Dr. Ron Paul’s Prescription for Health Care
Health care is shaping up as one of the top issues in the 2008 US presidential election. The Democratic contenders are falling all over themselves to offer federal health care plans, with the latest idea, from Bill Richardson, proposing to increase Medicare to cover people as young as 55. The Republican candidates are joining in the act, with Mitt Romney touting his Massachusetts mandated-coverage plan, and Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback going so far as to promise cures for cancer.
Only one candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, is asking the right questions to discover the right diagnosis for our health care ills: Why is our health care system in such bad shape? Could previous government interventions in the health care market be part of the problem? Is more government intervention a step in the wrong direction? Would increased freedom and a return to market forces benefit health care consumers more? Only with the right diagnosis can the proper course of treatment be determined.
Dr. Paul combines his own medical experience with his free market philosophy to answer those questions. He has been around long enough to remember past government interventions, such as the 1973 HMO Act and the 1974 ERISA Act, and what the health care industry was like before them.
The move to the current system of corporate managed care pleased the big health care companies, drug companies, and insurance companies, but took away much of the market discipline of individuals controlling their own health care dollars. Ron Paul would restore that ideal with tax-free individual medical savings accounts, without the "use it or lose it" provision that turns existing plans into little more than prepaid medical services accounts favored by industry lobbyists. Ron Paul has consistently sided with individual consumers in the health care market, rather than the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which support candidates like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
Many liberals want to see the United States adopt a national health care plan similar to those in Canada or the United Kingdom, seeing more government involvement as the only way to improve the problems with our existing system. But government-run systems have their own set of problems. By separating the costs of health care from the benefits, such systems create increased demand, leading to rationing and discrimination in treatment.
This inevitable shortage is normally dealt with through increased waiting times, extending into multiple months or even longer. Reports of a six-month delay in treatment for a suicidal patient, or an eighteen-month delay for a hearing aid for a 108-year-old woman are only a couple of the more egregious examples in the British system, where over fifty percent of hospital patients wait more than four months for treatment.
The British system has taken an even more ominous approach to rationing care, withholding it from those who fail to conform to public policy health goals -- denying or delaying treatment to the obese, to drinkers, and to smokers. Denying care to the latter group is particularly unfair, since tobacco taxes are a key source of revenue for the system. Turning health care over to a government bureaucracy risks taking life-and-death-affecting decisions and politicizing them, something that proponents of universal health care should stop and consider.
What about extending coverage to more Americans, the admirable goal of the various proposals for increased government involvement in health care? Dr. Paul points out that the free market is the only proven system for delivering the maximum level of service to the maximum number of individuals, and that central economic planning invariably fails. His quote from a recent interview with the Kaiser Family Foundation states the case for freedom:
Some skeptics of Ron Paul's plans to cut taxes and government spending have wondered what his policies would do for those who are currently dependent on Medicare or Medicaid, but he has proposed a gradual approach, not abandoning those who have become dependent on the existing system.
An often-overlooked aspect of increasing government control of health care is the loss of individual choice and the availability of alternative approaches. Ron Paul has made "Health Freedom" one of the main planks of his campaign platform, and has introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act in Congress.
As someone who has worked in both the health care industry and the federal government for several decades, Ron Paul has a unique perspective on America's health care problems. Since many of the existing problems have been created or worsened by government involvement, Dr. Paul prescribes moving in the opposite direction, toward a freer and more efficient health care economy, driven not by insurance companies and government bureaucrats, but by doctors and patients.
Here is Ron Paul's spotlight video on health care, from YouTube's You Choose '08:
Read more at Paul 4 Prez
Only one candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, is asking the right questions to discover the right diagnosis for our health care ills: Why is our health care system in such bad shape? Could previous government interventions in the health care market be part of the problem? Is more government intervention a step in the wrong direction? Would increased freedom and a return to market forces benefit health care consumers more? Only with the right diagnosis can the proper course of treatment be determined.
Dr. Paul combines his own medical experience with his free market philosophy to answer those questions. He has been around long enough to remember past government interventions, such as the 1973 HMO Act and the 1974 ERISA Act, and what the health care industry was like before them.
For decades, the U.S. health care system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor.
Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The move to the current system of corporate managed care pleased the big health care companies, drug companies, and insurance companies, but took away much of the market discipline of individuals controlling their own health care dollars. Ron Paul would restore that ideal with tax-free individual medical savings accounts, without the "use it or lose it" provision that turns existing plans into little more than prepaid medical services accounts favored by industry lobbyists. Ron Paul has consistently sided with individual consumers in the health care market, rather than the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which support candidates like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
Many liberals want to see the United States adopt a national health care plan similar to those in Canada or the United Kingdom, seeing more government involvement as the only way to improve the problems with our existing system. But government-run systems have their own set of problems. By separating the costs of health care from the benefits, such systems create increased demand, leading to rationing and discrimination in treatment.
This inevitable shortage is normally dealt with through increased waiting times, extending into multiple months or even longer. Reports of a six-month delay in treatment for a suicidal patient, or an eighteen-month delay for a hearing aid for a 108-year-old woman are only a couple of the more egregious examples in the British system, where over fifty percent of hospital patients wait more than four months for treatment.
The British system has taken an even more ominous approach to rationing care, withholding it from those who fail to conform to public policy health goals -- denying or delaying treatment to the obese, to drinkers, and to smokers. Denying care to the latter group is particularly unfair, since tobacco taxes are a key source of revenue for the system. Turning health care over to a government bureaucracy risks taking life-and-death-affecting decisions and politicizing them, something that proponents of universal health care should stop and consider.
What about extending coverage to more Americans, the admirable goal of the various proposals for increased government involvement in health care? Dr. Paul points out that the free market is the only proven system for delivering the maximum level of service to the maximum number of individuals, and that central economic planning invariably fails. His quote from a recent interview with the Kaiser Family Foundation states the case for freedom:
...all services and goods are best delivered in the marketplace under a free system. If you want cell phones, you don't ask FEMA to set up a bureaucracy and say, we want to deliver cell phones at the maximum effort, you know, to give them to the most people possible at the cheapest rate. The market did that, prices keep going down, whether it's computers or televisions or cell phones, those prices go down in spite of inflation.
Some skeptics of Ron Paul's plans to cut taxes and government spending have wondered what his policies would do for those who are currently dependent on Medicare or Medicaid, but he has proposed a gradual approach, not abandoning those who have become dependent on the existing system.
Well, there's not a shortage of money. There's a shortage of wisdom on what the priority should be.... I can't bring up medicine without talking about the amount of money we spend overseas because we are spending - our foreign policy involves up to nearly a trillion dollars a year, and I think it gets us into trouble. I can cut three or four or five hundred billion dollars from that, still have a strong national defense and have funds available to tide people over. People who have become dependent, whether it's medical dependency or Social Security, there's no reason why we should put them out in the street...
An often-overlooked aspect of increasing government control of health care is the loss of individual choice and the availability of alternative approaches. Ron Paul has made "Health Freedom" one of the main planks of his campaign platform, and has introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act in Congress.
I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom. I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies. I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 746, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
As someone who has worked in both the health care industry and the federal government for several decades, Ron Paul has a unique perspective on America's health care problems. Since many of the existing problems have been created or worsened by government involvement, Dr. Paul prescribes moving in the opposite direction, toward a freer and more efficient health care economy, driven not by insurance companies and government bureaucrats, but by doctors and patients.
Here is Ron Paul's spotlight video on health care, from YouTube's You Choose '08:
