Ron Paul on the Budget Showdown: A Grand Bargain for Liberty?

FYI - From Rep. Ron Paul/The Ron Paul Institute.

#LiveFree

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

#ClassicLiberal


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

                   

A Grand Bargain for Liberty?

Sunday September 29, 2013

As I write this, it appears that the federal government is about to shut down because the House and Senate cannot agree on whether to add language defunding or delaying Obamacare to the “Continuing Resolution”. Despite all the hand-wringing heard in DC, a short-term government shut down (which doesn’t actually shut down the government) will not cause the country to collapse.
And the American people would benefit if Obamacare was defeated or even delayed.

Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care. Denying funds to this program may give Congress time to replace this bill with free-market reforms that put patients and physicians back in charge of health care. Defunding the bill before it becomes implemented can spare the American people from falling under the worst effects of this law.

As heartened as we should be by the fight against Obamacare, we should be equally disheartened by the fact that so few in DC are talking about making real cuts in federal spending. Even fewer are talking about reductions in the most logical place to reduce spending: the military-industrial complex.

 The US military budget constitutes almost 50 percent of the total worldwide military spending.  Yet to listen to some in Congress, one would think that America was one canceled multi-million dollar helicopter contract away from being left totally defenseless.

What makes this military spending impossible to justify is that is does not benefit the American people. Instead, by fomenting resentment and hatred among the world population, our costly interventionist foreign policy makes our people less safe. Thus, reducing spending on militarism would not only help balance the budget, but would enhance our security.

Yet both the House and the Senate continuing resolutions not only fail to reduce military spending, they actually authorize $20 billion more in military spending than authorized by the “sequestration” created by the 2011 Budget Control Act.  Most of the supposedly “draconian” sequestration cuts are not even cuts; instead, they are "reductions in the planed rate of spending.” This is where Congress increases spending but by less than originally planned—and yet they claim to cut spending.

Under sequestration, military spending increases by 18 percent instead of by 20 percent over the next ten years. Yet some so-called conservatives are so opposed to these phony cuts in military spending that they would support increased taxes and increased welfare “military” spending. This “grand bargain” would benefit the DC political class and the special interests, but it would be a disaster for the American people.

Instead of grand bargains of increased spending and taxes, those of us who support limited government and free markets should form a coalition with antiwar liberals to reduce spending on both the military industrial complex and domestic welfare programs. Instead of raising taxes on “the rich” we should also work to reduce all corporate subsidies. This “grand bargain” would truly be a win-win for the American people.

Sadly, even if a congressional coalition to cut both warfare and welfare spending was formed, it would be unlikely to carry the day as long as the Federal Reserve is willing to enable Congress’s debt addiction by monetizing the debt. But this cannot last forever. At some point the Fed’s policies will result in hyper-inflation and an economic crisis that will force Congress to reduce spending.

Hopefully, the growing number of Americans who are awaking to the dangers of our current path can convince Congress to reduce overseas militarism and begin an orderly drawdown of the welfare state before this crisis occurs

Gov. Gary Johnson on Soaring Health Care Costs.

FYI - From Fox Business and Our America Initiative/Gov. Gary Johnson.

Gov. Gary Johnson on Soaring Health Care Costs.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues."

Rep. Paul Ryan Breaks Down ObamaCare in 6 Minutes.

President Obama's New Health Care Administrator.

FYI - From Reason Magazine.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/15/rationing-debate

Ron Paul Introduces the Private Option Health Care Act

FYI...


Ron Paul Introduces the Private Option Health Care Act

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN.

FYI...A little humor followed by some real food for thought.

-Aaron


______________________________________________________________________________________

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:


(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.


(9) Directions to your doctor's office include "Take a left when you enter the trailer park."


(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.


(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.


(6) The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is "an apple a day."


(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.


(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges," is not a typographical error.


(3) The only expense covered 100% is…. "Embalming."


(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.


AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:


(1) You ask for Viagra, and they give you a Popsicle stick and duct tape



*****
Will you patiently wait for health care at the end of a 32,000,000 person line? Proponents of ObamaCare are betting you will. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a version of health care reform which, like ObamaCare, promised to reduce wait times, particularly in emergency rooms. However, a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians has found that two-thirds of Massachusetts residents reported that wait times haven't decreased at all. In many cases, they've increased. The reason is simple: by expanding insurance coverage and ignoring physicians' needs, lawmakers increased demand but did nothing to encourage supply. ObamaCare makes the same mistake. In fact, ObamaCare's replica of the Massachusetts health care fiasco is so good that health care scholars now glumly predict "the new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity."

Meanwhile, your doctor is about to take a 21 percent pay cut. Will you fight for him? Advocates of ObamaCare are betting you won't. In order to hide the real costs of ObamaCare, Congress declined to include the so-called "doc-fix" in the recent health care legislation. However, that left doctors exposed to Medicare reimbursement rates at the 2001 level-despite the fact that the costs of senior care have increased 20 percent in the last decade. If Congress fails to act before June 1, physicians will have to bear a 21.3 percent drop in Medicare payments. Of course, this will hurt seniors even more than it hurts the doctors who care for them.

But have no fear: a check is in the mail! If you're over 65, you may have a bitter taste in your mouth from watching ObamaCare strip $500 billion from Medicare. To make amends, proponents of ObamaCare are now offering seniors a palate cleanser in the form of a $250 rebate. Seniors may use these dollars to offset the drop in prescription drug coverage known as the Medicare "doughnut hole." Of course, every little helps, but the reality is that a senior's out-of-pocket drug costs can exceed $3,000 annually. Compared to the theft of $500,000,000,000 from Medicare, a less-than-ten-percent rebate on prescription drug costs is hardly the way that America's senior citizens should be treated.

"You can keep your insurance if you like it." You may remember President Obama's most famous health care promise. It turns out the President's campaign pledge isn't worth the teleprompter it was uploaded to. The numbers speak for themselves. Because of ObamaCare:

An estimated 19 million employees will lose their employer-based insurance coverage.
As many as 11.5 million Americans will lose Medicare Advantage.

33 million Medicare beneficiaries will experience massive cuts in quality and access.
In addition to these incredible statistics, all indications suggest that in the coming months millions more will lose their employer-based insurance as companies discover how much they can save by booting employees into government-provide insurance pools.

Call Your Congressman - Support Rep. Paul's H.R. 4995!!!

Call, E-mail, or Write your Congressmen and tell them to support Rep. Ron Paul's "End the Mandate" Bill, H.R. 4995. If passed, this legislation will make it illegal to make individuals purchase government health insurance.

-Aaron


_______________________________________________________________________________________
Congressman Paul has officially introduced his legislation to repeal the federal health insurance mandate. The bill is titled “End the Mandate” and the bill number is HR 4995. The bill’s text will be available shortly.

In a recent Fox News interview Ron Paul described his bill as follows

Ron Paul: “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. [...] 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. [...] 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.”

On April 13, 2010, Ron Paul released the following statement:

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Introduction of End the Mandate Act
April 13, 2010

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the End the Mandate Act. This legislation repeals the sections of the recently-passed health reform bill that force all Americans to purchase federally-approved health insurance plans.

Forcing every American to obtain health insurance is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders of this provision claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives Congress the power to mandate every American obtain a federally-approved health insurance plan. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance.

Forcing every American to obtain a congressionally-approved health insurance plan is not just unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.

Madam Speaker, the new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim.

First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.

Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasingly subsidizing health insurance for an ever increasing number of Americans.

When the cost of government–mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals, small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will reimburse.

Madam Speaker, Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to join me in correcting this mistake by cosponsoring the End the Mandate Act.

Ron Paul Discusses Repealing ObamaCare.