Ron Paul Revolution

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Government regulation? Oh is that like all the regulation which was gutted in the finance sector? That proved to work out awesome!

The U.S. isn’t even ranked in the top ten for healthcare services, so what are we paying twice as much?[/quote]

Just because some regulations might have been removed does not mean there weren’t other regulations in place that allowed these crooks to get away with fraud.

Besides, fraud cannot be regulated. People who commit fraud do not give a wit about regulations unless those regulations make it easier for them to commit fraud.

Think about all those government money schemes to give away homes to poor people. You think they might have used those regulations to take advantage of the system?

We pay more for health care in the US because maintaining a fascist health care system is expensive.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So the answer -according to you- as to why Americans pay about twice as much for healthcare is competition? Seriously?

Why aren’t the government run aspects of healthcare increasing in costs the way the private sector is?

And if you really believe that people are happy paying twice as much for anything to get less than stellar results, you my friend ae blind.

[/quote]

  1. Lack of competition. Induced by government regulations btw.

  2. With all that red tape, who knows?

  3. If you get cancer in the US you have the best chance in the world to survive. Unless you get Medicaid treatment of course, than you are better off without it. Not just with another plan, without it. You die sooner if you get their treatment.

I would say that at least those people are happily paying twice the amount of Medicaid to receive the best service they can get on this planet. [/quote]

Government regulation? Oh is that like all the regulation which was gutted in the finance sector? That proved to work out awesome!

The U.S. isn’t even ranked in the top ten for healthcare services, so what are we paying twice as much?[/quote]

You do not know what regulations were cut, or how they effected the financial markets so dont pretend that you do.

Also do not pretend that all regulations are equal.

No sentient being in this universe holds the opinion that more regulation automatically equals good, so why insinuate that you would hold such a stance.

Furthermore, healthcare rankings are bullshit, which is kind of why the UN does not do them anymore.

If you want to know who to thank for that though, thank the states that make interstate competition next to impossible, the federal governments that lets them even though it has the constitutional authority to stop them, mandatory minimum requirements for contracts in said states like massages, dentistry, chiropractors and acupuncture and whatnot that some people might want and others not so much.

Also a tax system that allows companies to deduct healthcare from taxes whereas individuals cant, a federal government that makes it illegal to reimport drugs from Canada for crying out loud or cheaper generic versions from India or some such, all in the name of public health of course.

This is a bureaucratic clusterfuck of unprecedented magnitude and an intentional one I might add and the idea is to bleed the American patient dry.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Government regulation? Oh is that like all the regulation which was gutted in the finance sector? That proved to work out awesome!

The U.S. isn’t even ranked in the top ten for healthcare services, so what are we paying twice as much?[/quote]

Just because some regulations might have been removed does not mean there weren’t other regulations in place that allowed these crooks to get away with fraud.

Besides, fraud cannot be regulated. People who commit fraud do not give a wit about regulations unless those regulations make it easier for them to commit fraud.

Think about all those government money schemes to give away homes to poor people. You think they might have used those regulations to take advantage of the system?

We pay more for health care in the US because maintaining a fascist health care system is expensive.[/quote]

Also, because you do not wait for half a year for an appointment or an MRI or an operation.

Going through life with a fucked up hip for a year costs you, just not in a way that it is seen as costs in the system.

The cost in waiting and therefore pain and needless suffering in these systems is immense, it just cannot be measured in money and is therefore deemed irrelevant.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The fact that people on here claim that Obama is far left just goes to show how well the propaganda machine in the U.S. works. Extraordinary![/quote]

Yeah, we all know that Obama is a right wing conservative. Those lying bastards![/quote]

Yes and we all know what a committed socialist he is as well. His record speaks…[/quote]

If you understood even a little of how American politics works you would know that if a President wants to move either left or right he does so in increments. Some large some not so large. In his first term he passed the biggest government take over and control of individual rights in the history of the country, national health care. This was against the wishes of about 70% of the American people as well. In his second term he will move even further to the left as there will be no electorate to answer to.

Yes, he’s the most liberal President that we’ve ever had. But this would have been well known by the people had the press done their job. But they were busy trying to get Obama elected.

Stop playing the part of clueless Internet poster…You are playing right?
[/quote]
I would certainly challenge your assertion about the largest take over and control of individual rights being the health care plan.[/quote]

When you control such a large part of the economy you control it’s population. That’s why I laugh at the idiots who scream for “free” health care. As you’ve no doubt heard before, a government large enough to give you everything you need is also large enough to take everything that you have!

Control of the economy is by the private banking industry - not a national health care plan! Obama is a socialist - for the ultra rich.

Thank you for further proving my point.

You were wrong on your point. The Patriot Act is the most egregious personal rights grab over the general populace ever in the history of this country.

Not at all true. Most Americans are against national health care. And there is a good reason for that, 75% of Americans are very happy with their current health care. Obama did this to help the roughly 15% without health care. And that was nothing but a power grab by this progressive President.[/quote]

Actually this is true and has been so for decades. Americans want control over the unbelievable rising costs in our private run healthcare system. Their is something fundamentally wrong with a healthcare system that puts profits over health.[/quote]

No it isn’t true and simply saying it is doesn’t make it so…sorry.

I was a little off there are more Americans that are happy with their own health care than I originally thought.

“A combined 82% rate their healthcare as either excellent or good, which is on par with previous years.”

This is sort of like Congress. When people are polled “what do you think of Congress” they get low ratings. But, when asked, “what do you think of your own Congressman” the person gets high ratings.

As I said the overwhelmng majority of Americans are Happy with their health care and DO NOT want Obamacare!

[quote]. Why should the public be gouged with outrageous healthcare costs? So we can keep the pharmaceutical companies and the like incredibly rich? Why should the public suffer the consequences?
[/quote]

And the answer to that is competition. By the way Americans are more happy with their health care than any other industrialized nation.

Now stop the nonsense.

[/quote]

So the answer -according to you- as to why Americans pay about twice as much for healthcare is competition? Seriously?

Why aren’t the government run aspects of healthcare increasing in costs the way the private sector is?

And if you really believe that people are happy paying twice as much for anything to get less than stellar results, you my friend ae blind.

[/quote]

I just posted a survey which clearly demonstrates that most are happy with their health care.

You don’t like it? Too bad those are the facts!

If you’re not happy with your health care and you want others to pay your way just admit it. Because that’s all national health care is. Those who have worked hard for their money handing some of it to those who have not worked for it and don’t deserve it.

And that sucks for those of us who work hard and don’t feel a compulsion to pay for your health care.

Honestly liberals are not good for my health because they make me sick to my stomach!

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Government regulation? Oh is that like all the regulation which was gutted in the finance sector? That proved to work out awesome!

The U.S. isn’t even ranked in the top ten for healthcare services, so what are we paying twice as much?[/quote]

Just because some regulations might have been removed does not mean there weren’t other regulations in place that allowed these crooks to get away with fraud.

Besides, fraud cannot be regulated. People who commit fraud do not give a wit about regulations unless those regulations make it easier for them to commit fraud.

Think about all those government money schemes to give away homes to poor people. You think they might have used those regulations to take advantage of the system?

We pay more for health care in the US because maintaining a fascist health care system is expensive.[/quote]

Yes it is fascist.

Fraud can be controlled to an extent.

That is why there were regulations to prevent it. When those regulations were removed then it was much easier to scam the public and fill their bank accounts.

What schemes are you talking about? Free homes?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So the answer -according to you- as to why Americans pay about twice as much for healthcare is competition? Seriously?

Why aren’t the government run aspects of healthcare increasing in costs the way the private sector is?

And if you really believe that people are happy paying twice as much for anything to get less than stellar results, you my friend ae blind.

[/quote]

  1. Lack of competition. Induced by government regulations btw.

  2. With all that red tape, who knows?

  3. If you get cancer in the US you have the best chance in the world to survive. Unless you get Medicaid treatment of course, than you are better off without it. Not just with another plan, without it. You die sooner if you get their treatment.

I would say that at least those people are happily paying twice the amount of Medicaid to receive the best service they can get on this planet. [/quote]

Government regulation? Oh is that like all the regulation which was gutted in the finance sector? That proved to work out awesome!

The U.S. isn’t even ranked in the top ten for healthcare services, so what are we paying twice as much?[/quote]

You do not know what regulations were cut, or how they effected the financial markets so dont pretend that you do.

Also do not pretend that all regulations are equal.

No sentient being in this universe holds the opinion that more regulation automatically equals good, so why insinuate that you would hold such a stance.

Furthermore, healthcare rankings are bullshit, which is kind of why the UN does not do them anymore.

If you want to know who to thank for that though, thank the states that make interstate competition next to impossible, the federal governments that lets them even though it has the constitutional authority to stop them, mandatory minimum requirements for contracts in said states like massages, dentistry, chiropractors and acupuncture and whatnot that some people might want and others not so much.

Also a tax system that allows companies to deduct healthcare from taxes whereas individuals cant, a federal government that makes it illegal to reimport drugs from Canada for crying out loud or cheaper generic versions from India or some such, all in the name of public health of course.

This is a bureaucratic clusterfuck of unprecedented magnitude and an intentional one I might add and the idea is to bleed the American patient dry.
[/quote]

I’m not trying to pretend ALL regulations are equal.

And no sane person in the world would insinuate that all regulations are bad. Which is why one could call into question the mental health of those who want to gut all regulations. (Finance sector)

I don’t have to know exactly what regulations were cut to see the damage, do you? It’s been discussed on a daily basis for about 5 years now.

Healthcare rankings are bullshit. Please explain?

The Fed government may not allow Americans to purchase cheaper meds across the border but they do so at the behest of the pharmaceutical
companies. Because we have a government by the corporations for the corporations. Not by the people for the people.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The fact that people on here claim that Obama is far left just goes to show how well the propaganda machine in the U.S. works. Extraordinary![/quote]

Yeah, we all know that Obama is a right wing conservative. Those lying bastards![/quote]

Yes and we all know what a committed socialist he is as well. His record speaks…[/quote]

If you understood even a little of how American politics works you would know that if a President wants to move either left or right he does so in increments. Some large some not so large. In his first term he passed the biggest government take over and control of individual rights in the history of the country, national health care. This was against the wishes of about 70% of the American people as well. In his second term he will move even further to the left as there will be no electorate to answer to.

Yes, he’s the most liberal President that we’ve ever had. But this would have been well known by the people had the press done their job. But they were busy trying to get Obama elected.

Stop playing the part of clueless Internet poster…You are playing right?
[/quote]
I would certainly challenge your assertion about the largest take over and control of individual rights being the health care plan.[/quote]

When you control such a large part of the economy you control it’s population. That’s why I laugh at the idiots who scream for “free” health care. As you’ve no doubt heard before, a government large enough to give you everything you need is also large enough to take everything that you have!

Control of the economy is by the private banking industry - not a national health care plan! Obama is a socialist - for the ultra rich.

Thank you for further proving my point.

You were wrong on your point. The Patriot Act is the most egregious personal rights grab over the general populace ever in the history of this country.

Not at all true. Most Americans are against national health care. And there is a good reason for that, 75% of Americans are very happy with their current health care. Obama did this to help the roughly 15% without health care. And that was nothing but a power grab by this progressive President.[/quote]

Actually this is true and has been so for decades. Americans want control over the unbelievable rising costs in our private run healthcare system. Their is something fundamentally wrong with a healthcare system that puts profits over health.[/quote]

No it isn’t true and simply saying it is doesn’t make it so…sorry.

I was a little off there are more Americans that are happy with their own health care than I originally thought.

“A combined 82% rate their healthcare as either excellent or good, which is on par with previous years.”

This is sort of like Congress. When people are polled “what do you think of Congress” they get low ratings. But, when asked, “what do you think of your own Congressman” the person gets high ratings.

As I said the overwhelmng majority of Americans are Happy with their health care and DO NOT want Obamacare!

[quote]. Why should the public be gouged with outrageous healthcare costs? So we can keep the pharmaceutical companies and the like incredibly rich? Why should the public suffer the consequences?
[/quote]

And the answer to that is competition. By the way Americans are more happy with their health care than any other industrialized nation.

Now stop the nonsense.

[/quote]

So the answer -according to you- as to why Americans pay about twice as much for healthcare is competition? Seriously?

Why aren’t the government run aspects of healthcare increasing in costs the way the private sector is?

And if you really believe that people are happy paying twice as much for anything to get less than stellar results, you my friend ae blind.

[/quote]

I just posted a survey which clearly demonstrates that most are happy with their health care.

You don’t like it? Too bad those are the facts!

If you’re not happy with your health care and you want others to pay your way just admit it. Because that’s all national health care is. Those who have worked hard for their money handing some of it to those who have not worked for it and don’t deserve it.

And that sucks for those of us who work hard and don’t feel a compulsion to pay for your health care.

Honestly liberals are not good for my health because they make me sick to my stomach![/quote]

Big deal. You posted a survey. How was the survey conducted? What questions were asked and in what way? Polls can be used as a way to guide people to come out with the answers wanted by those who fund the poll itself.

It has been well known for decades that Americans favor some form of government run healthcare system. It has only been talked about recently because some major sectors of American power were starting to push back (manufacturing sector). It costs an extra $1,000 to produce a car in Detroit than it does in Canada because of the outrageous costs of healthcare, for example.

The cost of American healthcare is a big deal and one of the reasons for a climbing deficit. What I want is a more efficient system that benefits the majority of the population for less costs. And that can be achieved as it is being done so in other 1st world countries. Our system should not be designed in order to enrich those at the expense of others.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The fact that people on here claim that Obama is far left just goes to show how well the propaganda machine in the U.S. works. Extraordinary![/quote]

Yeah, we all know that Obama is a right wing conservative. Those lying bastards![/quote]

Yes and we all know what a committed socialist he is as well. His record speaks…[/quote]

If you understood even a little of how American politics works you would know that if a President wants to move either left or right he does so in increments. Some large some not so large. In his first term he passed the biggest government take over and control of individual rights in the history of the country, national health care. This was against the wishes of about 70% of the American people as well. In his second term he will move even further to the left as there will be no electorate to answer to.

Yes, he’s the most liberal President that we’ve ever had. But this would have been well known by the people had the press done their job. But they were busy trying to get Obama elected.

Stop playing the part of clueless Internet poster…You are playing right?
[/quote]
I would certainly challenge your assertion about the largest take over and control of individual rights being the health care plan.[/quote]

When you control such a large part of the economy you control it’s population. That’s why I laugh at the idiots who scream for “free” health care. As you’ve no doubt heard before, a government large enough to give you everything you need is also large enough to take everything that you have!

Control of the economy is by the private banking industry - not a national health care plan! Obama is a socialist - for the ultra rich.

Thank you for further proving my point.

You were wrong on your point. The Patriot Act is the most egregious personal rights grab over the general populace ever in the history of this country.

Not at all true. Most Americans are against national health care. And there is a good reason for that, 75% of Americans are very happy with their current health care. Obama did this to help the roughly 15% without health care. And that was nothing but a power grab by this progressive President.[/quote]

Actually this is true and has been so for decades. Americans want control over the unbelievable rising costs in our private run healthcare system. Their is something fundamentally wrong with a healthcare system that puts profits over health.[/quote]

No it isn’t true and simply saying it is doesn’t make it so…sorry.

I was a little off there are more Americans that are happy with their own health care than I originally thought.

“A combined 82% rate their healthcare as either excellent or good, which is on par with previous years.”

This is sort of like Congress. When people are polled “what do you think of Congress” they get low ratings. But, when asked, “what do you think of your own Congressman” the person gets high ratings.

As I said the overwhelmng majority of Americans are Happy with their health care and DO NOT want Obamacare!

[quote]. Why should the public be gouged with outrageous healthcare costs? So we can keep the pharmaceutical companies and the like incredibly rich? Why should the public suffer the consequences?
[/quote]

And the answer to that is competition. By the way Americans are more happy with their health care than any other industrialized nation.

Now stop the nonsense.

[/quote]

So the answer -according to you- as to why Americans pay about twice as much for healthcare is competition? Seriously?

Why aren’t the government run aspects of healthcare increasing in costs the way the private sector is?

And if you really believe that people are happy paying twice as much for anything to get less than stellar results, you my friend ae blind.

[/quote]

I just posted a survey which clearly demonstrates that most are happy with their health care.

You don’t like it? Too bad those are the facts!

If you’re not happy with your health care and you want others to pay your way just admit it. Because that’s all national health care is. Those who have worked hard for their money handing some of it to those who have not worked for it and don’t deserve it.

And that sucks for those of us who work hard and don’t feel a compulsion to pay for your health care.

Honestly liberals are not good for my health because they make me sick to my stomach![/quote]

Big deal. You posted a survey. How was the survey conducted? What questions were asked and in what way? Polls can be used as a way to guide people to come out with the answers wanted by those who fund the poll itself.It has been well known for decades that Americans favor some form of government run healthcare system. It has only been talked about recently because some major sectors of American power were starting to push back (manufacturing sector). It costs an extra $1,000 to produce a car in Detroit than it does in Canada because of the outrageous costs of healthcare, for example.
[/quote]

Every survey taken on the topic has pretty much come out to the same thing. Americans are happy with their health care. And if you don’t believe all the polls regarding how happy they are all you have to do is look at all the polls which clearly show Obamacare to be unpopular. Now why would that be if Americans were unhappy with their health care? Think about that.

[quote]The cost of American healthcare is a big deal and one of the reasons for a climbing deficit. What I want is a more efficient system that benefits the majority of the population for less costs. And that can be achieved as it is being done so in other 1st world countries. Our system should not be designed in order to enrich those at the expense of others.
[/quote]

Do you even know what you just said?

The system should not be designed to enrich others? But that IS the capitalist system. What we need is to open the borders and have a true free market health insurance system. So that more people might be enriched–More and better competition will drive down costs.

Show me how it’s fair that I have to pay for your health care because I make a lot of money and you are poor.

Honestly, do those on the left even think before spewing this nonsense?

Watch how easy it is to edit quotes guys.

By posting your new response on top, identification is therefore EASY. Otherwise people are just going to never read and/or follow your replies. Also allows T-Nation bandwidth to be ‘freer’ ; )

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Big deal. You posted a survey. How was the survey conducted? What questions were asked and in what way? Polls can be used as a way to guide people to come out with the answers wanted by those who fund the poll itself.It has been well known for decades that Americans favor some form of government run healthcare system. It has only been talked about recently because some major sectors of American power were starting to push back (manufacturing sector). It costs an extra $1,000 to produce a car in Detroit than it does in Canada because of the outrageous costs of healthcare, for example.
[/quote]

Every survey taken on the topic has pretty much come out to the same thing. Americans are happy with their health care. And if you don’t believe all the polls regarding how happy they are all you have to do is look at all the polls which clearly show Obamacare to be unpopular. Now why would that be if Americans were unhappy with their health care? Think about that.

[quote]The cost of American healthcare is a big deal and one of the reasons for a climbing deficit. What I want is a more efficient system that benefits the majority of the population for less costs. And that can be achieved as it is being done so in other 1st world countries. Our system should not be designed in order to enrich those at the expense of others.
[/quote]

Do you even know what you just said?

The system should not be designed to enrich others? But that IS the capitalist system. What we need is to open the borders and have a true free market health insurance system. So that more people might be enriched–More and better competition will drive down costs.

Show me how it’s fair that I have to pay for your health care because I make a lot of money and you are poor.

Honestly, do those on the left even think before spewing this nonsense?[/quote]

If you were concerned about bandwidth you’d stop posting about Ron Paul. You know…the guy who will NEVER EVER become President.

I don’t know, Zeb, he’s winning many state’s delegates.

He’s going to the RNC.

Anything can happen.

We already have you on record saying he can’t win (really I think this is not so much prognostication but a deep wish on your part for him not to win).

Carry on.

What about Gary Johnson?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What about Gary Johnson?[/quote]

Who is Gary Johnson?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know, Zeb, he’s winning many state’s delegates.

He’s going to the RNC.

Anything can happen.

We already have you on record saying he can’t win (really I think this is not so much prognostication but a deep wish on your part for him not to win).

Carry on.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s either that or his last place finish in most of the primaries which causes anyone who knows a thing about politics to absolutely know that Paul has no chance. Yep one or the other.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What about Gary Johnson?[/quote]

Who is Gary Johnson?[/quote]

Here you go Lifty, you can count on me to continue your education in American politics.

But still I ask, who is he?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But still I ask, who is he?[/quote]

Someone who is just about as close to becoming President as Ron Paul.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But still I ask, who is he?[/quote]

Someone who is just about as close to becoming President as Ron Paul.[/quote]

Yeah, right.

Ron Paul Racks Up Delegates, Putting GOP Establishment On Edge

WASHINGTON – A prominent Iowa Republican, and a major supporter of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, did not hesitate to answer when asked recently how many of the Hawkeye State’s 28 delegates he expects Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to have heading into the national convention in Tampa this August.

“Twenty,” he said.

Conversations with numerous Iowa Republicans confirms the same thing: The state party establishment is dreading a Paul rout on June 15 and 16 at the two-day congressional district/state convention in Des Moines.

“Paul is costing the state a lot of credibility,” said Bob Haus, a GOP consultant who most recently headed up Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign in the state.

Another Republican operative who works for a statewide official sounded an even more despondent note.

“It does not sound encouraging. The Paul people are in a position to control the delegates, and the result would be chaotic for the Republican Party of Iowa and bring it to a screeching halt, rendering it completely irrelevant to our efforts here,” the Republican aide told The Huffington Post. “Nobody would rely on [the state party] for anything.”

After the fiasco earlier this year involving the caucus results, Iowans are nervous that if Paul gets a majority of the delegates, it will endanger their first-in-the-nation primary status. On Jan. 3, Romney was reported the winner, only to have the state GOP announce two weeks later that the result was inconclusive, then to reverse again and say that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was the victor. The party chairman, Matt Strawn, resigned as a result of the confusion.

So the prospect of a third candidate winning the state is causing ulcer-level heartburn, especially since Paul came in third in the popular vote. But that isn’t stopping Paul’s supporters – known among other things as Paulites, Paulinistas and to their most critical detractors, Paulbots – from moving forward with their plan to try to win more delegates in Iowa and other states than was reflected in the popular vote.

Paul is estimated to have won only one delegate thus far in Iowa by most estimates. But the caucus system is essentially a series of rounds of voting, or “delegates electing delegates electing delegates,” as a top Paul campaign official put it (click here for a full run down of how the Iowa process works). And Paul supporters are the most engaged with this process.

Jesse Benton, the national chairman for Paul’s campaign, told HuffPost that Iowa is not the only place they think they can win a large swath of delegates.

“Iowa is still very much in play, and there is a lot of work to do,” Benton said. “However, we are confident of our strength and are working hard. We have similar prospects in seven other states.”

Benton told HuffPost last November that the Paul campaign would be competing hard for delegates in Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, Washington and Nevada.

Sure enough, Paul has already won 20 out of the 24 delegates allocated in Minnesota, by winning a majority of the congressional district contests. There are another 13 at-large delegates up for grabs on May 19 at the state convention.

In Maine, Paul is expected to be in the running for at least eight of the state’s 24 delegates heading into this weekend’s district caucuses and state convention.

In Washington, delegates will be allotted at the state convention at the end of May. And in Nevada, Paul supporters say they hope to turn out about 65 percent of the attendees to the state convention this Saturday and Sunday, as they compete for 25 of the state’s 28 delegates. Like in most states, three delegate slots are automatic and go to Nevada’s GOP chairman, their national committee man and their national committee woman.

It’s not just Iowa Republicans or other state parties that are starting to worry. The national Republican Party is perking up and starting to take notice. The Republican National Committee’s chief counsel, John R. Phillippe Jr., on Wednesday sent a letter to the Nevada GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, essentially warning him that the state party should prevent Paul supporters from taking over this weekend’s state convention.

“Each candidate is entitled to have delegates supporting him elected to the delegate slots that he earned in the Presidential Preference Poll,” Phillippe wrote, referring to the results of the Feb. 4 caucus, which Romney won with 50 percent of the popular vote.

Jon Ralston, the chief political writer for the Las Vegas Sun, wrote late Wednesday that the RNC appears to fear Paul supporters “taking Mitt Romney slots and then not abiding by GOP rules to vote for the presumptive nominee on the first ballot in Tampa.”

Phillippe’s letter threatens that the RNC may not seat the entire Nevada delegation at the convention in Tampa if it has reason to believe that the Paul supporters have captured more delegate slots than the rules allow.

Benton, in an email exchange with HuffPost, wouldn’t name the last two states where the campaign has prospects and is competing hard for delegates. But there has been plenty of attention around the success of Paul’s supporters in Louisiana and Massachusetts over the past few days. In Louisiana, Paulites “dominated” the congressional district caucuses this past Saturday, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Paul’s supporters carried four of the state’s congressional districts, and are guaranteed at least 17 of 46 delegates in the Bayou State, with the potential to pick up more at the state convention on June 2.

The other state that Benton likely has his eye on is Colorado, where the Denver Post reported in mid-April that Paul supporters and Santorum backers combined forces to win a “stunning upset” at the state convention, guaranteeing that about half of the state’s 33 delegates will be for Paul in August.

And there are other states where Paul can pick up delegates, or where he has reportedly already picked off a few: Alaska, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Romney’s home state of Massachusetts is a special case. Because Romney won the popular vote in the state’s March 6 primary, all 38 delegates are bound by party rules to support him on the first ballot at the national convention. But in the congressional district conventions this past weekend, Paul supporters captured 16 delegate spots out of 27 that were elected (another 11 at-large delegates are elected at the state committee meeting on June 15).

If the RNC is concerned about Paul supporters from Nevada defying the rules on the first ballot in Tampa, that worry could extend to the Massachusetts delegates.

Despite the drama, it’s still not clear what immediate tangible benefit these delegates will yield for Paul and his devoted followers. Romney still appears to be set to reach 1,144 delegates, the number he needs to clinch the nomination.

But at the very least, Paul’s delegate total and the willingness of his supporters to vote for him on the floor in Tampa is certain to draw attention to his cause and his message of limited government. It seems somewhat unlikely that Paul would forego the chance to see his supporters give the GOP establishment fits on the convention floor, under a nationally televised microscope, simply to gain a better speaking slot at the four-day event.

So he may be simply building a movement with a view toward giving his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a head start for the 2016 race.

And some Republicans said he has already succeeded in pushing the Republican Party so far to the right on fiscal and budgetary matters that it has paid tangible dividends at the legislative level.

“There are a lot of establishment Republicans who need to thank Ron Paul for injecting a certain amount of courage to do what people always said needed to be done but where they also said, ‘How do we do that?’” Iowa state Rep. Erik Helland said.

Helland said that in 2011, the legislature “deappropriated” $500 million over three years from programs such as state-mandated pre-school, government employee benefits and other programs that usually cause an outcry. Helland, who is the majority whip, said that on the Monday after they announced the spending cuts, he got back to Des Moines and “braced” himself for news of outrage from other state representatives who had spent the weekend meeting with constituents.

“They came back and said, ‘We talked to our voters, they want to cut more,’” Helland said. “It was paradigm shifting. The voters started actually saying, ‘cut.’”

Helland said he gives credit to Paul, who has spent a lot of time in Iowa over the past several years, for changing the political culture.

“Paul staked out such an aggressive dialogue on cutting government that some of the steps we’ve taken in the legislature and at the federal level are possible because Ron Paul talked about it to the extent that it became politically palatable,” Helland said.

“Ron Paul is the most successful presidential candidate in the last couple decades, even though he hasn’t won the election,” he continued. “He has shaped the dialogue.”