of statists across the spectrum. And ever more so.

Ron Paul stands for sound money, limited government, a rational foreign policy and solid protection of civil liberties under the Bill of Rights.

His prescription for our troubling health care situation includes freedom, competition and charity - as opposed to the dirigism and corporatism of Hillarycare, Obamacare and Romneycare.

The reason why the cost of health care has skyrocketed in the U.S. is a direct result of the collusion of interest groups such as the AMA (the doctors' lobby), Big Insurance, et al, with state and Federal lawmakers. Competition is strangled and ensures the oligopoly position of health care providers. In most cases, the same costly regulations that apply to a 100-doctor hospital apply to a one-doctor private practice or small clinic. Insurance cannot be offered across state lines unless it complies with the often complex dictates of state insurance law. Medicare and Medicaid have historically have had little cost control, allowing what providers charge to balloon. We have nothing resembling real competition in the health care marketplace.

Ron Paul's foreign policy principles would make America safe, and pull the rug out from under terrorists who have sworn to harm this country. The jihadists' strategy of pulling the US and its allies into long, protracted occupations has worked - to the benefit of military contractors and those who loan money to the US government to pay for it. Who benefits from interventionist foreign policy? Not the US taxpayer.

The more the guardians of the military-industrial-bureaucratic complex attack him, the more relevant he is.