I got a chance to listenÂ to the debateÂ between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader and enjoyed it very much.
However, I thought Baldwin could have given a better answer on health care policy. He’s in a bind because from Consitutional perspective there should be no government intereference in the health care system, which we would all agree on, yet you don’t want to look callous either which doesn’t leave you with a good answer.
Being long-time physician, Dr. Paul had some good ideas during the primariesÂ for returning the system back to where it was affordable for persons with just out-of pocket expenses and I think states and local governments and companies should be allowed to expirament and come up with solutions for insurance coverage on their own free from the necessity of getting government permission or “waivers”.
To me, the best argument one can make against universal healthcare is that once you make getting health care a right, you can’t take it away, nor can you deny it or say it costs too much. In socialist systems the government is the one that denies care if it costs too much instead of the insuranace companies. But the difference is, such socialist counties do not have our Constituion nor are they as litigous as we are. A Canadian court said rationing violated Canada’s Charter of Rights so one can imagine the same would be true in the U.S.Â And when U.S. court rulesÂ that you cannot deny or delay a person’s right to healthcare, Â you’ll be paying for every Hollywood starlots botox operation and breast implants just as we’re paying to give Donald Trump Social Security. Enjoy.