Dr. Ron Paul believes that the problems facing the US health care system involve an over-involvement of government in health care, a flawed view of insurance by most Americans, third-party payers, an abundance of bureaucracy created by government and insurance agencies, and a need to reform the tort system.
In 2006, Congressman Paul noted that in 1973 Congress passed legislation establishing that all but the smallest companies must supply their employees with HMO options. He notes that while most people criticize HMOs, they don't realize they're the result of government requirements. He also notes this involvement by the government has led to the linking of health care and employment and establishes faulty practices such as allowing corporations to deduct health care costs, but not individuals.
During the 2008 campaign, Congressman Paul was vocal about the need for reform and his opposition to socialized medicine. He noted that this system has always failed. He also notes that the current system should be rejected. He notes that government involvement has led to inflation in the medical costs. As a solution, Congressman Paul supports health savings accounts, tax incentives for individuals, and allowing people to pay for their own health care and remove themselves from the third-party payer system of insurance and government involvement.
Congressman Paul has repeatedly asserted that although people have a right to their freedoms and a right to keep what they have earned, they don't have a right to stuff. Health care is a product and service provided by people. One group of people does not have the right to the labor of another. Health care is a good provided by people and is therefore not a right.
The current view of insurance is more of a prepaid service where people pay into a plan on a monthly basis and then receive care almost free of charge. Congressman Paul has asserted that the definition of insurance is an item that is purchased to offset risk. The risk people have is an accident such as a car wreck, a major surgery, or a major illness such as cancer, and insurance is purchased to offset those possibilities. He states that the flawed thinking that insurance should cover every illness and injury has led to a third payer system that is open to corruption and one of the greatest factors in driving up the price of health care.
Congressman Paul strongly opposed the 2009-2010 health care reform, noting that Congress should not attempt to solve every problem that the American people encounter and that the question should not be how the government can fix health care and not why government should fix health care. Congressman Paul asserted that the legislation was passed by relying on highly dubious budget predictions, faulty market assumptions, and outright fantasy. He notes that even if the plan were able to provide the services it promises to the people, it is still not affordable. Congressman Paul also noted that if the plan itself were so good, the government would not require thousands of new employees to ensure compliance, Americans would enter the program voluntarily. Congressman Paul also opposed the mandate to purchase insurance.
Congressman Paul also spoke out about the process used to pass the legislation and his opposition to deals which gave money to states in exchange for the votes of Senators. He also objected to the use of an Executive Order to ensure that no money from the plan went to pay for abortions. He asserted that Congress makes the law, not the President.
In addition to opposing the 2009-2010 health care reform, Congressman Paul also opposed the SCHIP reauthorization. He noted that greater government involvement in health care has never lowered costs.
Congressman Paul voted against the health care reform legislation each time it came up for a vote in the House. He voted against SCHIP reauthorization, and in favor of repealing the health care reform.
Congressman Paul has cosponsored legislation to repeal the health care reform, legislation to repeal the 1099 paperwork requirement imposed by the reform, and legislation to require that if a public system were enacted then all congressman must join the plan. Congressman Paul has also sponsored the "Private Option" for healthcare. This legislation would provide all Americans with a tax credit for 100 percent of health care expenses, allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines, allow for the rollover of money from flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts, remove the 7.5% threshold for tax deductions, and allow for easier importation of dugs.
As part of his 2012 health care plan, Congressman Paul has proposed the following items:
Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.
Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.
Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.
Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.
Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.
Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and remove government-imposed barriers to obtaining HSAs.
Stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.
Prevent federal bureaucrats from tracking every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave by prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for a national database of personal health information.
Controlling the Cost of Health Care
In August of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the rising health care costs.
Lowering the Cost of Health Care August 21, 2006
As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed.
Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary. We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage. While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program. The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families: HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
2008 Campaign Video
In May of 2007, Congressman Paul issued a campaign video to discuss health care. He addresses the role of corporations in the current system, the need for health savings accounts and choices, and government.
Kaiser Institute Interview
In September of 2007, Congressman Paul was interviewed by the Kaiser Institute on the subject of Health Care. He discusses the problems with the current system, the faulty viewpoint of insurance, and the over-involvement of government.
Congressional Control of Children's Health Care
In September of 2007, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the dangers of the government controlling children's health care.
Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous to Children
This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for. Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time. With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned.
Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting. Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected.
Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them. As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted. Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect.
My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs. We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.
Fighting Government Encroachment into Health Care
In May of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the need to fight the governments movement into the health care sector.
Fight Government Encroachment into Healthcare!
With a faltering economy, and skyrocketing costs, healthcare continues to be a critical issue for all Americans. Unfortunately government encroachment into the doctor/patient relationship is poised to exacerbate our problems with healthcare.
As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient's confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year.
Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?
For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.
I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?
With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.
The Cost of Medicine
In June of 2009, Congressman Paul appeared on CNN and spoke about his opposition to the proposed plan, and his opposition to socialized medicine. He notes that government involvement raises health care costs. He states that many of the cost problems are a result of government involvement. Congressman Paul then addresses the faulty idea that insurance should pay for everything.
Health Care is a Good, Not a Right
In July of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the fact that health care is not a right, but rather a commodity that must be purchased.
Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right
Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.
First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.
Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.
Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.
As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.
The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.
Campaign for Liberty Video
In July of 2009, Congressman Paul (an Obstetrician) spoke in a video about the health care system, what was wrong with it, and what is wrong with possible solutions. Within the video, Congressman Paul discusses how the increased involvement of government in health care has inflated the cost. He discusses the flawed definition of insurance in the medical industry and the rise of cost due to third party involvement.
In addition to discussing problems with the health care industry, Congressman Paul discusses the need to be able to opt out of any government program, and the need for tax cuts for health care.
Health Care Plan is Corporate Welfare
In August of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the health care plan in Congress. He refers to it as "corporate welfare."
Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare
Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President’s speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President’s concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.
For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation’s product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.
The stipulation that pre-existing conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100% of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.
Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not a bad thing, but it is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.
It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition.
What if just once Washington got out of the way and allowed the ingenuity of the American people to come up with a whole spectrum of alternatives to our broken system? Then the free market, not lobbyists and politicians, would decide which models work and which did not.
Unfortunately, the most broken aspect of our system is that Washington sees the need to act on every problem in society, rather than staying out of the way, or getting out of the way. The only tools the government has are force and favors. These are tools that many unscrupulous and lazy corporations would like to wield to their own advantage, rather than simply providing a better product that people will willingly buy. It seems the health insurance industry will get more of those advantages very soon.
Health Care Plan Based on Fantasy
In August of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to speak about the health care plan being considered in Congress. He states that the plan is based on economic fantasy.
Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy
As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore – and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don’t want to participate in the government’s scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare.
There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host. Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up.
The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough.
It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60’s and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system – making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government.
Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.
The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.
Competition with the Government
In November of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss why no entity can ever fully compete with a government funded program.
Competition With the Government?
Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill. If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country. Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse. Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences.
But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention. We see this not only in healthcare policy, but also in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in monetary policy - basically, in all areas of public policy. It was even claimed that the House bill would increase competition in healthcare, and thereby improve the private sector’s business model for insurance.
It is fascinating that politicians would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism. This demonstrates a couple of things. One, that politicians truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market. By definition, a free market is free from government intervention. But once a little intervention is accepted as legitimate, politicians will blame the problems created by their intervention on the free market and present themselves as saviors that must intervene even more.
It also demonstrates that politicians know that Americans still believe the free market is a good thing. People know and understand that competition among businesses is better for the consumer than a monopoly. However, competition between a private business and a government or government-favored entity is not real competition.
In real competition, your competitor can go bankrupt if they do a bad job. Everyone knows a government program is forever, no matter how poorly it performs. In real competition, efficiency is necessary for survival. In government programs, waste is rewarded as budgets are often determined by how much money a department is able to consume in a year. In real competition, one business does not have regulatory or taxation authority over its competitors. In real competition, businesses get sued and punished for breaking contracts and defrauding people, and are kept accountable in this way. But just try to sue the government when you are unjustly harmed by it!
The reason real competition is a good thing is because good businesses get bad ones out of the consumer’s way. Can the government put someone out of business? Most certainly! But it will have the opposite effect: an otherwise good business will be replaced by a poorly performing government agency, or a government-favored monolithic business that behaves almost like a government agency.
If Washington really wanted to give consumers more choices they would remove legislative and regulatory barriers to competition across state lines for health insurers. They would remove barriers for new and innovative models of healthcare and tort reform. They wouldn’t have run so many church and charitable hospitals out of business. Washington is keenly interested in healthcare reform, but it is certainly not going to increase competition or to expand your options for healthcare.
Floor Speech - Health Care
In September of 2009, Congressman Paul spoke on House floor about health care. He address the belief that health care is a right, discusses the role of government in health care and debasing the currency, and the tax code.
Freedom and Bureaucracy
In December of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the bureaucracy that will be formed by the new government health care program.
Healthcare Freedom or Healthcare Bureaucracy?
The U.S. Preventive Task Force caused quite a stir recently when they revised their recommendations on the frequency and age for women to get mammograms. Many have speculated on the timing for this government-funded report, with the Senate vote on health care looming, and cost estimates being watched closely. Just the hint that the government would risk women’s health to cut costs is causing outrage on both sides of the aisle.
Even the administration is alarmed at its own panel’s recommendation. One official, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius told women to ignore the new guidelines, keep doing what they are doing and make the best decisions for themselves after consulting with their doctors.
This sounds like an excellent idea to me. As a physician myself, I understand the importance of ensuring that patients are able to consult their doctors and make their own decisions without interference from government bureaucrats or government-favored corporations.
However, I am confused by the administration’s reasoning and apparent change of heart. Have they reversed their position on healthcare reform and now decided that patients and doctors should be in control of individual healthcare decisions? Or are they still in the healthcare central planning business? The healthcare reform plans currently aim to empower Congress to dictate to insurers minimal standards of coverage. Those government standards will ultimately be determined by politicians and bureaucrats, not individual patients and doctors.
It is naive to think that recommendations by an authoritative government panel will never be used to deny services to people that want them. It is sad to think that people will be forced to spend their hard-earned money for a one-size fits all, government mandated healthcare delivery model, but then have to scrape together additional funds to pay out of pocket for healthcare they really want or need – that is, if the government allows them to at all. After all, the federal government currently forbids Medicare beneficiaries from spending their own money on services covered by Medicare, if for whatever reason they need to. Why wouldn’t the government eventually apply these kinds of restrictions to everyone, if they are successful with this takeover? Beware of the supposed gifts offered to you by government, for when it gives you things with one hand, the other hand takes away your liberty and independence.
It remains to be seen what provisions will be in the final bill. We do know we have no funds to pay for it except for debt and money printed out of thin air. We know that the nation’s creditors are getting very nervous about the government’s continuous spending sprees and bailouts. We know this healthcare bill, like all government programs, will be expensive.
There will be a day of reckoning when the credit stops and the bills for all this spending come due. When that day comes and politicians and bureaucrats have to deal with reality, it will be very uncomfortable to find yourself in their liability column, which is where healthcare reform will put many more Americans.
Health Care Reform is a Lump of Coal
In December of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the passage of health care reform in the Senate.
Healthcare Reform is a Lump of Coal
Last week on Christmas Eve, after many backroom deals were made, the Senate passed the healthcare reform bill with a strictly partisan vote. I was pleased that my colleagues in the GOP are on the right side of this bill. Although this vote was a major step in healthcare reform becoming reality, they still have to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-passed version in conference committee. This could prove even more difficult and costly than the Senate vote.
There was a little bit of controversy surrounding one particular Senator who was initially against the bill, but then, coincidentally, a large amount of Medicare funding specifically for his state was tucked inside and he ended up voting for it. One wonders how much more of that will have to go on to achieve final passage.
But this is how politicians in Washington deal with problems: they throw your money at them. Healthcare reform is no different. The Senate version of the bill, at last count, will cost $871 billion. The House version tops $1 trillion. But they tell us this is for the health of Americans, and how dare we count the cost?
Such is the arrogance of politicians. There seems to be no end to the problems they feel capable and duty-bound to solve through legislative proclamation and plenty of your money. To hear them talk, one might think that a few words spoken on Capitol Hill would make problems just disappear. All it takes it good intentions.
But no good can come from 2400 pages of Washington’s good intentions.
I have observed quite the opposite throughout my political career in the House of Representatives, and fear that with this immense legislation, our healthcare problems are only just beginning. Over the last few decades, I have seen healthcare subjected to more and more creeping red tape that only creates bottlenecks and increases costs as new bureaucratic hurdles are put in place.
Politicians cannot solve the problems created by ever-increasing intervention by exponentially increasing their intervention. Similarly, they cannot improve the quality of healthcare and expand access to it for all Americans simply by legislative decree. If only it were that simple! The reality is the free market, when allowed to function, naturally increases access and drives prices down through competition. The free market keeps service providers accountable by allowing people to take their business elsewhere.
This government intervention will eventually create a near monopoly of providers in health insurance as smaller companies are squeezed out and innovation comes to a grinding halt due to formidable barriers to entry. The government will determine prices and levels of service that will apply to everyone, regardless of want or individual circumstances. The true insurance model of healthcare cost management, meaning major medical coverage only, will basically become illegal. Opting out of the system will incur heavy tax penalties.
Expanding government reach so deeply into this very sensitive area of our personal lives and such a major part of our economy means more opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse of the system. One need only remember the recent bailouts for an example of how government handles systemic waste, fraud and abuse.
So while the Senate patted itself on the back last week for delivering a Christmas gift to Americans, time will prove it was instead a great big lump of coal.
Health Care and Economic Realities
In March of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the passage of the health care reform and what he called outright fantasy used to pass the legislation.
Healthcare and Economic Realities
With passage of last week’s bill, the American people are now the unhappy recipients of Washington’s disastrous prescription for healthcare “reform.” Congressional leaders relied on highly dubious budget predictions, faulty market assumptions, and outright fantasy to convince a slim majority that this major expansion of government somehow will reduce federal spending. This legislation is just the next step towards universal, single payer healthcare, which many see as a human right. Of course, this “right” must be produced by the labor of other people, meaning theft and coercion by government is necessary to produce and distribute it.
Those who understand Austrian economic theory know that this new model of healthcare will cause major problems down the road, as it has in every nation that ignores economic realities. The more government involves itself in medicine, the worse healthcare will get: quality of care will diminish as the system struggles to contain rising costs, while shortages and long waiting times for treatment will become more and more commonplace.
Consider what would happen if car insurance worked the way health insurance does. What if it was determined that gasoline was a right, and should be covered by your car insurance policy? Perhaps every gas station would have to hire a small army of bureaucrats to file reimbursement claims to insurance companies for every tank of gas sold! What would that kind of system do to the costs of running a gas station? How would that affect the prices of both gasoline and car insurance? Yet this is exactly the type of system Congress is now expanding in health insurance. In a free market system, health insurance would serve as true insurance against serious injuries or illness, not as a convoluted system of third party payments for routine doctor visits and every minor illness.
While proponents of this reform continue to defy all logic and reason by claiming it will save money, I worry about cataclysmic economic events. Already investors are more reluctant to buy US Treasuries, fearing that the healthcare bill, along with other spending, will cause government debt to explode to default levels. I had the opportunity last week to address my concerns with both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, especially about the potential for the coming serious inflation. I am not optimistic that these important decision makers truly understand what is coming, why it is coming, and how best to deal with it.
The Federal Reserve finds itself in an unprecedented and unenviable position. To keep up with government spending and corporate irresponsibility, it has increased the monetary base by nearly $1.5 trillion since September of 2008. Excess bank reserves remain at historically high levels, and the Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to over $2 trillion. If the Fed pulls this excess liquidity out of the system, it risks collapsing banks that rely on the newly created money. However, if the Fed fails to pull this excess liquidity out of the system we risk tipping into hyperinflation. This is where central banking inevitably has led us.
The idea that a handful of brilliant minds can somehow steer an economy is fatal to economic growth and stability. The Soviet Union's economy failed because of its central economic planning, and the U.S. economy will suffer the same fate if we continue down the path toward more centralized control. We need to bring back sound money and free markets- yes, even in healthcare- if we hope to soften the economic blows coming our way.
Dismantling of the Constitution
In March of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to note the passage of the health care reform legislation through congress. Congressman Paul stated that it was a further dismantling of the Constitution.
Healthcare Reform Passes
Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.
Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can’t find a doctor.
Legislative hopes and dreams don’t always stand up well against economic realities.
Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.
Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.
CNN Interview
In March of 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on John King's Show on CNN. He discussed the inability of government to provide services as well as private entities, and then he addressed the belief that health care is a right.
Health Care will Drive the US to Bankruptcy
After the passage of health care reform in 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on RT and was asked about health care. He responds to a question about the right of health care and then states that the passed legislation will drive the country towards bankruptcy, is not viable, and will eventually be repealed because of this.
Discussion of Process
In March of 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox Business and discussed the procedural issues with the health care reform problem, and he again discussed the faulty belief that people have a right to health care. He also discussed the repeal of health care and that bankruptcy would be what finally ended government health care. When the discussion turned to abortion provisions in the legislation, Congressman Paul noted the futility of the Hyde amendment and that the real problem was that government is too involved in health care.
If it was a good program, you wouldn't need coercion
In March of 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox Business to discuss the health care reform legislation that has just passed Congress. He noted that if it was such a good program and everyone would like it, it wouldn't require an army of additional bureaucrats to enforce the law and force people into the system.
Executive Order on Abortion
In March of 2010, President Obama signed an executive order to prevent government funding of abortions through the 2009-2010 health care reform legislation. Congressman Paul discussed the issue on Fox News and noted the unconstitutionality of the President issuing a law through executive decree.
The Private Option
In May of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the need to remove government from the health care equation and proposed what he called a "private option."
Put Patients and Doctors Back in Control of Healthcare
Most everyone agrees that health care in the United States has major problems, the biggest problems relating to skyrocketing costs. No one doubts the system is in need of reform. However, too many in Washington see tighter government controls as the solution. In fact, the problems are rooted in past government controls that created more problems than they solved.
Ironically, laws and policies in the 1970’s promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from desperate attempts to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs took far too much control away from patients and physicians and gave it to the insurers. This excessive reliance on third-party payers instead removed incentives for insured patients to economize on health care costs, and allowed the problem to snowball. Furthermore, the third-party payer system created a two-tier health care system where people whose employers could afford to offer “Cadillac” plans have access to top quality health care, while others face financial obstacles in obtaining quality health care.
For these and other reasons, I introduced the Private Option Health Care Act last week. This bill places individuals back in control of health care by replacing the recently passed tax-spend-and-regulate health care law with reforms designed to restore a free market health care system.
First, the bill would provide all Americans with a tax credit for 100 percent of health care expenses. This tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. It would also allow individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs). Next, it would provide a tax credit for premiums for high-deductible insurance policies connected with a Health Savings Account (HSAs) and allow seniors to use funds in HSAs to pay for medigap policies. In addition, it would repeal the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, and thus would make all medical expenses tax deductible.
This bill would also create a competitive market in health insurance by exercising Congress’s Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. Ending these state-imposed bans would create a competitive national marketplace in health insurance.
The Private Option Health Care Act would also ensure that people harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while simultaneously reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. The bill achieves this by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. This type of insurance would provide compensation for any negative outcomes without having to go through lengthy litigation or giving huge sums to trial lawyers.
Finally, the Private Option Health Care Act would lower the prices of prescription drugs by reducing barriers to the importation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve it unless it is either not approved for use in the United States or is adulterated or misbranded.
The Private Option Health Care Act allows Congress to correct the mistake it made last month by replacing the new health care law with health care measures that give control to individuals, instead of the federal government and corporations. Our health is too vital to allow for the typical results of government interference and “fixes”.
Ending the Mandate
In April of 2010, Congressman Paul put forth legislation to end the mandate in the 2009-2010 health care reform legislation. In May of 2010, the Congressman used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the legislation and the need to end the mandate.
End the Mandate
Last week I introduced a very important piece of legislation that I hope will gain as much or more support as my Audit the Fed bill. HR 4995, the End the Mandate Act will repeal provisions of the newly passed health insurance reform bill that give the government the power to force Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance.
The whole bill is rotten, but this provision especially is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives it the power to do this. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance. Not only is it unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.
The new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim. First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.
Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes it more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasing subsidies for more and more Americans, adding astronomically to our debt burden. An insurance mandate undermines the entire principle of what insurance is supposed to measure – risk.
Another likely response to rising costs is the imposition of price controls on medical treatments, and limits on what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will have to reimburse. This is happening in other countries where government is intrinsically involved in these decisions and people suffer and die because of it.
This will only increase the bottom line of the very insurers the legislation was supposed to control. Meanwhile, alternate methods of healthcare delivery and financing, such as concierge doctors, alternative medicine, or physician owned hospitals will be greatly harmed, if not put out of business altogether, when the entire country is forced into the insurance model. It will be difficult for families to come up with extra money to pay for alternate healthcare of their choice when their budget has been squeezed by this mandate to buy insurance. This will in turn reduce competition for healthcare dollars. Health insurers, like many other corporations in other industries, have now used the legislative process anti-competitively to corner the healthcare market. Instead of calling this socialized medicine, we should call it corporatized medicine, since the reform is to force us all into being customers of these corporations, whether we like it or not.
Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. It is time for legislation that fights back for the freedom of the people on this issue. It is time to End the Mandate.
In June of 2010, Congressman Paul released a press statement noting his support for legislation to end the mandate in health care reform.
Paul Pleased by Floor Vote on "End the Mandate" For Immediate Release June 15, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Paul was gratified today when House Republicans forced a vote on the floor to strip the most authoritarian measure from the new healthcare reform law - the requirement that every American buy government-approved health insurance or face stiff IRS penalties. Essentially, today’s resolution adopted Paul’s “End the Mandate” legislation (HR 4995) as a motion to recommit on a related tax bill.
The motion failed with a final vote count of 230 nays and 187 yeas, with a significant number of Democrats crossing party lines to vote yea.
Though the “End the Mandate” vote did not succeed in reversing this odious measure, it is a positive sign for renewed and ongoing efforts to prevent America from moving closer to a government-run healthcare system.
“I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues in agreement with me about the health insurance mandate. With so many in Congress on both sides of the aisle willing to continue this fight, my hope is that we won’t give up until this provision, and many others, are repealed,” stated Congressman Paul.
South Carolina Debate
In May of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican debate in South Carolina. He talks about his views on tort reform and medical reform.
New Hampshire Debate
In June of 2010, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican Primary debate in New Hampshire. He was asked about Medicare and it's solvency. He notes that the average couple gets much more out of the system than they put into it and it cannot be made solvent without revamping it. He argued for allowing people to opt out of the system.
QUESTION: Yes, sir. As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I've been contributing to Medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. How do you propose to keep Medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond?
KING: Let's start with Dr. Paul on this one.
PAUL: Well, under these conditions, it's not solvent and won't be solvent. You know, if you're -- if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into -- into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much.
So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine.
And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.
And that's why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.
But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just -- you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?
Iowa Debate
In August of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa. He was asked about the constitutionality of an individual mandate and stated that he saw no authority in the constitution for the mandate. He also supports health care savings accounts.
WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you are a constitutional expert, and you talk a lot about the Constitution. What do you think of this argument, that the state has a constitutional right to make someone buy a good or service just because they're a resident, not because they're driving and need a driver's license, but just the fact that they are a resident?
PAUL: No, the way I would understand the Constitution, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things. And I would consider that a very bad thing, but you don't send in a federal police force because they're doing it and throw them in a court. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution.
But we have big trouble in this medical care problem. And we have drifted so far from any of our care being delivered by the marketplace. And once you get the government involved -- and both parties have done it. They've developed a bit of a medical care delivery system based on corporatism. The corporations are doing quite well, whether it's Obama or under the Republicans.
The drug companies do well. The insurance companies do well. The organized medicine do well. The management companies do well. The patient and the doctors suffer. There's a wedge. Every time you have the government get in here with these regulations, and have these mandates, there's a wedge driven in between the doctor and the patient.
We have to get the people more control of their care, and that's why these medical savings accounts could at least introduce the notion of market delivery of medical care. (APPLAUSE)
Reagan Library Debate
In September of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican debate at the Reagan Library. He spoke about health care and mandates.
HARRIS: Thank you. Congressman Paul, another question from a Politico reader. Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage? Would that create more jobs?
PAUL: Absolutely. And it would help the poor, the people who need a job. The minimum wage is a mandate. We're against mandates, so why should we have it? No, it would be very beneficial.
But I was trying to get your attention a little while ago. There's eight of us up here. I'm a physician, but you sure weren't going to ask me any medical question. But I would like to address that just a little bit.
First off, you know, the governor of Texas criticized the governor of Massachusetts for Romneycare, but he wrote a really fancy letter supporting Hillarycare. So we probably ought to ask him about that.
But mandates, that's what the whole society is about. That's what we do all the time. That's what government does: mandate, mandate, mandate. And what we -- we talk so much about the Obama mandate, which is very important, but what about Medicare? Isn't that a mandate? Everything we do is a mandate. So this is why you have to look at this at the cause of liberty. We don't need the government running our lives.
And I -- I do want to address the subject of $2 oil or gasoline, because I can do it much better than that. I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime.
HARRIS: Time. Time. Thank you, Congressman.
PAUL: Well, I've got to finish the sentence. You didn't give me time before.
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: These are rules that all of you agreed to that Brian...
ROMNEY: Let's hear that.
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: Finish the sentence, or you're all done?
PAUL: OK, I'm going to finish the sentence then. HARRIS: Quickly, please.
PAUL: OK, you can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations.
TEA Party Debate
In September of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the TEA party debate for the Republican primary. He is asked a number of health care related questions and states that he would not immediately end Medicare part D, and discusses personal responsibiity and health care.
BLITZER: Congressman Paul, what about you? Would you repeal it?
PAUL: Well, we shouldn't have never started it. I voted against it. But that sure wouldn't be on my high list. I would find a lot of cuts a lot of other places. As a matter of fact, on Social Security, it is already being reformed, because the cost of living increases aren't there, so the value is going down.
So, no, there's places we should cut. And we cut -- we spend -- and I'm not sure I can get anybody to agree with me on here -- on this panel, but we spend $1.5 trillion overseas in wars that we don't need to be in and we need to cut there...
(APPLAUSE)
... and then put this money back into our economy here. And that is the only way to achieve it. Then it still wouldn't be enough in order to get some people out. What we need to do is cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and all these departments, and get rid of them.
(APPLAUSE)
Then we can do it.
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --
BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.
The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.
PAUL: There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.
The Western Debate
In October of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Western Debate in Las Vegas. He was asked if there was any part of Obamacare that he would support. He said that he supported no growth or intrusion into the health care market.
COOPER: And welcome back to the continuing debate. We got a Twitter question. We ended talking about medicine, Obamacare. We actually have a Twitter question about it. It was a question left at CNN debate.
If Obama's health plan is bad for the U.S., what is the alternative, and how will you implement it?
Congressman Paul, is there any aspect of Obamacare that you would like to keep, whether it's keeping kids to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 or no pre-existing conditions?
PAUL: Really not, because he's just adding on more government. There's been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be talking about which kind of government management is best. Our problem is we have too much. We've had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare. We have prescription drug programs. We have Medicaid.
And what we need -- I mean, there's a pretty good support up here for getting rid of Obamacare, because it's a Democratic proposal, and we want to opt out. I think we'd all agree on this.
But if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine. And... (APPLAUSE)
And the way to do this is to not de-emphasize the medical savings account, but let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship. There is inflation worked into it. When a government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with. And we need more competition in medicine.
But the most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and getting it out of the hands of the third party. As soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, these insurance companies line up. And even with Obamacare, the industries, the corporations get behind it and affect the outcome, and already insurance premiums are going up.
Michigan Economic Debate
On November 10, 2011 Congressman Paul participated in the Michigan Economic Debate. He was asked about Obamacare and discussed the need to remove the government from the market.
BARTIROMO: That's time.
We want to get each of your comments on what the plan is.
Ron Paul?
PAUL: We need to get the government out of the business, and we do need to have the right to opt out of "Obama-care." But we ought to have the right to opt out of everything. And the answer to it is turn it back over to the patient and the doctor relationship with medical savings accounts.
So I would say that we have had too much government. I have been in medicine, it has gone downhill. Quality has gone down. Prices have skyrocketed because of the inflation. So you need to get a market force in there, a medical savings account.
But this mess has been created -- it's a bipartisan mess. So it has been there for a while. So what we need is the doctor-patient relationship and medical savings account where you can deduct it from your taxes and get a major medical policy. Prices then would come down.
2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements
“DO NO HARM”
Dr. Ron Paul spent his entire career in the medical profession working to uphold this simple principle by ensuring his patients received the best care he could give them, even if they could not afford it.
Dr. Paul understands the key to effective and efficient medical care is the doctor-patient relationship. Yet, federal bureaucrats continue to believe that their one-size-fits-all policies will lower costs, increase access, and cure an ailing industry.
Instead, excessive regulation, immoral mandates, and short-sighted incentives have created a system where no one is happy, doctors pass quickly from one patient to the next, insurance is expensive to get and difficult to maintain, and politicians place corporate interests ahead of their constituents.
FREEDOM NOT FORCE
The answer to our nation’s health care crisis lies in freedom – not force.
As President, Ron Paul will fight to put you back in control of your health care decisions, save you money on medical expenses, and institute reforms that will once again make America’s health care system the standard for other nations to follow.
He will work with Congress to:
* Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.
* Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.
* Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.
* Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.
* Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
* Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.
* Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.
* Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and remove government-imposed barriers to obtaining HSAs.
* Stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.
* Prevent federal bureaucrats from tracking every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave by prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for a national database of personal health information.
Ron Paul proudly worked every day to honor the trust his patients placed in him, and he will do the same as President with the confidence of the American people, who deserve a government that “does no harm” to their health care.
Voting Record
Repeal of Health Care Reform
In early 2011, the House voted on repealing the 2009-2010 health care reform legislation, called "Obamacare" by its opponents. Ron Paul voted in favor of repealing the health care legislation.
Ron Paul voted in favor of repealing the health care legislation.
2009-2010 Health Care Reform - Amendments
There were three significant votes on the health care reform legislation in the house. The first passed the house version, the second passed the reconciliation bill, and the third passed a bill to address "problems" in the original bills. This vote passed amendments to address the problems with the reconciliation bill. Ron Paul voted against the health care amendments for the House and Senate bills.
Ron Paul voted against the health care amendments for the House and Senate bills.
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
In March of 2010 the House voted on the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The legislation was to pass the health care reform through the reconciliation process. No Republicans voted for the legislation and 22 Democrats voted against the bill. The bill passed 220-207. Ron Paul voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Ron Paul voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
2009-2010 Health Care Reform - Reconciliation
After a separate version of health care reform passed in the Senate, the Democrats lost the 60 seats they needed to break a Republican filibuster. To pass the reform bill, the House passed a reconciliation bill that would allow the House and Senate versions to be combined without a separate verion passing the Senate. Ron Paul voted against the health care reconciliation bill.
Ron Paul voted against the health care reconciliation bill.
2009-2010 Health Care Reform Bill
The Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962) was the version that passed the House. It was supported by most Democrats and only 1 Republican. Ron Paul voted against the original health care reform bill.
Ron Paul voted against the original health care reform bill.
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act sets up health requirements for tobacco products, sets labeling guidelines, requires tobacco companies to report the content of their products, and prescribes punishements for violating any rules. The measure passed the House 298-112. Ron Paul voted against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
Ron Paul voted against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
SCHIP
In addition to attempting overall health care reform, congress re-authorized SCHIP in 2009. SCHIP is a program to provide children with health care and fund it through tobacco taxes. The program passed with the full support of Democrats and roughly 1/4 of the Republicans. Ron Paul voted against SCHIP.
Ron Paul voted against SCHIP.
Medicare Part D - Final Vote
After the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 passed the Senate, it came back for a final vote in the House. It passed the House in final form 220-215. Ron Paul voted against medicare part D when it passed the House in final form.
Ron Paul voted against medicare part D when it passed the House in final form.
Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act. Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act's enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act's health care provisions.
Rescinds any unobligated balance of funds made available for the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund under the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal a provision (added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that extends to corporations that are not tax-exempt the requirement to report payments of $600 or more.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow a tax deduction from gross income for the cost of health insurance coverage for individual taxpayers, their spouses, and dependents; (2) permit holders of health savings accounts (HSAs) and their spouses who are age 55 or older to make additional (catch-up) contributions to a joint HSA; (3) increase the allowable amount of the tax deduction for contributions to HSAs; (4) combine individual and family deductibles under high deductible health insurance plans; (5) allow for increased rollovers from flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) into HSAs; (6) allow the payment of premiums from HSAs for high deductible health plans; and (7) treat as medical care for purposes of the tax deduction for medical expenses certain exercise equipment and fees for physical fitness programs.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal a provision (added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that extends to corporations that are not tax-exempt the requirement to report payments of $600 or more.
Prohibits the Committee on Rules from reporting a rule or order that provides for disposition of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA]) unless it provides for: (1) at least one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader; and (2) a requirement that the Speaker put the question on disposition of the Senate amendments and that the yeas and nays be considered as ordered thereon.
Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions.
Urges Members of Congress who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
Amends Internal Revenue Code provisions relating to health savings accounts (HSAs) to: (1) allow HSAs to incorporate flexible spending and health reimbursement arrangements; (2) increase the annual HSA contribution limitation; (3) permit the use of HSAs to purchase health insurance; (4) allow the payment of certain medical expenses incurred before the establishment of an HSA; (5) allow veterans eligible for service-connected disability benefits to establish an HSA; and (6) allow spouses to make increased catch-up contributions to a single HSA.
