Posts tagged Humanity

Ron Paul On Social Security- “We didn’t have it until 1935. I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn’t have medical treatment?”

"Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. “The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured… . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing.”

Ron Paul must have been too busy to realize this..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_3.html

47 notes

No. Plenty of states do not fund this research: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=112&cat=2 I’m responding to a kid named “Everyone is right but me” and the feedback they wrote about this post. 
Girl- You missed the point completely.
"This post wasn’t about whether or not stem-cell research is good or bad, it was about the fact that there’s nothing in the Constitution to allow for federal funding of stem-cell research."
Guess who posted it? Right!- So let me help you understand why you’re wrong, and also what this was or was not about. Ron Paul’s argument for almost everything that he does not agree with is “it’s not in the constitution” and therefore it’s unconstitutional. I find it hilarious that he uses this excuse with embryonic research, and goes so far as to imply that our founding fathers would be opposed to government funding of it. Bottom line is that Ron Paul doesn’t want to fund it, and as a physician, that boggles my mind. He seems more invested in government order than human quality of life. I’m not sure how you confused or couldn’t comprehend “Twisted logic” or “cold, archiac, and greedy” but since it’s too much for you to figure out: I was stating that Ron Paul’s logic is… YOU GUESSED IT! TWISTED!! YAY!! I also think his views are archaic, and that he’s a cold, and greedy old turd. Should I slow down, or are you following? Super..
Medical practice was not regulated by the states in 1789 and not much more so in 1868. Medical licensure began in the 1830s, spurred by the drive to oust itinerant and irregular healers. But persons licensed to practice medicine had no restrictions placed on clinical judgment or on the products that they could use. The first federal drug law passed in 1914 to control non-medical drug abuse left physicians free to prescribe cocaine and opiates for legitimate medical purposes. Are you still there? I know you were very concerned about the constitutional aspect of all this, so pay attention. There were no ethical issues or legal restrictions on research with human subjects until the development of the Nuremburg Code for human experimentation in the 1940s. The ESC debate has been another instance of whether scientists or non-scientists will control the means of clinical treatment and scientific research. Although acknowledging  that the right of privacy is not explicitly mentioned  in the Constitution, the Court stated that such a right can be found in the First,Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment. Then we get into abortion laws, concept of when life begins and so on. The words “tests” and “experiment” are debated. The court stated that a  statute is unconstitutionally vague if the mere passage of time may  change  the legality of a procedure. Basically, depending on who you ask, there is no definitive answer to if ESC research is indeed unconstitutional.
My point is, if ESC research leads to safe, effective treatments of disease and quality of life, I don’t see any reason not to support it. So in conclusion little one- your criticism of this photo was not only invalid, but grossly misunderstood. Your comparisons reflect a deep seeded fear for government conspiracy and I’m not at all surprised that you’re a Ron Paul fan. 
Let me know when someone you love has a disease that could be cured with more ESC research, and then let me know how wrong you think it is. Watching my mother slowly deteriorate from the effects of Parkinson’s Disease is awful. Knowing that there could be a cure if people like Ron Paul would support it, makes me a tad upset. If you cannot understand this, I invite you to eat a dick.
Love, me

No. Plenty of states do not fund this research: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=112&cat=2 I’m responding to a kid named “Everyone is right but me” and the feedback they wrote about this post. 

Girl- You missed the point completely.

"This post wasn’t about whether or not stem-cell research is good or bad, it was about the fact that there’s nothing in the Constitution to allow for federal funding of stem-cell research."

Guess who posted it? Right!- So let me help you understand why you’re wrong, and also what this was or was not about. Ron Paul’s argument for almost everything that he does not agree with is “it’s not in the constitution” and therefore it’s unconstitutional. I find it hilarious that he uses this excuse with embryonic research, and goes so far as to imply that our founding fathers would be opposed to government funding of it. Bottom line is that Ron Paul doesn’t want to fund it, and as a physician, that boggles my mind. He seems more invested in government order than human quality of life. I’m not sure how you confused or couldn’t comprehend “Twisted logic” or “cold, archiac, and greedy” but since it’s too much for you to figure out: I was stating that Ron Paul’s logic is… YOU GUESSED IT! TWISTED!! YAY!! I also think his views are archaic, and that he’s a cold, and greedy old turd. Should I slow down, or are you following? Super..

Medical practice was not regulated by the states in 1789 and not much more so in 1868. Medical licensure began in the 1830s, spurred by the drive to oust itinerant and irregular healers. But persons licensed to practice medicine had no restrictions placed on clinical judgment or on the products that they could use. The first federal drug law passed in 1914 to control non-medical drug abuse left physicians free to prescribe cocaine and opiates for legitimate medical purposes. Are you still there? I know you were very concerned about the constitutional aspect of all this, so pay attention. There were no ethical issues or legal restrictions on research with human subjects until the development of the Nuremburg Code for human experimentation in the 1940s. The ESC debate has been another instance of whether scientists or non-scientists will control the means of clinical treatment and scientific research. Although acknowledging  that the right of privacy is not explicitly mentioned  in the Constitution, the Court stated that such a right can be found in the First,Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment. Then we get into abortion laws, concept of when life begins and so on. The words “tests” and “experiment” are debated. The court stated that a  statute is unconstitutionally vague if the mere passage of time may  change  the legality of a procedure. Basically, depending on who you ask, there is no definitive answer to if ESC research is indeed unconstitutional.

My point is, if ESC research leads to safe, effective treatments of disease and quality of life, I don’t see any reason not to support it. So in conclusion little one- your criticism of this photo was not only invalid, but grossly misunderstood. Your comparisons reflect a deep seeded fear for government conspiracy and I’m not at all surprised that you’re a Ron Paul fan. 

Let me know when someone you love has a disease that could be cured with more ESC research, and then let me know how wrong you think it is. Watching my mother slowly deteriorate from the effects of Parkinson’s Disease is awful. Knowing that there could be a cure if people like Ron Paul would support it, makes me a tad upset. If you cannot understand this, I invite you to eat a dick.

Love, me

15 notes

Attention Ron Paul: "Man Robs Bank to Get Prison Healthcare." (via TheDavidPakmanShow)

4 notes

My..my..my.. Ron Paul fans continue to prove the little they know about Ron Paul.

I am becoming more and more convinced that people support him either because they’re conspiracy theorists, extremists, or because it’s trendy. I have yet to see any calm, intelligent responses to Ron Paul scrutiny. Take a deep breath guys and maybe.. I don’t know?.. Think about what the fuck you’re saying before GETTING SO PISSED LIKE THIS AND UMBRELLA FINANCE STUPID ASSHOLE..

-You see?

That last part made no sense. Most people with a brain would read that and wonder, “What the hell is that person so pissed about? They sound crazy and irrational.”

And that- My friends, is exactly how you come accross to me. My favorite comment stated that Ron Paul wasn’t responsible for Kent Snyder’s life, and that he should’ve got insurance.

*crickets*

Um.. Did you even read that article?

Did I say that Ron Paul was responsible for Kent Snyder?

No. & No.

Poor angry Ron Paul fans.. Maybe this article will shed a little light on your brainwashed, midget minds. Clearly you’ve missed the point and honestly, it’s kind of sad.

Paultarded feedback:

I guess he should have, uh, paid for medical insurance then? Ron Paul isn’t responsible for other people’s mistakes. RON PAUL ACCEPTS NO SUBSTITUTES”

2 notes

At the Tea Party debate Ron Paul stated that people who did not have insurance should be left to fend for themselves.

"That’s what freedom is all about - taking your own risks"

Ron Paul values life so much that he’s anti-abortion. But if you cannot afford insurance, well- then go ahead and die.

And that’s just what happened to his former campaign manager Kent Snyder, who died from pneumonia because he was unable to afford medical insurance.

Kent raised millions of dollars for Ron Paul’s campaign. Yes, the same Ron Paul who made this statement at the GOP debates:

"We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037330/Ron-Pauls-campaign-manager-died-pneumonia-afford-health-insurance.html#ixzz1azCLtnIE

Ron Paul thinks people should assume responsibility for themselves and take care of themselves, yet he would NEVER “risk” taking care of himself and his own campaign. SO.. Tell me again what this “freedom” is you speak of Mr. Paul?

49 notes