Ron Paul Says There Is No Provision For Medicare And Medicaid In The Constitution

PETERBOROUGH, N.H. -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul wants the federal government out of the health care business.

Paul is known for his libertarian views, and he's drawing lots of people in this week's swing through New Hampshire.

He told an overflow crowd of about 500 at an event Tuesday night that there's no provision in the Constitution for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal programs that cover millions of seniors and children.

The congressman from Texas says individual states should be left to provide whatever health care coverage they want.

Paul says he doesn't want to throw seniors and children off federal health care programs. But he says a free society shouldn't let government meddle in important services like health care.

 

 

Comments

[RepublicanDepression]

03:25 PM on 12/15/2011

Moved up from below for everyone's entertainment:

laidbackdude: "welfare is FORCED charity. taxpayers are forced to give charity. a taxpayer does not have the option to say " i will pay towards infrastruc­ture or defense but not welfare"."

1) That is EXACTLY how our Founders created the Constitution. They did NOT include any provisions for taxpayers to opt out of line items. So laidbackdude and Ron Paul oppose the US Constitution?

Laid: "notice the term "uniform" in "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States""

2) Yes, Federal taxes ARE uniformly applied to all states. How is it you are not aware of that?

laid: "how is 50% of americans not paying income tax uniform?”"

3) Since "uniform" explicitly applies to "states" and not individuals, laidbackdude fails again. Is Ron Paul also misinformed on this point, or just you?

4) Also, that 50% is a far-right Fox News misleading disinfo because it leaves out federal payroll taxes: Only 14 percent of households pay neither income nor payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution." Are you misinformed or are you attempting to mislead, laidbackdude?

6) Since you are so wrong about so many things, where do you get your news?

[trbilbo]

06:32 PM on 12/15/2011

Moved up from below for EVERYONE'S entertainm­ent:
Republican depression = FAILED again. 9 time in as many posts!! What a record for abuse!!!

'laid ' is right.... and no doubt got his data from rasmussen(aug, nov and now dec 2011 reports..NOT polls) as well as the bureau of labor statistics (aug 2011) AND the congressional record (Aug 16th 2010 to be exact). but that would take READING on your part and delaing with facts..... so you are forgiven be the condescending huff anf puffer you prefer to be. And as of Oct 2011 it is now 48% of those earning less than $250K..... and rising under Obama (was 31% under Bush). By the way...same 'fact' is in your beloved NY periodicals in November. Enjoy!!

You are so misinformed you REALLY have to fix the remote and get off of your MSNBC IV drip.
Do you inntentionally mislead or should we dismiss it as your 'bliss'.

[RepublicanDepression]

11:04 PM on 12/15/2011

trbilbo cuts and runs from debates where he gets debunked, and then sneaks back for more easy debunking:

trbilbo: "Republican depression = FAILED again. 9 time in as many posts!"

1) Prove it.

2) Here's how I PROVE one of trbilbo's many failures:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/Rep­ublicanDep­ression/ro­n-paul-201­2-constitu­tion-medic­are-medica­id_n_11479­56_1234652­91.html

trbilbo: "'laid ' is right"

3) About what? As you can see above, I debunk "laidback" on SIX separate points!

trbilbo: "as of Oct 2011 it is now 48% of those earning less than $250K..... and rising under Obama (was 31% under Bush)."

4) So?

5) Even if true, so what? Of course fewer people pay income taxes after the economic crash following the Bush/GOP (Greedy One Percent) economic stewardship.

Obama has not yet finished fixing everything ruined during the previous administration.

[trbilbo]

02:59 AM on 12/16/2011

Oh RepDem.... no one is listening to you anymore. Even itemizing pointless personal attacks now? Losing track of how many FACTS you have to avoid esponding to?? Let's do see how long teh list grows til you find a fact to share that has ANY merit or beatring on this thread.
Do you EVEN READ teh thread?
How can anyone be so misinformed??
Where DO you get your amazingly confused information from. Or from what planet most seem to be asking.
Please take up a new abusive form of discourse and let readers return to seeking and finding intelligent thought to share and debate.
I know that sounds a bit adult to you... but AFTER 24 POSTS... still NOT a ONE REPLIED to your posts of so called fact.... you SHOULD TAKE A HINT!.....LOL
I have debunked everyone of your 24 posts so far...with REAL data.... when you find another FACT.... not from WIKI or NPR or the NY Times for god's sake... but from the Congressional Record for example as we presented you... come play again.

FAILED AGAIN RepDep.

[PWM]

03:06 PM on 12/15/2011

Ron Paul fails to realize SCOTUS has already interpreted the General Welfare clause to include things like Social Security.

In Helvering v. Davis, 1937, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. And in South Dakota v. Dole, 1987, SCOTUS included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.

[RepublicanDepression]

03:42 PM on 12/15/2011

Completely true!

Ron Paul FAIL!

[JPOD]

12:53 AM on 12/16/2011

Ya, ever since the Roosevelts, the supreme court hasn't cared for the correct view of the Constitution. So now basically the general welfare and commerce clauses include ANYTHING the federal government wants to do. That doesn't mean they were right. Just means they made political decisions from the bench which is clearly not their job. So WHY is SCOTUS right about this, and is there now ANYTHING that Congress can't regulate?

[debekniss]

10:23 PM on 12/25/2011

JPOD

Question:is there now ANYTHING that Congress can't regulate?

Answer:their voting of their own pay raises as often as they like?

[l78lancer]

02:43 PM on 12/15/2011

States can't or won't pay for much of what's on their slates now including education - most states are broke. What makes anyone seriously think they will administer health care programs?

[greendayer]

10:18 AM on 12/16/2011

Good point, but the federal government owes more than the states combined and yet, it charges ahead taking on more spending and debt each year.

[debekniss]

10:26 PM on 12/25/2011

l78lancer
Colorado has a program for homeless and low income persons called CICP
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/HCPF/HCPF/1214299805914
But this does have restriction to it.
If your middle class and make just above the amount your more or less out of luck.

[l78lancer]

02:41 PM on 12/15/2011

He doesn't want the federal government to meddle in those important services - just push it off on the states and let them go broke...or not even bother.

[debekniss]

10:30 PM on 12/25/2011

l78lancer
the way I read it is we will not have the Income tax so no need for the IRS which will thrill the one percent folks and the state will then just add more tax to the purchase price of things. Say your state has a 7% tax now it might jump up to 12% or less. So it should make the states stronger by the power of purchase. Not sure how that would work for online shopping though. If your state has a &5 tax and you buy from another state with 9% tax will the tax got to the 9% or the 7%? Hmmmm

[read matt taibbi]

04:50 AM on 12/26/2011

Why would they go broke? They can raise taxes.
If we need certain services, we should pay for them.

Or are we supposed to believe in tooth fairy solutions?

[l78lancer]

02:38 PM on 12/15/2011

"Paul says he doesn't want to throw seniors and children off federal health care programs. But he says a free society shouldn't let government meddle in important services like health care."

So if there is no constitutional provision, and he believes that it is an issue for the states, but he doesn't want to throw people off of federal programs...

...what exactly IS he saying?

[JPOD]

12:57 AM on 12/16/2011

Read his plan: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
He is the ONLY candidate including Obama who wants to make the drastic cuts needed to actually pay for these programs without borrowing money or inflating the dollar. He has a plan to transition these programs back to the states and local governments where they belong. States which would have more money if their residents weren't paying ungodly amounts of federal taxes.

[debekniss]

10:34 PM on 12/25/2011

JPOD
that is how I read it and it shows it in his budget so no one is going to be cut off but a new way of dealing with the future of it would need to be addressed by the states if I am reading this right. Less Governmet tax and more State tax yes?

[laidbackdude679]

11:08 AM on 12/15/2011

i'm not a ron paul supporter but he's right.

[RepublicanDepression]

11:55 AM on 12/15/2011

laidback: "i'm not a ron paul supporter but he's right."

"i'm not a ron paul supporter but he's NOT right."

There. I fixed it for you.

[laidbackdude679]

12:23 PM on 12/15/2011

no i typed what i meant

[trbilbo]

06:33 PM on 12/15/2011

"I am a blind Obama supporter and he's NOT right".

There finally got it right for you.

[debekniss]

10:47 PM on 12/25/2011

laidbackdude679 well I am a Ron Paul supporter and I think he has many things right in his platform. My issues of concern before I dug into it more was SS and HUD and honmeless people. Now seeing the SS still on the platform made me breath easier and somewhere I read he wants to replace the funds which were taken from there and put them back. Now the Hud would not disappear just go to the States to handle. Like Montana might not need HUD as much as California may and the population is very different too. Now as it stands there is little funding or the Homeless now as it is mostly state funding which is low and the rest is picked up with HUD and non profits. So Pauls way might increase funds for such programs for it will have less overhead I would think.

[RepublicanDepression]

11:02 AM on 12/15/2011

Moved from below, so everyone can enjoy the factual errors of jjkrjw0:

jjkrj: “For example, if we had a president who would defend our borders from criminal invaders,"

6) Prove Obama is NOT defending borders.

Prove it in light of the FACTS: Obama has record prosecutions and deportations of criminals:

"But a crackdown, at least a partial one, has been happening at the federal level, too. A series of high-profile sweeps known as Operation Cross Check have netted thousands of what the Obama administration refers to as criminal aliens. And felony prosecutions for immigration crimes increased by 42 percent during President Obama's first two years in office, a factor in the record 400,000 deportations this fiscal year, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, an immigration tracking agency at Syracuse University in Syracuse, N.Y."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-illegal-immigrant-crackdown-implications-hispanics/story?id=14836244

jjrk: " that would be good for the general welfare of the people who would then not become victims."

7) Victims of what? Victims of hiring cheap labor?

Victims of finding laborers who will do back breaking farm jobs?

Victims of paying less than true market costs for food?

8) Why are you so misinformed, jjkrjw0?

9) Where do you get your news?

[trbilbo]

06:42 PM on 12/15/2011

LOL.. another failed blind broadside Huff and Puff style from RepublicanDepression.
" Victims of hiring cheap labor?" Are you being serious> With you it is hard to tell as your anecdotal retorts or attempts at condescending abuse are so laughable it is really had to tel!!.... BUT you make for a fun read and a great laugh we can all enjoy.
Only 11% of those illegally in this country work in agriculture.
But 18% have been in contact with law enforcement... state local or federal for illegal acts.
So pretty sure his statement makes sense.
I know... I know... there I go saying "fact' again and it is a four letter word to huff and puff lurkers like your self.... but try it!!
and like Einstein said about teaching a pig to sing.... please stop pretending you know what you are talking about..... you ae already too annoyed it seems

Victims of finding laborers who will do back breaking farm jobs?

Victims of paying less than true market costs for food?

8) Why are you so misinforme­d, jjkrjw0?

9) Where do you get your news?

[RepublicanDepression]

10:30 PM on 12/15/2011

trbilbo: "Only 11% of those illegally in this country work in agricultur­e.

WRONG! Only 3% work in agriculture. trbilbo is WRONG AGAIN ON BASIC FACTS!

trbilbo: "Illegal immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture;"

trbilbo: "But 18% have been in contact with law enforcemen­t... state local or federal for illegal acts. So pretty sure his statement makes sense."

LOL! What part of your two stats (if proven true) actually defend his false statement that Obama does not defend the borders from "criminal invaders"?

Since Obama has record prosecutions and deportatio­ns of criminals and since Obama is doing a better job than the GOP (Greedy One Percent), his statement fails outright.

Speaking of failing outright, here's where trbilbo has been FAILING outright to respond:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/RepublicanDepression/ron-paul-2012-constitution-medicare-medicaid_n_1147956_123465291.html

[jjkrjw0]

02:01 AM on 12/16/2011

Good Grief! Do you make this your life's work?

To answer one question: Victims of crime.

Obama is NOT defending the borders or we wouldn't have so many states passing their own immigration legislation. Ask Jan Brewer how well Obama is defending the border.

And why don't you mention how much these invaders cost us taxpayers? Misinformed? We pay for their medical care, their incarceration, their children's education, their children's breakfasts and lunches, their food stamps, etc. And 60% of HUD dwellers are illegals. So how do you like paying for all of that, Depression?

I do not agree with paying people less than minimum wage. This is another form of slavery even though the "slaves" agree to it. I prefer to pay higher prices for food than to enslave more people.

I get my news from about 20 various sources, including all the news networks.

[RepublicanDepression]

01:54 AM on 12/22/2011

jjkrjw0: "Good Grief! Do you make this your life's work?"

LOL! jjkrjw0 can't cope with his thorough DEBUNKING!

10) But since you are SO genuinely concerned I'll reassure you that it's quick and easy when you actually know what you are talking about. Try it sometime.

As for the one tiny point you can actually think up a a response to:

jrk: "Obama is NOT defending the borders or we wouldn't have so many states passing their own immigratio­n legislatio­n."

11) This is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because Jan Brewer or any state passes some law is NOT evidence that the law was required or in any way caused by Obama's actions or lack thereof.

RIGHT?

[debekniss]

11:03 PM on 12/25/2011

jjkrjw0 -
With all due respect do have a source for your statement "And 60% of HUD dwellers are illegals" Working a non profit program and sometimes with HUD I beleive they require birth certificates from all who are tenents. Not sure how a Illegal could get past that one. I do agree about the education and medical and food stamps as that goes through Human Services, but if you could provide a link to that I would be interested in reading more about it.
thanks in advance and Happy Holidays!!

[neocom43]

09:49 AM on 12/15/2011

As usual, Ron Paul is correct. 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. In other words, there is no provision for it in the constitution. That's pretty difficult to comprehend for Americans who have been "spoon-fed" by progressive politicians for the past 75 years. We have turned into one huge Nanny State where the government is the wherewithall for every malady that may occur. That's exactly why the country is doomed. But at least we'll all go down with the ship healthy, fat and happy.

[RepublicanDepression]

11:03 AM on 12/15/2011

neocon: "As usual, Ron Paul is correct. 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitu­tional."

Prove it

[PWM]

02:56 PM on 12/15/2011

They like to throw the word "unconstitutional" around and somehow think the states delegated powers to the Federal government and that the real supreme law of the land is what the states want.

It comes from being clueles and drinking the social darwinist koolaid.

[neocom43]

03:19 PM on 12/15/2011

Elementary my Dear Watson. Try reading the Constitution and its very obvious. Unfortunately our union-run "progressive" schools jhave all but eliminated history, government and economics from their curriculums. So, we have a fledging nation of idiots ripe for a socialist takeover by the guy in the White House.

[PWM]

02:54 PM on 12/15/2011

The federal government was given great powers: Supremecy Clause, General Welfare and Defense Clause, Commerce Clause.

[neocom43]

03:23 PM on 12/15/2011

It wasn't given them, but through 75 years of rule by "progressive" chief executives that's what we've come to. The founding fathers would absolutely roll over in their graves if they saw what has happened to America. The 10th Amendment is all but extinct. Everything from food stamps to abortion on demand is mysteriously supposedly covered by the "welfare clause." What we need is a "bankrupt clause" because that's what we are.

[Daryl Pienta]

09:36 AM on 12/15/2011

""""We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America""""
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"""SECTION. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;"""
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Medicare and Social Security fall under General Welfare

[RepublicanDepression]

11:05 AM on 12/15/2011

You are exactly right, and our entire Constitutional system agrees with you.

[trbilbo]

06:51 PM on 12/15/2011

They are EXACTLY WRONG!.....but WOW!!! the height of arrogance again!!...and another great laugh!!!!!
Someone who actually thinks they speak for the entire Constitutional syetems... what EVER that may be to him???
Again...... FAILED..... but a great laugh.
Neither Social security nor Medicare fall under 'General Welfare which in constitutional syudy means ...exactly what it says....."General" welfare of the United States.... the welfare of teh states to exist and operate as a 'state'... an 'entitled and governed entity ordained to provide for the common good of it's citizens.'.
My god... stop putting 6th grade definitions together and claiming you've interpreted constitutional law.
Although.... the laughs just keep coming from you so.... keep it up. We all enjoy the fun your posts provide.
Republicandepression - FAILED once again!!

[laidbackdude679]

11:07 AM on 12/15/2011

when they said welfare....they didn't mean handouts

[RepublicanDepression]

11:45 AM on 12/15/2011

Prove it.

And define "handout" since it is a pejorative term and not actually an economic term.

[rschli7137]

09:26 AM on 12/15/2011

This whack-job has been running since 1988. Doesn't he get it? Nobody wants him. He will end up a bottom feeder again this year.

[RepublicanDepression]

11:47 AM on 12/15/2011

Possibly since 1888.

That seems to be the era he wants to take us back to.

[drj516]

08:56 AM on 12/15/2011

The article says, "Paul says he doesn't want to throw seniors and children off federal health care programs. But he says a free society shouldn't let government meddle in important services like health care."
Therefore, logically speaking, he wants to throw seniors and children into the private health care insurance world, which we know only takes a 30% (or higher) profit margin, which doesn't add a dime to health care costs.
When Medicare can operate with less than 5% above the cost of health care, and no CEO getting millions in bonuses for denying health care coverage, why shouldn't the government "meddle," as in rein in the excesses of the private insurers (who have never shown anything but a lust for profits)?

[RepublicanDepression]

11:05 AM on 12/15/2011

great point

[Elwar]

08:15 AM on 12/15/2011

While technically true, Ron Paul has said that we have an obligation to those that we made promises to and has said that, as president, he will not end Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security.

And with the money he saves from ending our military empire he will allow people under 25 to have the choice of opting out of Social Security.

[Daryl Pienta]

09:38 AM on 12/15/2011

and those under 25 that opt out screw over the rest of us who in 20 years will be in desperate need of our Social Security and Medicare

[debekniss]

11:30 PM on 12/25/2011

Daryl Pienta isn't it all based on what you pay into it? I have heard for years now that by the time I am ready to collect my SS it will be gone. I am 54 now and have read where SS has made cuts to medicare and to SS. Even if you have not paid into it a lot like a woman who was a at home mother for sometime the lowest is something like $664.00 a month for like SSI and if you got SSDI it was higher because you worked more. Now I am not sure what it is at 65 years old but at 70 you can get $700 a month for old age pension. That ain't a lot of money if you need to live on it.

[RepublicanDepression]

11:06 AM on 12/15/2011

A lovely poison pill from DOCTOR Ron Paul to all his idolatrous young fans!

What irony!

[stag001987]

06:05 AM on 12/15/2011

Some politicians love to attack these social programs that so many depend on, but yet you never hear them complaining about their own taxpayer funded free healthcare, lavish pensions and other perks. Their mindset is similar to that of corporate CEO's who lay off thousands of workers, ship their jobs overseas, or demand wage and benefit cuts under the guise of competition without making any sacrifices themselves.

[huntdoc]

07:44 AM on 12/15/2011

He doesn't participate in Congress' Golden Parachute. He treated his patients at free or reduced costs as a practicing physician. He returns much of his annual Congressional allowance to the US Treasury. States can better design and deal with issues he speaks of.

[debekniss]

11:34 PM on 12/25/2011

huntdoc I have read this myself and admire him for it if he becomes president he only wanted 39,000 something and not the 400,000 normally paid to stay in range of what the middle class income is. And I also read he did not take medicare or Medicaid and I thought it was he just rather get paid in his life time and not go through the red tape.

[highlyqualified]

05:29 AM on 12/15/2011

His selective assertions of what is not are a sign of dementia.

[lifehub]

04:37 AM on 12/15/2011

Ron Paul has been a sad-sack for several years, and has tried and failed to obtain the presidency. As it is now, we already have a sad-sack and don't need another one to forge any more ways unsuccessfully.

[Daryl Pienta]

09:38 AM on 12/15/2011

I agree Newt Gingrich is the saddest sack

[RepublicanDepression]

11:09 AM on 12/15/2011

LOL! I think you can get bipartisan agreement on that!

No wait- Bachmann.

No- definitely Mitt-Flopper Romney.

No- saddest has got to be sex-obsessed Santorum.

No- Rick Oops Perry.

This race to the bottom could go on all day- and the Republican voters largely agree!