Repeal Obama’s Healthcare Mandate

Ron Paul talks about his strong showing in the SRLC straw poll and explains his bill to repeal Obama’s healthcare mandate.

Channel: Fox News
Date: 04/12/2010


Jon Scott: No one has ever accused Texas Congressman Ron Paul of keeping quiet when it comes to issues that he cares about deeply. This weekend, the former 2008 presidential candidate earned cheers as well as boos at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, with unvarnished criticism of the president, the healthcare reform bill, and even some leaders within his own party. Some consider him a long shot in the 2012 presidential race. Congressman Paul, though, came within 1 vote of winning the event’s straw poll, coming in second right behind Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul joins us live from Texas right now via Skype. What does your second place finish in the SRLC straw poll say?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it means the Constitution is still alive, and hopefully well. I mean, people are wanting to hear what it would be like if we followed the Constitution in a very strict manner. So it’s very pleasing to me that we had a significant showing.

Jon Scott: Some say that both you and Mitt Romney, sort of stacked the deck at this Southern Republican Leadership Conference, the SRLC – I misphrased it earlier – by essentially giving discount tickets to your supporters. What do you say?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t know all those details, because there are some organizations that do the inviting. I think that the young people that I talk to are rather enthusiastic. But I don’t have any direct knowledge of what they do and how they do it, but they do invite people. But I think everybody gets invited, and the supporters come out. I do know that my supporters, over the years, have been a very, very energetic and very determined. I’m never sure of our numbers, but I know about the determination. And when there is an event like this, they’re very interested in coming out.

Jon Scott: While you’re in Congress, you are intending, it’s my understanding, to introduce a bill to repeal healthcare reform?

Ron Paul: No, I’m going to narrow it down. I want to get rid of one item to concentrate on, because I think it’s the worst part. And that is the mandate saying that you don’t have a choice anymore. They’re driving everybody into the system. It’s sort of like I don’t like nationalized public education. And I think the option there is the private option where you can still homeschool and still go to a private school. But if you had a mandate that said, “No more, everybody has to be in public education”, that would be very bad. And that’s what they want to do in medicine.

So I want to key in on the one issue, to legalize freedom of choice, legalize the private option without taking on the whole mess that’s been created. You know, the problems that we have, repealing this one bill would be helpful. But how about all the bills all the way back to the 1950s? That’s when HEW was established. And then we had all the bills in the 1960s and even in the 1970s, even under Nixon they had managed care come in. So you have a lot of work to do in repealing.

So I want to concentrate on the principle that in a free society you have to at least allow people the freedom to opt out of a compulsory system that is imposed on you by government.

Jon Scott: Given all the blood, sweat and tears especially Democrats had to shed to try to get this thing passed – as you know, it barely passed – do you think you would actually get any Democrats to support that notion?

Ron Paul: I think it will be tough, because I think that the majority in the Congress, certainly all the Republicans, would support this position, and they’ll probably introduce bill which will broader. I think the narrow approach is more practical. And the big question would be those Democrats whose arms were twisted and voted for what have they heard back at home, and those Democrats who didn’t vote for it, whether they feel politically safe enough to go to this extent. You know, they sort of had to fight their leadership to be able to vote against it. But to come and look to repeal a certain segment of it, it might be difficult, but I still want to make the point that this is crucial that we get rid of that mandate to force everybody into the system.

Jon Scott: Ron Paul, Congressman of Texas. Congressman thank you.


  • SuzanneWA

    I came to this site in hopes of signing a Petition/Pledge enumerating MYconscience about Obamacare. Instead, I find it’s a “PAUL for PRESIDENT” site (nothing wrong with that!). If someone can steer me to such “petition,” I will be GLAD to sign it!!!

  • EndtheFed

    Protectionism is isolationist. Recent “Buy American” plans have upset Canadians, a huge part of trade in the US. More recently, Canada has made efforts to expand trade with other nations, like China.

    Protectionism is government intervention that seeks to determine “winners” and “losers” in a market. Obviously, the people who continually “win” in the market will favour protection. As a result, all ‘losers” suffer. Unfortunately, the winning team has profits very concentrated, and the losing team has losses very dispersed — this is why you have more lobbyists pushing for protectionism than against.

    Protectionism is inefficient. When an industry needs to be propped up in a market it is because it is less competitive than other players in that market. By “protecting” that industry, you remove any incentive for domestic players to become competitive on a global scale. Often times, as with Japanese automobiles, government tools simply don’t work as they were intended, and they end up hindering domestic industries instead of helping. In the case of Honda, government induced quotas simply tipped the balance of supply and demand to make the cars more scarce and higher priced; and therefore able to be sold at a higher profit. As a result of US protectionism, Japanese auto-makers became more competitive on the global market.

    Protectionism makes no economic sense. There are always benefits to trade. With trade, two nations can consume more than they can produce. Read about comparative advantage, absolute advantage and the gains from trade. Government actions that tip the gains from trade in favour of one of the traders will simply initiate game theory mechanics as the traders attempt to anticipate future government interventions that will affect them. Trade relations are harmed.

    Protectionism is the reason North American cola tastes so much worse than other places and is so much more fattening. The “protected” sugar industry creates cheaper (unhealthier) alternatives. The (very few) producers of sugar then make an increase in profit per unit, while the (very numerous) North American consumer then has one less choice in the market, and therefore pays more than he would have with no “protection”.

    Fred, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should do more to back it up if you expect the knowledgable members of this site to believe you. What exactly is the benefit of protectionism, as you see it?

    Don’t say more jobs. More jobs in an uncompetitive industry just increases the mis-allocation of resources that could have been invested into a competitive industry that would benefit consumers and increase the soundness of the economy as a whole. If “jobs for the sake of jobs” was a good idea, then why don’t we just have the government pay us all to build widgets that we don’t have a use for? Jobs need to be productive.

    • Riley

      Hello EndtheFed, I am not familiar with this protectionist theory of government. Do you know any good books I can get to read up on it?

  • Fred the Protectionist

    Have you taken the “Libertarian Pledge”?:

    “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

    C’mon take the pledge, take it, c’mon. 🙂

    “At the 2006 Libertarian National Convention, the Libertarian Reform Caucus attempted to repeal the pledge but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds vote. There have been many proposals to change or eliminate the pledge.” Reaaaaalllly. Why would they want to eliminate the pledge?

  • Who ever thought that Dr. Paul would turn from an underdog to the top gun for the GOP presidential nominee in 2012. How dare those who underestimated this good man.

    • Fred the Protectionist

      You’re delusional, this s the exact same thing that happened in 2007, and Ron Paul ran off with a pathetic 1 million votes.

      Pat Buchanan won 3 million votes in 1996 Republican primaries.

      Ross Perot ran off with 20 million votes, without a political party and for simply opposing your “free trade”. He was a 1-issue wonder although he had had a good idea of paying off the national debt with a gasoline tax when gasoline was $1.20 a gallon. But you “no-tax” anarchist radicals who love the national debt would oppose that.

      If you take population increase into account it’s more like 3.3 million votes for Pat and 22 million votes for Ross Perot. 1 million, lol, that’s the maximum number of votes the Libertarian Party has been getting since they formed their pathetic party in the 1970’s. The average is half a million votes per election for the LP. That means if Ron Paul runs again in 2012 the maximum number of votes will be, again, 1 million, you will lose again. And when you lose you will also draw away voters who oppose Free Trade agreements, globalization, illegal immigration, and other important issues; basically you help empower the neocons who you revile by drawing voters away from valid candidates who don’t have the stain of Libertarianism.

      • Shadows

        It’s so nice to see a post that has everything. Confusion, anger, spite, fear ….
        When will you let us know which candidate is preferable to Paul?

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Pat Buchanan

  • F


    are you saying that we are witnessing the evolution or morphing of the previous poles? democrats vs republicans are going into protectionists vs libertarians?

    I say that what matters most are the appropriate concepts and their honest implementation. Of course that liberty matters within the same context.

    Maybe the extreme polarization observed now needs to be approached first by working out a truly viable economic system for the current world conditions, the worst ever it seems.

    So, what to tackle first, the polarization or the economic system? ideally the first, but economy is essential to civilized survival.

  • Riley

    To Fred,

    Your claims of the Constitution not having the central meaning to limit our government are not logical. Just because the texts which contain this meaning/message are rather long and in depth doesn’t mean that the over all message can’t simply be summed up in the statement that our Founding Fathers intended with what is written in the Constitution to limit government in our lives. If you do not believe this to be true I think you should reread the document.

    • Fred the Protectionist

      You know there’s a reply button.

      In what context are you posting. Oh that’s right you don’t need context, all you need to say is the political buzzphrase, “limited government,” and all the little libertarian acolytes nod in a collective manner.

      • Shadows

        And snotty too? You are a peach.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Oh c’mon it was funny. I used the buzzword “collective” when describing the self-described anti-collectives.

  • Navy Veteran

    Ron Paul wasn’t even on the list in 2008 when I was voting. In 2012, he will be and people will elect him!

  • PaulieGirl

    What would a community of Fred The Protectionist like-minded people look like? How many people would be beating a path to that neighborhood? Would there be much need for protectionism?

    • Fred the Protectionist

      “What would a community of Fred The Protectionist like-minded people look like?”

      The founding fathers, the constitution, and every Republican from 1860-1920; you know the good old days.

  • colleen

    The GOP will never nominate him, ever. He’s too much of a threaat.

    • Citizen

      Sadly your probably right.
      The Republican party is a Big Government Party!, just like the Dems

      Ron Paul is a serious threat to that Big Government mind set.

      That’s why Paul appeals to College students, Liberty from Tyranny.

  • Ryan

    Times will be so much better when Ron Paul wins in 2012.
    I know it’s a lot of work fixing all the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed over they years, and decades, but it will be a true joy to watch it happen.
    Ron Paul is the man with the plan to save our nation!
    Ron Paul 2012!

    • Fred the Protectionist

      What do Libertarians know about the Constitution? Nothing.

      • Citizen

        Fred, Fred, Fred…

        Our Constitution is an intentionally negative document that LIMITS government’s intrusion in our lives, a document that circumscribes government powers to minimal functions.

        Libertarians really LIKE THAT CONCEPT, limited Government intrusion in our lives, what a concept!

        Libertarians are the political polar opposites of President Barry Husein Obama who wants to “protect” all the Freds of the world.

        I want Fred to be free but please keep your PROTECTIONIST government schemes away from me. Please!
        I don’t like being a Government Tax Slave, T.E.A.
        I don’t want a Department of Protectionism, No Thanks Fred

        • Fred the Protectionist

          “Our Constitution is an intentionally negative document that LIMITS government’s intrusion in our lives, a document that circumscribes government powers to minimal functions.”

          No it doesn’t.

          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

          To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

          To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

          To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

          To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

          To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

          To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

          To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

          To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

          To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

          To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

          To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

          To provide and maintain a Navy;

          To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

          To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


          There’s nothing “minimal” about this. It’s actually quite a bit.

          • Citizen

            Great Work Fred…
            Listing the “enumerated powers”, very good!

            Now lets eliminate the UN-enumerated ENTITLEMENTS!
            Amtrak, $93 Billion of tax payer money BANKRUPT!
            Dept of Education $86.8B and we’re still 28th in the world!
            Dept of Energy, $26.4 and still no energy independence!
            Social Security, $14.7 TRILLION of mandates, BANKRUPT!
            Drug Program, $18.9 TRILLION of mandates, BANKRUPT!
            Medicare, $74.7 TRILLION of mandates, BANKRUPT!
            ObamaCare, only God knows those Trillions to come!

            These are the NEGATIVES we are fighting against!!!

          • Fred the Protectionist

            I’d like to, but you open-border/free-trader libertarian/neocons continuously push tens of millions of voters into the socialist party.

            It’s your damn fault.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          “I don’t want a Department of Protectionism, No Thanks Fred”

          The founding fathers, the Constitution, and every Republican from 1860-1920 were protectionists, it’s what made America great. Your jewish free trade is destroying America.

          • Citizen

            Your correct, the Northerners and Southerners both sought “finely crafted tariffs” to target each others industries trading with Europe.

            Tariffs on tea, rum, cotton, tobacco, molasses, iron and even hemp was tried and all miserable failures to protect a narrow home industry at the expense of ALL the rest of us!

            Wait a minute, isn’t this forum about “repeal of Obama Care”?
            Please PROTECT us from Obama Care!

          • Fred the Protectionist

            After your beloved Confederates lost the war, and many thousands of Libertarians were rotting on the battlefield, America became an economic superpower. Not before.

            Like cockroaches, there’s no way to completely extinguish the free traders. You guys just keep popping up.

          • Shadows

            Wow, he’s viciously violent too! I’m getting excited.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarians are not Republicans, get out of my party.

            In many ways Libertarianism is the anti-thesis of the Republican Party, the Civil War is a prime example.

            The American System of trade, immigration quotas, and opposition to the exploitation of cheap foreign labor is why the Republican Party was formed. Now that the Republicans have completely reversed their founding principles there’s no reason for it to continue to exist.

            It’s like if the Christian church suddenly started worshiping Satan, it wouldn’t be Christian anymore now would it. Of course not that is silly.

          • gander

            the republican party was set up to fight for free land for free white settlers. they didn’t want to end slavery because they thought blacks were equal, they wanted to get rid of slavery so that there would be no need for blacks in the country. it was originally intended to ship them all back to africa after slavery was finished.

  • A longshot for President in 2012? Not this time my friend.