June 30th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – On Thursday, Congressman Ron Paul introduced new legislation aimed at helping Americans provide for their children’s health care costs. The “Family Health Tax Cut Act” provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for the health care expenses of dependent children. If the child has a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other condition requiring specialized care, parents would receive a tax credit up to $3,000 a year. Paul said the legislation would be of great benefit to all working families, especially those without health insurance.
“The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for employees” said Paul. “These workers must struggle to pay for the medical bills of their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition, such as cancer or a physical disability, which requires long-term or specialized health care.”
Paul, an OB-GYN who has delivered more than four thousand babies during his career, said he knows first-hand the importance of adequate health care for children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in Congress’ failure to allow individuals the same deduction for health care costs that it grants to businesses.
Paul said, “Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the ‘Family Health Tax Cut Act’, they would be able to provide care for their children. Our nation’s already overcrowded emergency room facilities would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who currently cannot afford any other alternative.”
According to research on the effects of the “Family Health Tax Cut Act”, benefits of the tax credits would be enjoyed by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 a year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 per year. Paul said it is clear this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans who currently are forced to balance high taxes with the needs of their children.
“Under my bill, a struggling single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs, while a working-class family would not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization,” said Paul. “This Congress has a moral responsibility to provide low-income parents tax relief in order to help them better meet their children’s medical expenses. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the ‘Family Health Tax Cut Act’.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 30th, 2000
<br />
THE FAMILY HEALTH TAX CUT ACT<br />
Mr. Speaker, today I attempted to help working Americans provide for their children’s health care needs by introducing the Family Health Tax Cut Act. The Family Health Tax Cut Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child’s health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions.
The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide their employees health insurance. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition, such as cancer or a physical disability, which requires long-term or specialized health care.
As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code: Congress’ failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress’ refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes their only recourse to health care is the local emergency room.
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Family Health Tax Cut Act they would be better able to provide care for their children and our nation’s already overcrowded emergency room facilities would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford any other alternative.
According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above 18,000 dollars a year or single income filers with incomes slightly above 15,000 dollars per year. Clearly this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.
Under the Family Health Tax Cut Act, a struggle single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs; while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child tax relief in order to help them better meet their child’s medical expenses. I would ask any of my colleagues who would say that we cannot enact the Family Tax Cut Act because it would cause the government to lose too much revenue, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working-class parents of a sick child?
The Family Health Tax Cut Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Family Health Tax Cut Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 29th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Reacting to news that a compromise had been reached on the “Nethercutt language,” which would ease trading restrictions against Cuba, Congressman Ron Paul praised the agreement. “By permitting more trade with Cuba while maintaining a ban against subsidizing such trade, we are taking a serious step in the direction of true free trade,” Paul said.
The language is named after Representative George Nethercutt of Washington, who, along with Paul, has been working to open trade with Cuba. “If the original language was the Nethercutt proposal, I’d like to think of this as the ‘Paul compromise.’ That is because what this amounts to is the acceptance of many of the principles in my bill H.R. 1181, which I introduced in March of last year to lift the trade embargo on Cuba,” stated Paul.
The compromise is expected to be contained in legislation to come to the House Floor soon. “We have a long way to go in reforming agricultural policy in this country and in ending these embargoes that hurt American farmers, but passing the principles contained in my H.R. 1181 amounts to a good first step and a victory for Texas farmers,” concluded Paul.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 29th, 2000
<br />
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000<br />
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. It is an imperfect rule, but this bill needs to be brought to the floor.
H.R. 1304 is the only bill that I have seen in the last 3 years, probably in the last 30 years, that would move us in a proper direction for health care in this country. For 30 years now we have moved in the direction, not toward socialized medicine, we do not have socialized medicine, we have a mess. We have a monster we created called ‘medical management.’ But we have moved toward corporate medicine.
Who are the greatest opponents of H.R. 1304? The HMOs and the insurance companies.
All we are asking for here is a little bit of return of freedom to the physician, that is, for the right of the physician to freedom of contract, to associate. We are giving no special powers, no special privileges. Trying to balance just to a small degree the artificial power given to the corporations who now run medicine, who mismanage medicine, who destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.
Mr. Speaker, this has given me a small bit of hope. I am thankful the leadership was willing to bring this bill to the floor tonight. We should go through, get the rule passed, and vote on this. This is the only thing that has offered any hope to preserve and to restore the doctor-patient relationship.
We need this desperately. We do not need to support the special corporate interests who get the money. The patient does not get the care. The doctors are unhappy. The hospitals are unhappy. And who lobbies against this? Corporate interests. This is total destruction of the doctor-patient relationship.
All we want to ask for is the freedom to associate and the freedom to contract. If they do not want to become a union, doctors do not have to. They had the power to become unions in the 19th century, but under ethical conditions they did not. Nobody tells doctors that they have to, if we remove this obstacle.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 29th, 2000
<br />
QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000<br />
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, it, like existing antitrust laws, are an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. I am quite pleased that this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, H.R. 1304 in no way extends the scourge of federally-mandated compulsory unionism to the health care professions. While Congress should protect the right of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Congress will follow up on its action today by empowering patients to control their health care by providing all Americans with access to Medical Saving Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they found most beneficial to them, the HMO monster would wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to American’s health care professionals. Antitrust laws are no more legitimate or constitutional in the health care market than they are on the software market. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will not just pass this bill but will also support my Market Process Restoration Act and exempt all Americans from antitrust laws. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free-market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar through means such as Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and individual health care tax credits.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 27th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul recently welcomed Mark Lai of Port Lavaca to his Washington staff. Lai, Class of 2000 valedictorian at Calhoun High School, is interning in Paul’s office this summer before moving to Houston to attend Rice University in the fall. Paul said he is excited about having Lai aboard for the next three months.
“The summer is always an enjoyable time around the office because we get the opportunity to bring in young people from the district,” said Paul. “Mark is an excellent addition to the staff. The work ethic and dedication he showed by graduating first in his class is the same I look for when staffing my office.”
Lai, who plans to major in computer science at Rice, has always been interested in government. He thought an internship in Paul’s office would be the best way to get a “hands-on” feel for how the process works.
Said Lai, “Right now, I’m primarily assisting the other staff members with constituent mail, phone calls, and other customer service type of activities. It’s a great experience. People here are literally from around the world and learning from others is very educational.”
Lai said that traveling to Washington has given him a new perspective on the leaders who shape government policy. It’s also given him a new respect for home.
“One thing I have realized is that Congressmen and Senators are still people, not gods,” said Lai. “They have to eat and sleep like the rest of us. And the other thing I learned right away is that absolutely nothing tastes like mother’s cooking.”
Lai is the son of Richard and April Lai of Port Lavaca. He will continue in Paul’s Washington office until August 4th.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 26th, 2000
<br />
TRIBUTE TO REVEREND MONSIGNOR CLYDE HOLTMAN<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Rev. Msgr. Clyde Holtman on the occasion of his retirement. The Reverend Holtman was born in Westphalia, Texas. He was also baptized, made his First Communion, was confirmed, was ordained to the priesthood May 15, 1949, and offered his first Mass in the Church of the Visitation in that same community.
Msgr. Holtman has served in eleven parishes in the Austin Diocese for over 50 years. He has also served as Dean of the LaGrange Deanery, Judge of the Marriage Tribunal, Diocesan Resettlement Director, Diocesan Consultant and President of the Infirm Priest’s Fund.
On May 30, 1985, Msgr. Holtman was invested as a Prelate of Honor in the Church by Pope John Paul II.
Msgr. Holtman has touched thousands of lives in the central Texas area. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Reverend Holtman on his retirement.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 26th, 2000
<br />
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act<br />
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler ) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor.
There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So I congratulate the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hostettler amendment. The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating the three-fold system of Government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.
It is this legislative branch that is responsible for making laws and the judicial branch for interpreting them, period.
A serious act of misconduct on the administration occurred when the Smith & Wesson agreement was settled. The executive branch acted as the legislative branch when they bypassed Congress through 22 pages of litigation. The egregious agreement will require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to limit handgun sales to one handgun every 14 days regardless of make, require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to require customers to pass a certified test before completing a sale of any firearm, mandate that the BATF participate on an oversight commission created by the settlement agreement, and does not allow unaccompanied minors into areas where firearms are present.
It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.
The BATF, which has never been known for its fair treatment of gun owners, will play an integral part on the oversight commission of gun owners by the agreement.
The BATF will require all employees of dealers to attend annual training courses. In these training courses, the BATF gives the final say as to what can be taught and what will be excluded. Each employee must also complete an examination of which its contents will be closely reviewed by the oversight commission and make its own changes as it sees fit. In essence, they are acting as the ‘thought-control’ police. This sounds very Orwellian to me and far from what Patrick Henry had in mind when he said, ‘The great objective is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.’
Let us not forget past calamities against U.S. citizens from over zealous federal agents in trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Again, too much power is being given to these unconstitutional agencies and even worse, it is being done without the consent of Congress. Members of the House, you must remember the oath that you swore to uphold and not relinquish your authority any longer. By what authority does the administration set up this new commission, what check will be placed on this agency in making their new regulations that will affect all Americans without giving them a chance to vote or have a say in these changes. Why should we hand over our authority to another branch of the government and then let it take more freedoms away from our citizens?
These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business–and have no authority–to mandate how a company runs its business.
Let us not allow our authority to be usurped from us any longer. Please stop the funding for this anti-constitutional settlement and vote for the Hostettler Amendment and support H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.
I strongly support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler ) for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that we can pass this overwhelmingly.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 23rd, 2000
Washington, D.C. – On Thursday, Congressman Ron Paul wrote to his colleagues in the House asking them to join him in cosponsoring Congressman Clay Shaw’s “Public School Construction Partnership Act” (HR 2514). Paul recently became a cosponsor of the Shaw bill after contacting every school superintendent in the 14th District. The enthusiastic feedback he received convinced him the bill would be of great benefit to schools in Texas.
Paul stated, “We received input from almost 100 different schools in the district. Practically every superintendent that returned our call was in favor of this proposal. I believe it will be beneficial to our schools, especially those in rural areas.”
The “Public School Construction Partnership Act” helps school districts meet their facility and technology needs while minimizing the property tax burden on homeowners and businesses. The bill contains the following four major provisions, each designed to enable school districts to build new facilities:
- Allows school districts to use public-private partnerships to finance school construction.
- Frees school bond issuers from complex, burdensome tax rules.
- Reduces project costs, and permits school bond issuers greater flexibility in planning how to meet their school construction needs.
- Broadens the market for bonds issued by small school districts.
The bill will result in more schools being built and repaired, and it will accelerate construction projects currently on the capital investment plans of some school districts. It also provides state and local governments with a variety of options to choose from when financing school construction.
“This bill will benefit all of the schools in my district by expanding their options of how to fund new schools,” said Paul. “Unlike most education plans that come out of Washington, it leaves the decision making authority with the local school districts. My staff and I reached out to every school in my district to decide whether or not to support this bill. After considering the advice of almost 100 school districts, I am convinced the ‘Public School Construction Partnership Act’ is a good bill and I call on all of my colleagues to support it.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 22nd, 2000
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday the House of Representatives passed the “Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act” (HR 3859), which required a two-thirds majority, by voice vote. Congressman Ron Paul praised members of both parties for joining him in protecting Medicare and senior retirement.
Paul states: “Last year alone, Congress took $21 billion out of Medicare to pay for their unconstitutional, pork-barrel spending. Years of this kind of activity have left the government owing more than $150 billion to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. That amount is enough to cover the annual medical costs of over 46 million American seniors. The ‘Lockbox’ legislation will keep politicians and bureaucrats out of Medicare and ensure our seniors have access to health coverage.”
The “Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act” is a simple piece of legislation designed to protect the sizable surplus created by Medicare Part A payroll taxes. This surplus is expected to reach $242 billion over the next ten years. The Act mandates that additional revenues collected can be spent only for reducing the national debt or strengthening current Social Security and Medicare programs. Without this “Lockbox” on Medicare funds, Congress will continue to spend the surplus on other programs not related to Medicare or Social Security.
While he was encouraged by his colleagues’ vote on Tuesday, Paul warns that there remains a great deal of work to be done in the area of true Social Security reform. Paul is concerned especially with protecting the pensions of retirees in the Social Security Trust Fund. Earlier he introduced the bipartisan “Social Security Preservation Act” (HR 219), which will make it illegal for the Trust Fund to be used for anything other than paying pensions to seniors.
“We must now move forward and protect the trust fund from politicians, so that we can guarantee our senior citizens’ retirements will be waiting for them when they retire, said Paul. “The ‘Social Security Preservation Act’ will restore America’s faith in their retirement. This bill has already received extensive bipartisan support. I call on every member of Congress to join me in taking a stand for America’s seniors and protecting the Social Security Trust Fund.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: