August 10th, 2001
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today expressed his opposition to the massive airstrike launched by US and British forces early this morning, citing the lack of Congressional authorization for the action.
“We are foolishly escalating our ongoing 11 year war with the Iraqi government,” Paul stated. “Bombing raids are acts of war, and the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before such strikes legally can be commenced. In this instance the commander did not even bother to get presidential authorization for the mission, nor is there any indication that the action was done at the behest of NATO or the UN. It’s time for Congress to put an end to unilateral and unconstitutional act of aggression.”
“Our policy toward Iraq has only served to solidify support for Hussein, who used American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect criticism from his own tyrannical regime,” Paul continued. “Our economic sanctions and bombing raids are only hurting innocent Iraqi people. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by invading their airspace and killing innocent civilians.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 6th, 2001
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced innovative legislation designed to help millions of American seniors pay for their prescription drugs. While many in Congress support socialized medicine schemes that would necessitate price controls and rationing of pharmaceuticals, Paul’s proposal uses free-market principles to make drugs more affordable.
Specifically, the Act provides seniors with a tax credit equal to 80% of their prescription drug costs. “Many older Americans are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need, yet Congress continues to impose taxes on their Social Security benefits and other income,” Paul stated. “A prescription drug tax credit allows seniors to use their own money and make their own choices when buying needed medicines. Instead of sending taxes off to Washington health bureaucrats, seniors can exercise control over their own health care dollars.”
Paul’s bill also reduces federal regulations that prohibit consumers from importing or re-importing drugs at lower cost from foreign pharmacies. “It’s wrong for the government to force Americans to go to Canada or Mexico to find affordable prescription drugs,” Paul continued. “Our citizens should never pay more than people in foreign countries simply because of FDA red tape. Common sense tells us that Americans will benefit from worldwide price competition for drugs. It’s time to eliminate harmful barriers that drive drug costs higher.”
Similarly, the Act ends federal regulation of internet pharmacies selling FDA-approved drugs by state-licensed pharmacies. “Internet pharmacies have made pharmaceuticals more accessible and affordable for million of American consumers,” Paul stated. “One constituent of mine saves $600 monthly buying drugs online! Congress should reject any attempt to stifle competition from internet suppliers.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 2nd, 2001
<br />
Enhancing Senior Citizens’ Health Care<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which enhances senior citizens’ ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mamograms, are made by the senior, not by bureaucrats and politicians.
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from the this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs by cosponsoring my legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 2nd, 2001
<br />
Truth in Employment Act<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Truth in Employment Act which protects small businesses and independent-minded workers from the destructive and coercive “top-down” organizing tactic known as salting. Salting is a technique designed by unscrupulous union officials for the purpose of harassing small businesses until the businesses compel their employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
“Salts” are professional union organizers who apply for jobs solely in order to compel employers into consenting to union monopoly bargaining and forced-dues contract clauses. They do this by disrupting the workplace and drumming up so-called “unfair labor practice” charges which are designed to harass and tie up the small business person in constant and costly litigation.
Thanks to unconstitutional interference in the nation’s labor markets by Congress, small businesses targeted by union salts often must acquiesce to union bosses’ demands that they force their workers to accept union “representation” and pay union dues. If an employer challenges a salt, the salt may file (and win) an unfair labor practice charge against the employer!
Passing the Truth in Employment Act is a good first step toward restoring the constitution rights of property and contract to employers and employees. I therefore urge my colleagues to stand up for those workers who do not wish to be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment by cosponsoring the Truth in Employment Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 2nd, 2001
<br />
Prescription Drug Affordability Act<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless goverment barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the federal government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits. Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.
Mr. Speaker, I do wish to clarify that this tax credit is intended to supplement the efforts to reform and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control, including structural reforms that will allow seniors to use Medicare funds to cover the costs of prescription drugs.
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the US or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Just a few weeks ago, Congress responded to these demands by overwhelmingly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. While this provision took a good first step toward allowing free trade in pharmaceuticals, and I hope it remains in the final bill, the American people will not be satisfied until all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals are removed.
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable
However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug Affordability Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 2nd, 2001
<br />
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights<br />
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a physician. I practiced medicine for more than 30 years, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that medicine is a mess, managed care is not working very well; and, hopefully, we do something good to improve it. Unfortunately, I am not all that optimistic.
I support this rule because it is dealing with a very difficult subject and it brings the Democratic base bill to the floor. I do not see why we should not be able to amend that bill, so I do support the rule.
But the IRS code has 17,000 pages of regulation. The regulations that we as physicians have to put up with are 132,000 pages. Most everything I see that is happening today is we are going to increase those pages by many more thousands. So I am not optimistic that is going to do a whole lot of good.
I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.
We have a right in society, in a free society, to our life and our liberty, and we have a right to use that liberty to pursue our happiness and provide for our own well-being. We do not have a right to medical care. One has no more right to a service than one has a right to go into someone else’s garage and steal an automobile. So the definition of “rights” has been abused for 30 years, but the current understanding is that people have a right to services. So I think that is a serious flaw and it has contributed to our problem today.
The other serious flaw that we have engaged in now for 30 years is the dictation of contract. For 30 years now under ERISA and tax laws, we have forced upon the American people a medical system where we dictate all the rules and regulations on the contracts; and it causes nothing but harm and confusion. Today’s effort is trying to clear this up; and, unfortunately, it is not going to do much good.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 2nd, 2001
<br />
Patient’s Bill of Rights Means More Government<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose all versions of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Once again Congress is staging a phony debate over which form of statism to embrace, instead of asking the fundamental question over whether Congress should be interfering in this area at all, much less examine how previous interferences in the health care market created the problems which these proposals claim to address.
The proper way to examine health care issues is to apply the same economic and constitutional principles that one would apply to every other issue. As an M.D., I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting in the role as legislator and politician.
The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed-care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and services, is through the free market. Economic principles determine efficiencies of markets, even the health care market, not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.
The fundamental economic principle is that true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. This principle applies equally to health care as it does to other goods and services. However, over the past fifty years, Congress has systematically destroyed the market in health care. HMOs themselves are the result of conscious government policy aimed at correcting distortions in the health care market caused by Congress. The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs.
However, it was previous Congressional action which caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to prices when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to monitor health care prices stripped away and because politicians were unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs and preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients. This legislation also mandated that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sound like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, big government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion of organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor to much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.
Disregard for constitutional limitations on government, ignorance of the basic principles of economics combined with the power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed-care monster. If we pursue a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will not be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actually is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.
Many members of Congress have convinced themselves that they can support a “watered-down” Patients’ Bill of Rights which will allow them to appease the supporters of nationalized medicine without creating the negative consequences of the unmodified Patients’ Bill of Rights, while even some supporters of the most extreme versions of this legislation say they will oppose any further steps to increase the power of government over health care. These well-intentioned members ignore the economic fact that partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. A vote for any version of a Patients’ Bill of Rights is a 100 percent endorsement of the principle of government management of the health care system.
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered-down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.
Of course, the real power over health care will lie with the unelected bureaucrats who will implement and interpret these broad and vague mandates. Federal bureaucrats already have too much power over health care. Today, physicians struggle with over 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations. To put that in perspective, I ask my colleagues to consider that the IRS code is “mere” 17,000 pages. Many physicians pay attorneys as much as $7,000 for a compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms, a wise investment considering even an innocent mistake can result in fines of up to $25,000. In case doctors are not terrorized enough by the federal bureaucracy, HCFA has requested authority to carry guns on their audits!
In addition to the Medicare regulations, doctors must contend with FDA regulations (which delay the arrival and raise the costs of new drugs), insurance company paperwork, and the increasing criminalization of medicine through legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPPA) and the medical privacy regulations which could criminalize conversations between doctors and nurses.
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws–or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist–there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as it the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today.
Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
While none of the proposed “Patients’ Bill of Rights” addresses the root cause of the problems in our nation’s health care system, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky does expend individual control over health care by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) available to everyone. This is the most important thing Congress can do to get market forces operating immediately and improve health care. When MSAs make patient motivation to save and shop a major force to reduce cost, physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients–unlike today where the reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at the maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
August 1st, 2001
Washington, DC: Texas Representative Ron Paul introduced a resolution yesterday calling for Congress to recognize and foster the special relationship between the United States and Mexico. The resolution affirms that “The United States and Mexico share a bi-lateral friendship matched by few countries in the world,” concluding that “The relationship must be cultivated to the mutual benefit of both countries.”
“We should honor the very close relationship we maintain with our southern neighbor,” Paul said Tuesday. “We are joined not only by our geography, but also by the public and personal friendships that reach both ways across the border. Millions of hispanics in America have family and friends in Mexico, and we should allow those strong ties to form a foundation for cooperation between us. Congress needs to recognize the mutual benefits that result from a strong alliance with Mexico.”
Paul’s resolution cites many areas of shared concern between the two countries, including trade issues, immigration, environmental quality, economic development, and regional stability. “We should work with the Mexican people and government to address the many challenges that face us, particularly in border states like Texas,” Paul continued. “True free trade, along with coherent and sensible lawful immigration policies, will improve life in the border region and beyond. The economic development that results from open trade between America and Mexico benefits both nations by increasing living standards.”
Paul’s resolution, HCR 206, will bypass committee procedures and go directly to the House floor. A vote on the measure is expected as early as September.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: