Put patients and doctors back in control of healthcare

Posted By Ron Paul On June 1, 2010 (4:59 pm) In Voices and Choices

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”.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• October 20, 2009 — Obama commits $3.5 billion for “Agricultural aid” (0)
• May 27, 2010 — Libertarians to elect new chairman at national convention (0)
• September 11, 2008 — Rethinking the government’s War on Drugs (2)
• August 24, 2009 — Official: White House sets up interrogation unit (0)
• March 5, 2010 — Race for San Francisco’s 8th District, John Dennis vs. Nancy Pelosi (1)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/06/put-patients-and-doctors-back-in-control-of-healthcare/

 

Socialism vs Corporatism

Posted By Ron Paul On April 30, 2010 (1:07 pm) In Voices and Choices

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama’s “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• March 9, 2009 — Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility (0)
• May 17, 2008 — Three peas in a pod (0)
• July 16, 2009 — US designates $1.8 billion for Swine Flu prevention (1)
• August 12, 2009 — Untangling the Spaghetti – Obama’s end game (0)
• May 12, 2009 — Army Sergeant kills five fellow soldiers in Iraq (7)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/04/socialism-vs-corporatism/

 

Ron Paul’s “audit the fed bill” compromised in Senate

Ron Paul’s “audit the fed bill” compromised in Senate
Posted By Steve Adcock On May 7, 2010 (10:55 am) In Voices and Choices

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) expressed disappointment that his landmark legislation to audit the Federal Reserve Bank- which passed by a wide margin in the House Financial Services committee and has over 319 House co-sponsors- was threatened by a compromise in the Senate today.

More specifically, Paul’s language (passed by the House) to audit the Federal Reserve has been stripped from the Sanders Amendment to the Senate financial reform bill. Instead, the Sanders Amendment now contains softer compromise language that exempts monetary policy decisions, discount window operations, and agreements with foreign central banks from Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) audit.

This is of particular concern when several countries such as Greece, Portugal, and Spain are seeking IMF help in the midst of their financial crises, because American taxpayers provide fully 17% of all IMF funding.

“Taxpayers are weary of bailing out privileged banks and corporations in the US, and we certainly cannot afford to bail out entire countries. The possibility of this happening behind a veil of Federal Reserve secrecy is not acceptable,” stated Congressman Paul. “This compromise language represents a huge missed opportunity by Congress to finally make the Fed accountable for trillions of taxpayer dollars it administers. Full transparency, via a full GAO audit, is the only acceptable option. However, I am grateful to Senator Vitter for offering the original full audit language in an alternative amendment to the bill.”

The above was taken from an official Ron Paul press release.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• March 4, 2010 — Using “reconciliation” to smash through unpopular legislation (0)
• August 6, 2009 — Sotomayor confirmation a defeat for individual, property, gun rights (0)
• October 23, 2008 — With $605 million already, Obama wants more (0)
• November 12, 2009 — DeMint unveils Congressional term limits amendment (0)
• August 31, 2009 — Libertarians look to fill the void of liberty in U.S. (0)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/pauls-audit-the-fed-bill-compromised-in-senate/

 

Obama speaks to grads about government

Posted By Neal Boortz On May 3, 2010 (7:09 am) In Voices and Choices

Barack Obama delivered a commencement address to the University of Michigan over the weekend. How would you sum up Obama’s speech? All of this “anti-government” rhetoric is bad for our “democracy.” First let’s address this issue of democracy. Here’s what Obama had to say:

Moreover, democracy in a nation of more than three hundred million people is inherently difficult. It has always been noisy and messy; contentious and complicated. We have been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the day the Framers gathered in Philadelphia. We have battled over the meaning of individual freedom and equality since the Bill of Rights was drafted. As our economy has shifted emphasis from agriculture to industry to information and technology, we have argued and struggled at each and every juncture over the best way to ensure that all of our citizens have a shot at opportunity …

What is amazing is that despite all the conflict; despite all its flaws and frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any other form of government on Earth …

And now the question for your generation is this: how will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and well in this century?

What is the problem with today’s politicians? Why do they insist on trying to mis-educate yet another generation of Americans with this idea that we are a democracy? If you’ve been listening to me for any length of time you will know .. and you’ll be among the very few that do know .. .that it was NEVER the intention of our founding fathers to create a democracy. They despised democracy. They feared democracy. They feared democracy much the same way a man in jail, wrongfully accused, would fear a lynch mob. I hate to be the one to break this to you, if you haven’t already figured it out, but we do not live in a democracy … and for this you should be eternally grateful. IF you search the founding documents of this country – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution – you will notice that the word “democracy” appears nowhere in these documents. This is because it was a dirty word. Remember that according to historian Joseph Ellis in his book “A History of the American People,” “… the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’” What a beautiful definition .. if that doesn’t fit the Democrat Party, and quite a few members of the Republican Party, than no phrase possibly could.

Are you wondering why politicians now settle on the word “democracy” instead of “Republic” when they define America? They do it for the same reason Illinois Democrat Congressman Phil Hare screamed “I don’t care about the Constitution” at a town hall meeting full of constituents angry over ObamaCare. These people truly don’t care about the rule of law and they don’t care about any provision in the Constitution that deprives them of power and authority. To these dangerous fools the Constitution is a hindrance – an inconvenient document that gets in the way of politicians who want to grow the federal government and to enhance their own power. A politician like Hare shouting “I don’t care about the Constitution” to the crowd needs a reason – some color of authority for his actions. That reason is the will of the masses; the will of the majority. These politicians will excuse every excess, every raw grab for power, every new government wealth seizure and redistribution program on the basis that this is what the people want, and to hell with the rule of law. There’s a reason democracy is called “the tyranny of the majority,” and the sooner Americans figure that out the better the chances of saving our Republic.

Rather than Obama’s comments about preserving democracy he should be promoting a return to Constitutional principals and the rule of law, not of me. Don’t hold your breath

Obama had more for the new graduates … he went on to demonize the ‘anti-government’ rhetoric currently prevailing around this nation – that means you, you tea partiers. Here’s what he had to say:

But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad … For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

The truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades between more government and less government doesn’t really fit the times in which we live. We know that too much government can stifle competition, deprive us of choice, and burden us with debt. But we’ve also seen clearly the dangers of too little government – like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.

So what we should be asking is not whether we need a “big government” or a “small government,” but how we can create a smarter, better government. …

The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning – since after all, why should we listen to a “fascist” or “socialist” or “right wing nut?” It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

Compromise? Oh, I get it. We’re supposed to sit down and talk with those who ignore the Constitution and promote mob rule. Can’t you imagine that conversation? “OK, you can ignore this section of the Constitution if you will promise to honor this other section over there. Then in a couple of years we’ll sit down and negotiate whether or not we really want to adhere to that section of the constitution after all … ” This process will go on forever. You either honor our Constitution or you don’t. Where’s the negotiation room?

Let’s address this idea of government being inherently evil. If you were educated in a government school and/or if you are a Democrat who loves government … you can’t, for the life of you, understand why people wouldn’t like big government — not government, BIG government. Look at all the great things it does for us! Look at all it does to protect us! Look at all it does to make things fair! Now, if I had been giving this speech to the University of Michigan (no, I wasn’t asked), I would have had essentially the opposite message from Barack Obama about our government. Something to the effect of this ..

Be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government when it assaults liberty. Government is force. Government is the ONLY entity in our society that can use force to accomplish its goals. Whenever in your life you encounter a person or an entity that is legally empowered to use force to accomplish virtually any goal it sets for itself .. be afraid, and resolve to defend yourself when necessary.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• June 22, 2009 — US government’s climate con-job (0)
• February 5, 2009 — Obama sets the definition of “excessive” (1)
• June 17, 2007 — Not our fathers’ America (0)
• May 6, 2009 — Stopping Truth at the Border: Banning Michael Savage from Britain (0)
• January 27, 2010 — And, now, for some good news (0)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/obama-speaks-to-grads-about-government/

 

Congress freezes its own pay

Posted By Ron Paul On May 3, 2010 (10:13 am) In Voices and Choices

Last week Congress did something fiscally responsible. It’s not very often I can say that. Granted, it was small in the grand scheme of things, but I was glad to be an original cosponsor, along with Congressman Harry Mitchell of Arizona, of a bill to block the automatic pay raise that Congress otherwise receives every year. Every Member of Congress gets this raise unless it is expressly voted down. For the second year in a row Congress has voted to freeze its own pay, which, in a time of skyrocketing deficits and high unemployment, is the very least Congress can do.

The country is in a serious recession, bordering on depression. Unemployment is grossly underreported, and not likely to get better anytime soon. American citizens and businesses are overtaxed, yet tax revenues still fall far short of our government’s voracious appetite for spending. This is no time to raise taxes. And since congressional salaries come from tax revenue, allowing ourselves a raise would fly in the face of economic reality.

Of course, Congress ignores economic reality all the time. But if Congress can freeze salaries as a first step towards fiscal sanity, it can freeze- if not drastically cut- a vast array of federal expenditures.

At the very least, Congress could freeze current spending levels, instead of constantly increasing them. We could stop increasing the debt ceiling every few months, as has become our habit. We could freeze regulations that add to the burden on our struggling small businesses. We could freeze intrusive bailouts that upset the balance of the market and cost us billions – billions we could instead use to eliminate the oppressive income tax! We could freeze the money supply and stave off the tsunami of inflation the Fed has been generating for years.

Furthermore, we could address the mismanagement and waste in foreign affairs which adds immensely to our budget. Like entitlements, militarism is expensive. We need to reject sanctions as a precursor to military action, and embrace free trade as the most effective method for spreading liberty. After all, as the great economist Frederic Bastiat said – when goods don’t cross borders, armies will. It is time to bring our troops home, instead of instigating expensive new wars when we’re already hopelessly mired in several conflicts already. We need to rethink the whole idea of pre-emptive war- not only because it’s wrong and counterproductive, but because we literally cannot afford it!

We could do much to restore fiscal sanity to this country simply by stopping the madness and bringing our troops home – from Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Germany, and so many other places. This costly global empire does not serve the interests of the American people and we should end it peacefully and voluntarily now, lest it end in chaos later.

Though it may be wishful thinking on my part, I’m encouraged by the small step taken by Congress last week. Fiscal sanity can begin with a small step, and I want to encourage Congress to move in this direction.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• July 14, 2009 — US budget deficit tops $1 trillion (0)
• January 23, 2009 — Geithner accused of lying about tax cheating (0)
• March 19, 2010 — White House pushing amnesty and national ID cards (0)
• February 16, 2010 — Are US taxpayers bailing out Greece? (0)
• January 17, 2010 — Not exactly Mother Teresa (0)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/congress-freezes-its-own-pay/

 

Ron Paul leads charge to halt Congressional pay raise

Posted By Steve Adcock On May 3, 2010 (6:33 am) In Voices and Choices

For the third consecutive year, Congressional pay raises have been halted due in part to a charge lead by Representative Ron Paul and Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell, arguing that Congressional pay raises are not appropriate while Americans continue to struggle.

Texas Representative Ron Paul 

“We should not be padding our pocketbooks when our constituents are still tightening their belts and losing their jobs,” stated Ron Paul. “As well, we could continue with this symbolic first step and stop increasing taxes, expanding the federal budget, and spreading our military so thin. These additional measures would do much to begin our economic recovery.”

The move will save American taxpayers $850,000 next year. The base pay for members of Congress stands at $174,000 with Congressional leaders earning more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earns $223,500.

Pay raises for Congress in the midst of economic uncertainty are clearly unpopular, and some members of Congress are taking the pay raise halt one step further. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona wants to cut Congressional pay next year by $8,700.  Former Rep. Nathan Deal proposed a plan that will slash pay for members of Congress each year the government runs a deficit.  Rep. Darrell Issa supports getting rid of the automatic pay increase entirely and instead opting for an “independent commission” that manages Congressional salaries, including raises.

In Congress, pay raises are automatically applied unless voted down by members of the Senate and House. This year, the Senate was first to vote down their pay raise, followed by the House.  The measure still needs to be signed by President Obama.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• October 12, 2009 — $96 million to move horses from west to east (0)
• January 1, 2009 — Israeli troops mass near Gaza border (0)
• December 21, 2009 — Health care reform: All it takes is borrowed money (1)
• July 30, 2009 — Conyers wants to make health care a Constitutional right (0)
• May 6, 2009 — Large banks continue asking for taxpayer money (0)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/ron-paul-leads-charge-to-halt-congressional-pay-raise/

 

National poll shows support for Arizona immigration law

Phoenix Business Journal – by Mike Sunnucks

A national poll shows 59 percent of Americans support Arizona’s controversial new immigration law.

Rasmussen Reports asked 500 voters nationwide if they “favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.” The language of the question mirrors Arizona’s new immigration law, which allows police to detain undocumented immigrants on trespassing charges.

Fifty-nine percent of those polled said they favored the idea, while 32 percent opposed it.

Rasmussen polls of Arizona voters last week showed two-thirds backed the new law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

The national poll, conducted May 2-3, also showed immigration protesters were viewed unfavorably by 50 percent of respondents. Twenty-five percent had a favorable view of immigration protesters, while 26 percent were not sure of their opinion.

Read more: National poll shows support for Arizona immigration law – Phoenix Business Journal:

 

Crime Inc.

Read the Glenn Beck article provided by Fox News here.

 

The FCIC: Passing the buck

Posted By Ron Paul On April 13, 2010 (6:50 am) In Voices and Choices

Last week the federal government’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission held hearings as part of their continuing investigation into the causes of the acute economic meltdown which occurred in late summer 2008. This bipartisan commission, partly inspired by the Pecora Commission- which investigated the causes of the Great Depression- is expected to report back to Congress before the end of the year.

Things don’t seem to be going well. The individuals questioned by the commission mostly seem to be diverting blame for the whole fiasco to someone else. Nobody is offering any tangible insights into the causes of the financial crisis.

Predictably, the commission will avoid calling any witnesses who might unequivocally indict the federal government for its role in the crisis, or suggest solutions which take away government power. Government commissions have a remarkable tendency to recommend granting even more power to the same useless government agencies that so utterly fail to prevent crises in the first place. We saw this with the Pecora Commission, we saw it after 9-11, and we’re seeing it again today with regard to financial regulations. For example, this latest commission almost certainly will suggest granting more power to the SEC, when in fact the SEC should be abolished as an embarrassing farce. Rest assured that this recommendation will be made without apology or sense of irony.

The reality is that the Federal Reserve relentlessly expanded the money supply through artificially low interest rates for over two decades, and this expansion of easy money caused a wholly predictable bubble. To a myopic Keynesian regulator, the bubble may appear to be caused by greed, but in truth it is completely predictable that humans will act in their own perceived self interest. If the Fed wants to dole out artificially cheap money, people and businesses- including Wall Street businesses- will line up to take it. We can condemn this as greed, but the fundamental problem is Fed policy itself. There will always be demand for cheap money, but we should not allow the Fed to debase our currency and create bubbles of false prosperity to satisfy that demand.

What the commission really needs are experts who understand free market economics rather than big government Keynesian fantasies. The commission has none of these, and has called no true free market witnesses. That perspective would only distract from their predetermined goals.

The commission will bemoan the complexity and inscrutability of our economic problems, but the solution is simple: allow freedom to operate in our markets. Allow U.S. financial, labor, and housing markets to normalize without political interference. Though solution is simple, and rather obvious, it would not be easy or painless, but we’d be so much better off for it in the long run. It would require admitting fiat money is a tangled web of monetary deception prone to catastrophic failure. It would require allowing Americans to choose a system of sound money, where the money supply and interest rates are set by market forces rather than centralized economic planners. Unfortunately, fiat money is like a drug to a Congress hopelessly addicted to spending vastly more than the Treasury collects in revenues. Because of this, our problems can only get worse and more complex before they get better.

 

Ron Paul makes case for ending health care mandate

Posted By Steve Adcock On April 15, 2010 (8:24 am) In Voices and Choices

SOUTHERN ARIZONA – Small government activist and Texas Representative Ron Paul has introduced a bill that would reverse the health care mandate that was passed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this month, calling it a “blatant violation of the Constitution”.

“Defenders of this provision claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives Congress the power to mandate every American obtain a federally-approved health insurance plan,” Paul said on the House floor on Tuesday.  ”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.”

The new health care law requires that all Americans carry “minimum essential coverage”, which places additional requirements on businesses and individuals to pay for “approved” coverage plans based on the number of employees in the company, incomes and several other factors.

“When the cost of government–mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals, small employers, and the government,  Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments  mandatory insurance will reimburse,” Paul argued.

“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.”