Healthcare Freedom or Healthcare Bureaucracy?

by Ron Paul

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.


  • hungry4food

    Is this why the Old folks are the target of health care and Medicare reductions …. whats the use if we all are just to mentally convince ourselves to die when we become a burden on humanity ?????
    Population control called key to deal ,
    Marxists way ????
    I would think we are smarter and come come up with a better way to expand the space needed for food and population growth , like what Branson is wanting to do , , along with this months article in National Geographic on the search for other Planets , its a more Noble effort to die trying I think , and certainly more Inspiring to the Mind rather than being left with the though of just needed to die at some point for the sake of humanity , Like how does a Intellect patent that idea ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! And if this type of study is what a 250 K college education is doing for the society , I think we need to adjust the curriculum some ,because whats being said below is able to be understood at the most basic level of consciousness .
    We need a Intellectual that can lead us into the future thats not afraid to dream outside the worlds boundaries , then unbridled Hope can be inspiring !!!!!!
    COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

    “Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

    Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

    “Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth,” so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

    Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.

    As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

    The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions”.

    Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: “Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton” whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.

    She admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

    “I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited,” she said.

    She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people’s lives, she said.

    This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.

  • Correction! It’s July 2011 we get out of Afghanistan! & We should get out of Iraq as well! As for the Democrats I am not real optimistic about them as well! The Bull that they pull out will increase the Deficit!

  • shari hodges

    I am a corporate paralegal who worked with former White House cabinet. I did some research in 2003 on the Fed, on my own time. I went to the law library at Washington University Law School, and pulled up the Congressional Archives.

    You need to know that Congress held hearings on the FED in 1911 – the hearings were called the Pujo Hearings – Wilson called a halt to the hearings. The Pujo Committee was doing what you are doing right now – trying to put the brakes on the FED –

    If Pujo had continued, there wouldn’t have been a FED. Pujo knew it was a fraud. The banks involved with the FED had hijacked the U.S. Treasury, and were holding the funds in their vaults. Federal marshalls were trying to arrest the heads of the banks. Rockefeller took off for South America.

    Wilson called the whole thing off and Federalized them. I have tons of stuff about the FED and the fruad – they continued the fraud after Wilson federalized them.

    During the 1950’s, they met at U.C. Santa Barbara can came up with this whole credit scam. The FICO score is the key to the scam. They wanted to change the Constitution so that the FED was above the President. This agenda is still in play. They put the Agenda in the Congressional Records in 1971. I have to citations – but you can find them.

    They called it the “Economy Under The Law” where the FED rises to power and becomes a 4th branch of government. I had some mathematicians look at FICO’s scoring system – FICO does not calculate anything reliable – In fact, the original legislation for the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1971, is unconstitutional and can be easily overturned by the Federal Courts as unintelligible and vague.

    It’s void on it’s face. But unless somebody gets in touch with me, I can’t provide anybody with the facts. I’m getting obliterated by the bureacracy. I’ve been trying to tell you for 5 years what they did – I predicted the crash – I called Trans Union in Chicago a few years ago – I told them – Marmon sold Trans Union before the crash – they knew that credit scoring is a scam invented by the FED

    You need to return to pre-1971 banking laws – and dump the individual credit score – it’s ok to score business – but when you score individuals, you’re playing into the scam

    Individual Americans are not responsibile for the economy of the United States – but an individual credit score, where entire classes of individuals are excluded, will crash the economy. You cannot exclude entire classes of people.

    Congress held hearings on this in 1967 – they called it the “Poor pay more economy” and they tried to stop the credit scoring scam.

    You’re just repeating the very same hearings – and you don’t have the original information unless you pull up the original hearings from the Congressional Records.

  • I saw a headline in the NYTimes today saying, as if it were a victory for the bill, “For the Currently Insured, Most Premiums Won’t Go Up” the study found, and that was supposed to be a victory for the Democrats. What? This is supposed to be a health insurance reform bill and after all the trillions to be spent, we’re supposed to be happy that our premiums won’t go up? What am I missing here?

    Ron Paul 2012

    • Here’s a link to the article entitled “No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums is Seen in Study”

      And this is supposed to provide ammunition to the Democrats against the Republicans. Can they be serious? After all this spending we’re supposed to be happy with “No Big Cost Rise”? I thought the proposition was to lower the expense. How much of a joke can this be? At least in Europe, with all their socialist medicine they get free care, or so I hear. So we’re supposed to pay Socialist rates and get nothing in return except for No Big Rise in our current premiums? I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I hope I’m not the only one befuddled by this non logic.

  • It is rediculous that the Government dictates how women should live and when to take Mammograms! GET OFF THEIR BACKS GOVERNMENT! & Let them make the decisions for theyreselves! & I find it funny that “Obama” Wants to send in more troops to Afghanistan and we still haven’t found Bin Laden & our hard earn money is being spent on this rediculous War! & We aren’t expected to get out of there til’ May 2011! Like the famous word from Rep. Joe Wilson!
    Obama is a “LIE”!

  • When it comes to our current form of government I support many of Ron Paul’s ideas. At the same time our form of government is out of date. With modern technology we no longer need to elect one person to have complete control over the masses. All the issues talked about on this page mean nothing with our current form of government because as you can see the power is not in your hands. We have learned (not saying Ron Paul is this way) that by electing someone who has the best story with the most money to make decisions for us hasn’t worked out that well for us. The founders, at the time of creation of this great country, came up with the best way that they could allow liberty to prevail. People who are fighting for “the way the founders wanted it” or for a “real democracy” are pushing for the same thing we have today and nothing will change. I have worked out a form of government where the choice of the majority prevails (its not perfect, nothing is, but I can tell you its 100% better if you believe in liberty). It can be viewed here : The Evolution of Democracy; A New Form of Government ( )