Ron Paul .com » Health Care

Ron Paul: Americans Will Opt Out of Obamacare with or without Congress

RonPaul.com — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:51:55 +0000

Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national healthcare law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”

Ron Paul: We Need to Let People Opt Out of Healthcare

RonPaul.com — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:25:21 +0000

Ron Paul: Get the Government Out of Healthcare

RonPaul.com — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:20:24 +0000

Ron Paul: I Want to Live in a Free Country

RonPaul.com — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:05:13 +0000

Ron Paul: End Corporate Medicine to Fix Healthcare

RonPaul.com — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:49:08 +0000

Ron Paul: It’s Time to Abort Obamacare

RonPaul.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:14:50 +0000

by Ron Paul

Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the “morning after” pill.

Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.

Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is “denying access” to healthcare. If employers don’t provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?

In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.

So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.

But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.

Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.

The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.

Ron Paul: Allow the States to Regulate Marijuana

RonPaul.com — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:35:54 +0000

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: marijuana). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Judge Napolitano: Tonight on The Docket, the economy, oil, and personal freedom. The DOW plunged early today amid a slew of troubling news on the economy. It did come back at the end of the day on news that the deal is closer on a bailout in Greece. But here at home, the International Energy Agency said it would release 60 million barrels of oil, 30 million of which are coming from America’s strategic petroleum reserve. The stated purpose: to ease the oil shortages in Libya. The move is surprising, because Libya doesn’t produce that much oil. And oil prices have already been falling over the past month. So why this sudden move, and will this market manipulation pay off, or is it just a political ploy to please voters? More on that later in the show. Also, troubling Wall Street today is news that House majority leader, Eric Cantor, and Senate minority Rep John Kyl, both walked out of the deficit reduction negotiations with Vice-President Biden. Could this mark the beginning of the end of the Vice-President’s talks? And without these key Republicans, can a bi-partisan deal be reached? Add to all that, the Republicans in the House who want the United States out of the war in Libya, and add to that, a new bi-partisan move to legalize marijuana. Here now to tell us more of what all this means, for the fate of the nation’s debt ceiling, for our foreign policy, and for personal freedom, is Texas Republican Congressman, Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, a lot to talk about, it’s a pleasure, welcome back to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you, Judge, it’s good to be with you.

Judge Napolitano: Let’s start with what happened not too far from where you are today. How do you read the Republican’s politely but firmly leaving these negotiations that the administration put together in an effort to cut some deal that would persuade people in the Congress that it’s actually a good thing to raise the debt ceiling and let the government put us deeper into debt?

Ron Paul: I’m not a bit surprised, I would have predicted that would happen, because the problems we face are so overwhelming and some people just aren’t willing to cut the spending and some people just want to raise taxes, and they’re at logger heads. So that’s why this is going to continue and we’re going to continue to have our economic problems.

Judge Napolitano: In your view, do your Republican colleagues in the House have the personal and political courage simply to say to the President and the Treasury Secretary, “No, we’re not going to authorize you to borrowing another 2.4 trillion dollars. You’ve borrowed and spent enough, we don’t trust you to spend less. The only way you will keep the government living within its means, is if we make it unlawful for you to borrow”. You think that will happen, or is this a pipe dream that I have?

Ron Paul: Ah, you’re back to dreaming again, Judge, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think there is going to be a lot of debate up to the final moment, and then there’ll be a decision and the Republicans will get something. There’ll be some promises, and they’ll say, “Okay, yes we really will. We will cut some spending”. And maybe they’ll even cave in a little bit on taxes, but they won’t call it raising taxes. It will be called “tax reform” or something to get more revenues, and that would be different. I think something will happen. I think they will frighten the members of Congress enough to say that a default, which is the default on paying interests on our securities, is so, so devastating. But what they won’t admit to is we default continuously; we’ve been that way for many, many decades, because we just pay off our debt through cheap money. And the Fed, as a matter of fact, I think is looking forward to more inflation so that the real debt goes down by the depreciation of our money.

Judge Napolitano: Most of your Republican colleagues who’ve come on Freedom Watch have indicated to us that a tax increase is dead-on-arrival on the House. Are you suggesting that the Republican leadership might somehow raise taxes, but not call it a tax increase?

Ron Paul: Well, they’ve done that before. It will be reform and I’ve heard things like that; they cut some here and cut some here. So when we look at those bills in my office when we have to do it, we add and subtract. You get the benefit here and a subtraction here and, of course, my rule is that there is no net new revenue. But sometimes they’ll make the bill very complicated and hard to figure out because, well, they’re giving a tax break here, but they’re closing loopholes. You know, they close loopholes, but you don’t raise taxes. So I think they’re quite capable of doing that, the Republicans have done that in the past. But I’m hoping they stick to their guns, and with the help of the freshmen, maybe we will. But I’m still predicting that they will raise the debt limit, they will not go down to the wire and default in the way they argue that they might.

Judge Napolitano: I’m sorry to hear that, but obviously you have your thumb on the pulse of what your colleagues are talking about. I want to switch gears: how is it that the unlikely pair of Ron Paul and Barney Frank came together to propose legislation to keep the federal government out of the issue of marijuana and to leave it to the states.

Ron Paul: Well, actually I’ve done this for a long time. I’ve worked with Barney Frank on auditing the Fed and some other things, and then for cutting some of the military budget. So on this issue, we have worked together. It’s got a little bit more attention this time, but I think I like the way you worded it, because it’s not taking a national control of an issue and saying all states will do it. What we are really doing is returning it to the states and trying to treat marijuana like we treat alcohol and maybe we wouldn’t have quite so many people imprisoned and that would be a little bit adaptable. One thing that has strongly motivated me with the marijuana issue, is I am convinced that there have been a lot of people helped medically by taking marijuana where ordinary drugs haven’t helped. Because if a person has cancer or they’re on chemotherapy, many, many people have told me they’ve been greatly helped. But isn’t it a shame that if you have a loved one that’s dying of cancer, and I’ve come across these cases, and I always say, “You know, maybe the marijuana would help them”. So what are you going to do? Tell him to go out and find it. It’s so sad. So I think we should have a little bit of compassion on this issue, follow the constitution. The difficult problems can be solved at the state level.

Judge Napolitano: I am understand that at the Republican caucus today, or wherever the Republicans get together on the House to speak, there is some strong energy there to enforce the constitution with respect to Libya; that President can’t start a war on his own, whether the War Powers Act is constitutional or not, he must at least comply with the laws that have been written. Question: Is there going to be a move on the floor of the House of Representatives in the next few days to force the president to take the troops out of Libya.

Ron Paul: We’re going to have some votes tomorrow and so far I don’t see that type of resolution, which is the right one; take the troops out and deny all funding. Matter of fact, there is one that sort of follows McCain’s proposal and grant him authority to do exactly what he’s doing and be explicit, that will not pass, I believe. I don’t believe there are the votes for that. But then there is another one that sounds good and it’s said that we can’t use any funds except 4, and they list 4 things that they’re already doing. So it’s a trick piece of legislation and it actually pretends they’re doing something but it is an authorization for the president to keep doing exactly what he’s doing and, hopefully, we can stop that. But on the surface a lot of people are assuming, “Well, this looks like a good piece of legislation”. It’s not the McCain approach of endorsing the whole notion, it is a statement of denial, and at the same time the exceptions are endorsing exactly what the President’s doing. So I hope the Congress does not pass that tomorrow.

Judge Napolitano: Sounds like a trick to me. Keep them honest. Congressman, it’s always a pleasure, thanks for joining us.

Ron Paul: Thanks a lot.

Judge Napolitano: Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, met…

Ron Paul: End Marijuana Prohibition Now!

RonPaul.com — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:04:43 +0000

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: prohibition). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Larry Kudlow: This story coming out of Washington has lit up Twitter and Facebook. Congressman Ron Paul and Barney Frank will be introducing a bill to end marijuana prohibition. A short time ago, Texas Republican Ron Paul spoke with me about exactly what he’s advocating. Take a listen.

Ron Paul: Well, removing it from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allowing the states to regulate it, like they would alcohol. And this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but I’m only going back to 1937 when that’s the way it was handled. The states always did this, and I’m motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes and it is helpful to people who have cancer or are getting chemotherapy. So this is not a huge radical idea, it’s something that was legal for a long, long time. And the war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing. So I would say that marijuana, as far as causing highway problems, is miniscule compared to alcohol, and yet we knew prohibition of alcohol was very bad. So this is just getting back to a sensible position on how we handle difficult problems. And, for me, it should be the states.

Larry Kudlow: Alright, let the states regulate, yes, I agree with that, that’s a free market position, it’s a 10th Amendment position. Mr. Paul, in one of the debates, though, you came out for the legalization of marijuana and heroin. Is that still your view?

Ron Paul: Well, you know, I’ve never used the word heroine in my life when I talked about legalizing freedom of choice. And that one, too, was once legal and I concluded that argument and they sort of got the point when I said when they were making a big deal, your freedom philosophy means somebody could use heroine. I said, “You know, if tomorrow we legalize, how many of you in this audience would you heroine? Of course, nobody would.” So it’s a moot point, it’s how you regulate things and whether or not this trillion dollars we spend on the war on drugs … really since the early 1970s, the modern day war on drugs started with Richard Nixon and it’s a catastrophe, just as the prohibition was a catastrophe. So yes, they’re regulations for children and the way the states want to handle it. But, you know, it’s sort of like saying, “I believe in the first amendment”, and they say, “Oh, that means you’re pro-pornography”, or something like that. It’s ridiculous. Permitting something to happen does not mean that you authorize it or endorse it, it’s not an endorsement of what people do.

Larry Kudlow: Do you worry, sir? I mean, look, I’m recovering alcoholic and drug abuser. I’m coming after 16 years, with God’s grace. Do you worry, sir, that this opens the door to more drug use, sets the wrong example, sends the wrong single? It’s an honest question on my part, do you ever worry about that? You yourself are a doctor..

Ron Paul: No, because I think it’s much worse because kids today have an easier time finding marijuana than they can alcohol. And how many cases of drug addiction were prevented by the laws? Do the laws really do it? Would putting you in prison for about 5 years, do you think that would have helped you? Would that have cured you? No, this is a medical problem, it’s not a legal problem. You shouldn’t be a criminal because you have a problem with drugs. So I just don’t think putting you in prison would have been helpful at all.

Larry Kudlow: Alright, well, I did it through a faith-based self help program, but I appreciate your point of view.

Ron Paul: The market, Larry, that’s the market way of taking care of a problem.

Larry Kudlow: I guess I do. I want to agree with you on why the states should have the jurisdiction on this and so many other things. I think that’s exactly the right position.

Ron Paul: We should be very consistent.

Larry Kudlow: I got to go. Congressman Paul, you’re terrific for helping us out tonight, I appreciate it.

Ron Paul: Alright.

Statement Introducing Unpasteurized Milk Bill, HR 1830

RonPaul.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 12:19:03 +0000

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products.

Hard as it is to believe, the federal government is actually spending time and money prosecuting small businesses for the “crime” of meeting their customers’ demand for unpasteurized milk! Recently the Food and Drug Administration conducted a year-long sting operation targeting Rainbow Acres Farms in Pennsylvania. As a result of this action, Rainbow Acres’ customers will no longer be able to purchase unpasteurized milk from this small Amish farm.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans who the government wishes to deny the ability to purchase unpasteurized milk have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.

I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.

Text of the bill:

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1830

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 11, 2011

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INTERSTATE TRAFFIC OF UNPASTEURIZED MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS.

(a) Sale Allowed- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any regulations or other guidance issued under such Act or section, a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (such as administrative, civil, criminal, or other actions) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.

(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) The terms `interstate traffic’, `milk’, and `milk product’ have the meanings given those terms in section 1240.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act).

(2) The term `packaged for direct human consumption’ means milk and milk products that are packaged for the final consumer and intended for human consumption. Such term does not include milk and milk products that are packaged for additional processing, including pasteurization, before being consumed by humans.

(3) The term `pasteurized’ means the process of heating milk and milk products to the applicable temperature specified in the tables contained in section 1240.61 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), and held continuously at or above that temperature for at least the corresponding specified time in such tables.

How Much Freedom Do We Have If We Can’t Even Drink Unpasteurized Milk?

RonPaul.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 12:17:11 +0000

Date: 05/16/2011

The Milk Police

by Ron Paul

On April 20th, after a year-long undercover sting operation, armed federal agents acting on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raided the business of Pennsylvanian Amish farmer Dan Allgyer to prevent him from selling his unpasteurized milk to willing, fully-informed customers in Maryland. Federal agents wasted a whole year and who knows how many of our tax dollars posing as customers in order to catch Allgyer committing the “crime” of selling his milk. He was not tricking people into buying it, he was not forcing people to purchase it, and there had been no complaints about his product. These were completely voluntary transactions, but ones that our nanny-state federal government did not approve of, and so they shut down his business. The arrogance of the FDA and so many other federal agencies is simply appalling. These types of police state raids on peaceful businessmen, so reminiscent of our tyrannical federal drug war, have no place in a free society.

The FDA claims its regulatory powers over food safety give it the authority to ban the interstate sales of raw milk, but this is an unconstitutional misapplication of the commerce clause for legislative ends. As we have seen, if the executive branch feels hamstrung by the fact that our framers placed lawmaking authority in the Legislative Branch, they simply make their own laws and call them “regulations.” We all know how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses such bogus regulation authority to harass, hinder, and shut down countless other legitimate businesses. Sadly, Congress has been far too lax for far too long as the executive branch continues to encroach on its areas of responsibility and thereby undermines our system of government.

Most Americans understand that if you don’t want to drink unpasteurized milk you simply do not buy it. But the federal government solution is pre-dawn raids which destroy the livelihoods of honest, hardworking families in this time of continued economic hardship.

I am outraged by this raid and the many others like it, and that is why last week I introduced HR 1830, a bill to allow the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes the unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products.

Many Americans have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment or thwart their wishes. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.

I am hoping my colleagues in the House will join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring this legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.

If we are not even free anymore to decide something as basic as what we wish to eat or drink, how much freedom do we really have left?