Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

356GS posted:

Alan, have you started on the VW pick-up kit yet?

 

The Smyth Performance kit is here as well as the 2002 donor VW Beetle I purchased. I am finishing the dune buggy built this weekend ( pics soon) next will be completing Jakes" newly painted IM speedster due here the first week in October. After I get that done I'll build the pick up some time in December. I've been keeping in touch with other pick up truck kit builders some who are already to be painted. 

I’ve decided to sell my 1955 Porsche 718 RSK Spyder. It made its debut at the 1957 24 Hours of Le Mans.  Being one of only thirty-seven ever built, the 718 RSK was built to keep the original Porsche 550 model ‘alive.’ An interesting disparity between the original Porsche and the 718 is the lower front frame on the 718 that gives off the illusion of the letter ‘K,’ hence the name ‘RSK’.

The 718 was one of the third sets of RSK’s characterized by wishbone rear suspension and a simplified rear chassis to facilitate in-car gear shift changes.

Worth about $3 million, this sportscar portrays the ingenuity of a triumphant legend. The car I’m selling did not have an easy life. After being wrecked in only its third race, the team went bankrupt and didn’t have the money to complete the restoration. The car and chassis was traded to pay off debts incurred by the team. However the new owners lost interest in the car and it languished in a barn in Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters took its toll on the famed vehicle. I acquired it when it was bequeathed to me from an unknown relative after hearing about my love of the Porsche marquee. I too don’t have the resources needed to restore this car back to its former glory. 

I offer it her first for just $200,000. There is no motor and it will need an extensive restoration. This is not for the feint of heart. 

5C19A71C-B8FD-4383-996B-1278F7C583A0

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 5C19A71C-B8FD-4383-996B-1278F7C583A0
Last edited by Robert M
edsnova posted:

Survivor-class cars are worth more than most restorations anyhow. Ask anyone at Pebble Beach. 

We live in a very odd world when you stop and think about that. A car that is by any objective metric "better than new" is "overrestored". Being a "barn find" makes a car worth more than something lovingly cared for over the years.

Worst to me is that if something is modified or improved it is worth less than if it was "unmolested".

Outlaw indeed.

Stan Galat posted:
edsnova posted:

Survivor-class cars are worth more than most restorations anyhow. Ask anyone at Pebble Beach. 

We live in a very odd world when you stop and think about that. A car that is by any objective metric "better than new" is "overrestored". Being a "barn find" makes a car worth more than something lovingly cared for over the years.

Worst to me is that if something is modified or improved it is worth less than if it was "unmolested".

Outlaw indeed.

When a car is no longer being driven for the joy of it and become an investment that's what happens I guess. I really hope our cars never become 'collectable'...

edsnova posted:

Sorry, strictly bitcoin.

My wife takes a medication that costs $10/day in the US. There is a company in India making a really good generic for <$.50/day, but won't ship to the US.

There are Reddit resellers who sell for about $.75/dose, and only take Bitcoin. You know everything you need to know about the legality of an enterprise when they only take Bitcoin.

Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do.

Oh boy, this is gonna make me unpopular.  If you think the price of any product is unfair, make it yourself, sell it for less, and you will be a billionaire.  Unless of course, it is unprofitable to sell it for less.  As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have a right to anybody else's property including their medicine.  I do not have a right to buy anybody's property, including their medicine.  I do not have the right to force someone to sell me their property at any particular price, and if I have the government make them sell me their property, I am stealing with the threat of physical force and violence.

Good Morning everyone.  

Interesting, but here's something to consider as well.  I take a daily set of pills to ward off the effects of Ulcerative Colitis.  Up until last year, there was one source for it and no generic version.  I have an old work friend living in Windsor, England who, unfortunately, has the same disease and takes the very same stuff from the same maker, even to the dose.

My stuff in America costs $650 per month, and my Massachusetts version of Blue Cross insurance picks up $550 of that (and thank you very much).  John's monthly dosage in the UK (the "list" price is shown on his receipt from his druggist) for the same stuff from the same maker, is £128 pounds and his national insurance picks up all of it.

That's about a $500 difference in list price for the exact same drug between America and the UK.

 

The laissez faire attitude about capitalism and business development is only effective in an unrestrained or open market.  It does apply if I don't want to pay John $2 for his widget.  In that case, I can make my own widget and sell it for $1.  

However, as I'm sure everyone knows, the market place for drugs involves, among other market forces, the relationship between big pharma and the FDA, and is the antithesis of an open market.

When the US has 500,000 medical bankruptcies/year, and middle class families have to choose between food and prescription drugs, something in the system is broken.  It's an easy statistic to ignore until the person who needs the drug is you or someone you love.  These are not trust fund kids tearing down the barricades at Cal Berkeley, these are mostly hard-working, middle class, taxpaying families who have been paying WAY more than their share of taxes for generations.

Gordon Nichols posted:

Interesting, but here's something to consider as well.  I take a daily set of pills to ward off the effects of Ulcerative Colitis.  Up until last year, there was one source for it and no generic version.  I have an old work friend living in Windsor, England who, unfortunately, has the same disease and takes the very same stuff from the same maker, even to the dose.

My stuff in America costs $650 per month, and my Massachusetts version of Blue Cross insurance picks up $550 of that (and thank you very much).  John's monthly dosage in the UK (the "list" price is shown on his receipt from his druggist) for the same stuff from the same maker, is £128 pounds and his national insurance picks up all of it.

That's about a $500 difference in list price for the exact same drug between America and the UK.

 

Same drug costs your friend nothing in the UK.  Costs you $1200 per year here.  The price of a good does not determine the morality of how one obtains a product.  You can steal the medication and it costs you nothing.  I doubt that makes it right to steal it.  Do you suppose that in the UK the government tells the drug manufacturers how much they can sell their product for?  I am guessing that is the case.  The liberty of the manufacturer is abrogated in order to give the product to someone else.  Sounds like theft to me.

"A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything." -- Harry Browne

hypothetical: I buy my medication from the pharmacy for $100.  As I am walking to my car, James Bond steals my medication.  The cost to James is $0.  My cost, and I have no more medication, is $100.  I guess James' method to obtain medication is mine because his cost is $0.  Any time a government gives to someone, it has to take from someone else.

 

 

Last edited by Todd M

To compound the indignity of a medical bankruptcy, in many cases, there is no contributory negligence on the patient's part.  If an alcoholic needs a liver transplant or a smoker gets lung cancer, their behavior has been, at least partly, a cause of their condition.

However, in many cases, the patient has done nothing to contribute to their illness.  With our current medical knowledge, the vague diagnosis of many fatal illnesses can be attributed to ethnicity, gender, genetic predisposition, occupation, or even the general area in which the patient lives.   Many of these patients have done everything right, i.e., healthy lifestyle, moderate diet, frequent exercise, no excess weight, etc., and still they draw the short straw.  

Jim Kelly posted:

The laissez faire attitude about capitalism and business development is only effective in an unrestrained or open market.  It does apply if I don't want to pay John $2 for his widget.  In that case, I can make my own widget and sell it for $1.  

However, as I'm sure everyone knows, the market place for drugs involves, among other market forces, the relationship between big pharma and the FDA, and is the antithesis of an open market.

When the US has 500,000 medical bankruptcies/year, and middle class families have to choose between food and prescription drugs, something in the system is broken.  It's an easy statistic to ignore until the person who needs the drug is you or someone you love.  These are not trust fund kids tearing down the barricades at Cal Berkeley, these are mostly hard-working, middle class, taxpaying families who have been paying WAY more than their share of taxes for generations.

A-stinking-men. Medicine is the antithesis of a free market. Buying drugs from India IS the very definition of applying market forces to a table where the house always wins.

Todd M posted:

Same drug costs your friend nothing in the UK.  Costs you $1200 per year here.  The price of a good does not determine the morality of how one obtains a product.  You can steal the medication and it costs you nothing.  I doubt that makes it right to steal it.  Do you suppose that in the UK the government tells the drug manufacturers how much they can sell their product for?  I am guessing that is the case.  The liberty of the manufacturer is abrogated in order to give the product to someone else.  Sounds like theft to me.

 

 Todd,

Let me guess-- you're a pharmaceutical rep?

Stan Galat posted:
Todd M posted:

Same drug costs your friend nothing in the UK.  Costs you $1200 per year here.  The price of a good does not determine the morality of how one obtains a product.  You can steal the medication and it costs you nothing.  I doubt that makes it right to steal it.  Do you suppose that in the UK the government tells the drug manufacturers how much they can sell their product for?  I am guessing that is the case.  The liberty of the manufacturer is abrogated in order to give the product to someone else.  Sounds like theft to me.

 

 Todd,

Let me guess-- you're a pharmaceutical rep?

Not even close.  I have nothing to do with the pharma business, except that I have to pay for medications just like everyone else.  My family is affected by the cost of health care just like everyone else.  Every dollar of my last raise goes to an increased cost of health insurance.  I seem to remember the supporters of government sponsored health insurance saying how it, Obamacare, was going to lower the prices of health care, especially pharmaceuticals.  So, how is that government program working out for all of those paying for health insurance?

If anybody thinks the pharma companies are getting rich at their expense, there is a solution.  Buy the stock of the pharma companies that are making too much money.

I just understand how wrong it is to take something that does not belong to me.  Every emotional plea in the world does not change the fact that taking something that is not yours is stealing.

"Forcing people to be generous isn't humanitarian, effective, compassionate, or moral.  Only acts that are truly voluntary for all concerned can be truly compassionate."

If a person is truly concerned with another person's plight of medical bills, then they will help pay for them.  Saying the government should fix it is an attempt to feel good about oneself without actually helping.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Rea...vatism/dp/0465008232

I have no idea why it is not clear to everyone, but it is clear to me that government involvement only raises the cost of whatever it purports to be helping, and the appeal to taxpayers is always that the cost will be borne by the rich, or somebody else will have to pay.  Well, wake the ____ up.

 

Last edited by Todd M
Todd M posted:

If you think the price of any product is unfair, make it yourself, sell it for less, and you will be a billionaire.  Unless of course, it is unprofitable to sell it for less.  As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have a right to anybody else's property including their medicine.  I do not have a right to buy anybody's property, including their medicine. 

Sun Pharma (in India) is doing exactly that-- happily making a product and selling it for quite a bit less than the US drug company that makes the name brand.

They aren't selling something that belongs to someone else-- they are selling a formula not approved by the FDA that is different (by one molecule in a very complex molecular structure) than the name-brand. My wife finds the modified (generic)  medication more effective than the name brand. The reason the entire thing is gray-market is because the FDA (which is firmly in the pocket of big pharma) has not approved it. This is shocking to exactly no one with even a passing understanding of how the drug business works.

The fact that a similar drug can be made and sold (everywhere but here) for 2 cents on the dollar tells me everything I need to know about the ethics of the pharma industry and what belongs to whom. The government props up the drug companies by giving them ridiculously long (and broad) patent protection, because big pharma pays the FDA's way. Each entity (the companies and the FDA) are propped up by their complementary monopolies.

It's anti-competitive in the extreme.

Last edited by Stan Galat
Stan Galat posted:
Todd M posted:

If you think the price of any product is unfair, make it yourself, sell it for less, and you will be a billionaire.  Unless of course, it is unprofitable to sell it for less.  As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have a right to anybody else's property including their medicine.  I do not have a right to buy anybody's property, including their medicine. 

Sun Pharma (in India) is doing exactly that-- happily making a product and selling it for quite a bit less than the US drug company that makes the name brand.

They aren't selling something that belongs to someone else-- they are selling a formula not approved by the FDA that is different (by one molecule in a very complex molecular structure) than the name-brand. My wife finds the modified (generic)  medication more effective than the name brand. The reason the entire thing is gray-market is because the FDA (which is firmly in the pocket of big pharma) has not approved it. This is shocking to exactly no one with even a passing understanding of how the drug business works.

The fact that a similar drug can be made and sold (everywhere but here) for 2 cents on the dollar tells me everything I need to know about the ethics of the pharma industry and what belongs to whom. The government props up the drug companies by giving them ridiculously long (and broad) patent protection, because big pharma pays the FDA's way. Each entity (the companies and the FDA) are propped up by their complementary monopolies.

It's anti-competitive in the extreme.

So let me see if I understand.  Since you perceive the FDA to be in cahoots with the pharma companies, then it is justified that the government take my money and your money to pay for someone else's drugs?  Exactly which pharma company is it that you think is in cahoots with the FDA and is making too much money as a result?  Or if more than one, which pharma companies?  If you think the FDA is corrupt resulting in higher drug costs, would that not be evidence to you that government involvement makes drugs cost more, not less?

I think perhaps you don't understand, since you asked. You presuppose me to be arguing for something I'm not. I'm not arguing for government intervention in fixing prices (although that is exactly what they are presently doing). I'm arguing for a free market.

You asked for an example, Here's one, although I'm sure there are many more.

Eli Lilly developed (in 1982) and markets a synthetic human insulin my daughter needs to live, which cost about $24/vial in 1997 (when she was diagnosed). It costs my (now adult) daughter over $300/ month to buy out of pocket, 20+ years later (long after the cost of development has been amortized). This begs the question-- who's interests are being served by offering Eli Lilly 35+ years of patent protection (locking every other competitor out of the market) on a drug they developed and marketed for less than 10% of the current selling price? The government is involved all right-- to the extent of protecting Eli Lilly, rather than the citizens they are tasked with protecting.

This is one example of thousands. Drug patents run into the decades. I'm a fan of intellectual property, but how many years is fair? J&J, Roche, Phizer, Baer, E. Lilly, et al are multi-billion dollar companies, precisely because they own the FDA.

When I buy drugs that aren't FDA approved, and am happy with the results, for 5% of the cost of the protected drug, who is stealing from whom?

Last edited by Stan Galat

Intellectual property, good and great ideas, have to be rewarded but for how long?  

Sickness sometimes is self induced but most times it is like the lotto system of course depending if you like Levi Strauss, I mean it's in the Jeans  

Every market has a supply chain and those in it protect themselves and have a bias on their side to stay alive and hence collect from any user of their service sometimes unfair remuneration in a closed monopoly of service where competition is limited to who is best to serve but not necessarily on price. 

I just ran into a veterinary issue where the need to have to go back for a visit felt more like extorsion than what was needed, so with that pressure, we informed them that their policy was excessive and we walked.  It seems the regulating body supports that kind of behaviour ... go figure. 

FYI, Biosimilars are meds that are close to another but not exactly the same ie: Embrel biosimilars. 

Then there are those that are molecular modifications where for example Valium and Dalmane are simply one change of a Chloride to a Fluoride atom on the same structure the electronegativity causes the drug to be more fat soluble crosses the blood brain barrier and so you sleep rather than get relaxed. (at first at least) 

Socialized medicine is when the government sets the price for everything and buys a vary large amount of product and services.  BTW it is where the Name brand manufacturers secretly negotiate and return 50% or more of the cost to the government in secret payments back to the government for those clients they pay for.  (True Facts) 

If you follow the money it always gets interesting. 

 

 

The free market works great for a lot of things, including Pre-A Porsches. A willing seller, a willing buyer, the price set by the buyer's desire and ability to pay the seller's price, and no need (in this case no ability) for anyone to be able to "make one for less." 

It works well because nobody needs a Pre-A Porsche.

With insulin, we have a different situation

If the "free market" results in a concentration of power on the maker's side (monopoly), the owners can set whatever price they like. Pay it or die.

The "willing buyer" part of the equation goes away. A diabetic cannot wait months or years for some clever Indonesian start-up to fab a factory and begin producing cheap insulin pumps, then arrange a Bitcoin-based gray market distribution system for the US.

It's like this with a lot of medicine and medical care, which is why civilized countries instituted universal medical insurance systems (heavily regulated if not government controlled) decades ago. Every nation which has one—Canada and the UK very much included—has much better health outcomes than we enjoy in the US, and very little (if any) political controversy about it. 

I've long been mystified by the inability of market fundamentalists to understand the basics of an asymmetric market.

 

Socialized medicine brings quotas, wait lines and sometimes a refusal to provide a service due to age or other reasons as the health care practitioner is the gate keeper.

Free Market medicine, if you have the money you get done what you can afford and yes you can get great service too minus the wait lines. 

We feel like a consumer of health care, this means we make our own choices!  

In socialized medicine and in fact other styles as well the healthcare givers often do not share that opinion as the state tell them how to think. 

edsnova posted:

The free market works great for a lot of things, including Pre-A Porsches. A willing seller, a willing buyer, the price set by the buyer's desire and ability to pay the seller's price, and no need (in this case no ability) for anyone to be able to "make one for less." 

It works well because nobody needs a Pre-A Porsche.

With insulin, we have a different situation

If the "free market" results in a concentration of power on the maker's side (monopoly), the owners can set whatever price they like. Pay it or die.

The "willing buyer" part of the equation goes away. A diabetic cannot wait months or years for some clever Indonesian start-up to fab a factory and begin producing cheap insulin pumps, then arrange a Bitcoin-based gray market distribution system for the US.

It's like this with a lot of medicine and medical care, which is why civilized countries instituted universal medical insurance systems (heavily regulated if not government controlled) decades ago. Every nation which has one—Canada and the UK very much included—has much better health outcomes than we enjoy in the US, and very little (if any) political controversy about it. 

I've long been mystified by the inability of market fundamentalists to understand the basics of an asymmetric market.

 

Market fundamentalists understand that there are few to no asymmetric markets, especially in the connected world we now live in.  What socialists fail to address is that it is wrong to steal, especially by a mob, (vote).  Your insulin example is a perfect example of market forces.  Instead of only reading that which fits your paradigm, google, "cheapest insulin price".  Read about the wait times for specialized treatment in Canada.  Read about treatments that are refused to elderly people in Canada.  People may think they are gaining some type of security with government health care, (the more accurate term for universal medical insurance), but in truth, it is just one more loss of liberty.

Last edited by Todd M

I have never heard of elderly individuals being refused treatment in Canada.  My mother in law was receiving treatment up to age 99, both in necessary heart medicine and for joint replacement.  There may be wait times, but people don’t have to go bankrupt to get taken care of.  There are some private clinics, but not many, and all Canadians are covered for health care.

It is a sign of a good society when health care is provided to all. And we are not a Socialist nation, as some of you love to infer.  We just believe that health care is a necessity, not just a luxury for those who can afford it.

Sorry Bob, I spent my career in health care and I have personal knowledge that the facts are not exactly that way in all cases.  There are those who cannot get transplants due to age, will not get certain procedures again due to age and may be rejected for the latest treatment again due to age. If you were in the USA you could go out and buy it. 

Some choices are not given to you to select as a patient. Yes you are presented with choices but not all of them, for the above reason and  there is no list of treatment options at times published or available for the public to choose, the information is simply not readily available to the common man. The clinician is in control and becomes the judge of your quality of life and what you deserve in treatment.

If your experience is different, good for you but I have a different point of view obviously 

Last edited by IaM-Ray

Well, I guess you can buy anything if you have the money...but not everyone does.

Yes, decisions have to be made, but if a treatment will benefit a patient, it will be offered.  There are lost causes where no treatment will be beneficial, so why waste resources in that.

Each individual case needs to be weighed on its merits, and decisions have to be made re: treatment that will not provide proper outcomes.

I will still take our system of health care. 

Some things are easy to say objectively from afar. 

A good question to ask a clinician is what would you do if it was your daughter, your mother etc 

The level of intervention you might want if you were in need or dealing with a serious health condition might change your opinion if you were put in that situation. Hopefully you will never need to make those choices

just saying 

It is interesting getting input from real Canadians (you guys are "real", right?)  on this stuff from Ray, Bob and Al.  I have heard and read so much absolute Bull-**** about how bad the Canadian/English/French/German/Dutch/Swedish (pick one or add your own) health care systems are compared to what we have in the US and I KNOW, from first-hand experience in France and Germany (and second hand input from Canada and the UK) that health care outside of the US is often as good or BETTER than what we are offered here, and I live within spitting distance of Boston with the best health care offerings in the world.  

I, personally, have needed surgical procedures while on business trips in France and Germany and I have nothing but great things to say about both systems AND their handling of insurance issues cross-border.  THEY initiated the insurance interaction and THEY resolved any issues and I ended up paying, at most, a $50 dollar co-pay for something I would have paid several thousands for (after insurance) were I still at home and I got excellent care.  I see that as a petty good deal from a so-called "socialist" health care system.  Maybe they're just a government that is trying to offer a better quality of life for their constituents?  

That whole "Socialist" thing has been thrown around a lot, lately (especially on Fox News, because it is their main bludgeon against the Democrats), and given a lot of bad rap without anyone actually challenging their position with people who "walk the walk" - actual people who live there.  Maybe this is our chance, right here on a so-called "Car Forum" to set the record straight with our Canadian friends.  Their health care is pretty damn good!  "Socialism" is a spectrum of ideologies transitioning from light government intrusion (think your local DMV) to government involved with just about everything.  There are an infinite number of degrees in that spectrum and it is up to the populace to decide where in that spectrum they wish to live. 

I live within a 60 minute car ride from Boston, a place offering the best health care in the World (like the Lahey or Mayo or Dana-Farber clinics and numerous research facilities), but that depends on whether your insurance will pay for a substantial part of it, or whether YOU can pay for all of it (and remember, we here in Massachusetts still have what the original "Obamacare" was based on, developed by a bi-partisan legislature, accepted by popular vote and signed into Massachusetts law by a Republican, Mitt Romney.  WE are living with the original "Obamacare" and loving it).  

We often hear of "miraculous" procedures done at Mass. General or Tufts or Brigham and Women's Hospitals for people brought in from war zones or refugees or whatever, and you know what?  A lot of those are done pro-bono by the entire surgical team because they wanted to do it, as reported on local news.  That is not socialism, that is compassion.

There is also a waiting list for a lot of advanced procedures and any and all of those procedures are extremely expensive.  Yes, many people from other countries come here to Massachusetts (or various satellite sites scattered around North America and Europe) not because it is cheaper, but because, for the time being, THIS is where the best talent is and no other reason.  When that talent leaves (and that might take a bit of time), people looking for it either follow it to other countries (Canada, UK, Mexico, India, etc) or hope that the replacement USA talent is up to the task.   

I have a friend since childhood currently going through Chemo for kidney and intestinal cancer.  The treatments are scheduled at three times per month (all she can stand, really).  The procedures cost $75,000 each month and their insurance, thankfully, picks up $60,000 of that.  Is that stealing $60,000 per month from other people who are contributing to the health insurance plan?  Or is that just how "insurance" is supposed to work?  Either way, they're still out $15K per month while living on retirement income - that hurts, for sure, and they're struggling, but they're making it, so far, but barely.  By the way, if they were in the UK (I have no experience with the Canadian Health Care System) they would be paying their usual visit co-pay of £10 pounds (about $15 bucks) and that's it and I know, from the experience of friends in the UK, that they would NOT be "waiting to get on a treatment list".  They would be attended to within a week, same as here.

BUT!  That extraordinary talent in Boston is realizing that they can return to their home countries (over 80% of the specialist talent in Massachusetts health care is NOT from America and they had to pay for their educations without benefit of student loans).  They can help a lot of their fellow countrymen and women to a better quality of life AND still make a better than average wage without all of the debilitating hassles of the American Health Care Insurance System, so they are beginning to leave in droves.  THAT is why the interval between diagnosis and treatment is beginning to stretch out in the US - Not because the technology isn't there, but because the talent behind the technology is leaving.

Think about that for a second.........   Will your local specialty centers be next?  I'm betting that they will be, because contributing more than 40% of a doctor's or specialists time to dealing with insurance issues just seems stupid, to me, and to them, too.

PS $15k per month is about three times the median US family income.

It's nice to be rich, no argument about that. In the USA, these days, being rich is a necessary prerequisite if one requires health care services. Some people, mainly the not-rich, think that could be a problem. "Socialism" fixes that problem, mainly, by enlarging the insurance pool as far as is possible. Doesn't "steal" anything from anyone.

You bet I'm for it. 

 

For all formulary approved medical procedures there is no cost in Canada except on your taxes.  The wait can be long depending on the procedure. 

Medications, and other health care devices are different.  Some are subsidized, with deductible and some are not. FYI, The deductibles for medications are usually pretty affordable and most often waived.

The best health care is the care you choose, not that which is chosen for you by someone else or a doctor who gets paid by the state, or the government, or policy.  I don't give a ____ who thinks their health care is best.  I do care about me being able to choose. 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - usually attributed to Ben Franklin

"No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one's physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies."  - Ron Paul

Last edited by Todd M
Todd M posted:

The best health care is the care you choose, not that which is chosen for you by someone else or a doctor who gets paid by the state, or the government, or policy.  I don't give a ____ who thinks their health care is best.  I do care about me being able to choose. 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - usually attributed to Ben Franklin

"No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one's physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies."  - Ron Paul

I am afraid as someone has said, that I would like to add MANY likes to this comment. 

Post Content
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×