U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | patient |
patient
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:6
In 1937, and I am sure some of my conservative colleagues might be interested in this because it was the great FDR who decided to impose a great tax on marijuana, putting $100 tax on a pound of marijuana, essentially making it illegal. And even today those States who would like to legalize marijuana even for the sick and dying AIDS patients and the cancer patients are not even permitted to. It is because we have carelessly assumed that all regulation and all controls and all policing activities should be done here in Washington.
patient
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.
patient
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
patient
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:2
As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
patient
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:4
Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.
patient
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:6
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
patient
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
patient
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
patient
Patient Protection Act
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 83:2
I rise in support of the rule. Under the circumstances, the rule is very fair. It offers an opportunity for our side to vote for the Patient Protection Act as well as a vote for the opposition. I think that is quite fair, so I strongly support the rule.
patient
Patient Protection Act
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 83:4
In 1996, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill allowed for a national identifier and a national data bank to control all our medical records at a national level. This is very dangerous. In a bill that is called the Patient Protection Act, obviously the best thing we can do is protect patient privacy. If we do not, we interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and this is a disaster.
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I cannot vote for the Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250). However, I would first like to express my support for two of the bill’s provisions, relating to Medical Savings Accounts and relating to the proposed national health ID.
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:2
Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.”
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:5
An an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience, I find it outrageous that any insurance company bureaucrat could presume to stand between a doctor and a patient. However, in order to properly fix the problem, we must understand its roots. The problems with American health care coverage are rooted in the American tax system, which provides incentives for employers to offer first-dollar insurance benefits to their employees, while providing no incentives for individuals to attempt to control their own health care costs. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that those paying the bill would eventually seize control over personal health care choices as a means of controlling costs.
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:8
MSA’s provide consumers the freedom to find high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. MSA’s allow consumers to benefit when they economize in choosing health care so they will be more likely to make informed health care decisions such as seeking preventive care and, when possible, negotiate with their providers for the lowest possible costs. Most importantly, MSA’s are the best means available to preserve the patient’s right to choose their doctor and the treatment that best meets their needs, free from interference by an insurance company or an HMO.
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:9
Mr. Speaker, all those concerned with empowering patients should endorse H.R. 4250’s provisions lifting all caps on how many Americans may purchase an MSA and repealing federal regulations that discourage Americans from using MSA’s. For example, a provision in the tax code limits the monthly contribution to the MSA to one-twentieth of the MSA’s yearly amount. Thus, MSA holders have a small portion of their yearly contribution accessible to them in the early months of the year. The Patient Protection Act allows individuals to make the full contribution to their MSA at any time of the year, so someone who establishes an MSA in January does not have to worry if they get sick in February.
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:11
However, as much as I support H.R. 4250’s expansion of MSA’s, I equally object to those portions of the bill placing new federal standards on employer offered health care plans. Proponents of these standards claim that they will not raise cost by more than a small percentage point. However, even an increase of a small percentage point could force many marginal small businesses to stop offering health care for their employees, thus causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. This will then lead to a new round of government intervention. Unlike Medical Savings Accounts which remove the HMO bureaucracy currently standing between physicians and patients, the so-called patient protections portions of this bill add a new layer of government-imposed bureaucracy. For example, H.R. 4250 guarantees each patient the right to external and internal review of insurance company’s decisions. However, this does not empower patients to make their own decisions. If both external and internal review turn down a patient’s request for treatment, the average patient will have no choice but to accept the insurance companies decision. Furthermore, anyone who has ever tried to navigate through a government-controlled “appeals process” has reason to be skeptical of the claims that the review process will be completed in less than three days. Imposing new levels of bureaucracy on HMO’s is a poor substitute for returning to the American people the ability to decide for themselves, in consultation with their care giver, what treatments are best for them. Medical Savings Accounts are the best patient protection.
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:12
Perhaps the biggest danger these regulations pose is ratification of the principle that guaranteeing a patients’ access to physicians is the proper role for the government, thus opening the door for further federal control of the patient-physician relationship. I ask my physician-colleagues who support this regulation, once we have accepted the notion that federal government can ensure patients have access to our services, what defense can we offer when the government places new regulations and conditions on that access?
patient
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while the Patient Protection Act takes some good steps toward placing patients back in control of the health care system, it also furthers the federal role in overseeing the health system. It is my belief that the unintended, but inevitable, consequence of this bill, will require Congress to return to the issue of health care reform in a few years. I hope Congress gets it right next time.
patient
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 100:2
But I have also concluded that the war on drugs is a failed war and that we should be doing something else. I might point out that the argument for the use of marijuana in medicine is not for pain. To say that it has not relieved pain is not what this is about. Marijuana has been used by cancer patients who have been receiving chemotherapy who have intractable nausea. It is the only thing they have found that has allowed them to eat, and so many cancer patients die from malnutrition. The same is true about an AIDS patient. So this is a debate on compassion, as well as legality.
patient
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.
patient
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that under the rule my amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill is not permitted. This simple amendment forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from spending any funds to implement those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
patient
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:3
Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
patient
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:5
Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.
patient
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:7
The National Provider ID will force physicians who use technologies such as e-mail in their practices to record all health care transactions with the government. This will allow the government to track and monitor the treatment of all patients under that doctor’s care. Government agents may pull up the medical records of a patient with no more justification than a suspicion the provider is involved in fraudulent activity unrelated to that patient’s care!
patient
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:10
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
patient
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.
patient
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
9 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 118:4
A member of my staff has been informed by a small home health care operator in my district that passage of this bill would allow them only to provide an additional eight visits per year. This will not keep home health patients with complex medical conditions out of nursing homes and hospitals. Congress should implement a real, budget-neutral home health care reform rather than waste our time and the taxpayers’ money with the phony reform before us today.
patient
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:7
Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill prohibiting the federal government from using identifiers to monitor private transactions is necessary to stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” for every American—an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?
patient
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:12
Secondly, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for certain state-favored third parties. For example, a little-noticed provision in the Patient Protection Act established a property right for insurance companies to access personal health care information. Congress also authorized private individuals to receive personal information from government data bases in last year’s copyright bill. The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. Obviously, “private protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information!
patient
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:58
He is accurate in quoting the court case, but that does not make it right. Courts do not have the authority to repeal a fundamental right as important as that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Under this reasoning, when applied to our medical records, all confidentiality between the doctor and the patient is destroyed.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 94:3
The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 94:4
Comprehensive impatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 94:6
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 95:3
The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbus and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 95:4
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 95:6
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
9 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 96:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds. The Brazosport RehabCare center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
9 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 96:3
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
patient
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
9 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 96:5
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
patient
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:22
When small governments become too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:4
In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations. In a free market, this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:5
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:7
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a taxpayers’ bill of rights, or now a patients’ bill of rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? If over the last 50 years we had had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, State jurisdiction, and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we are facing today in providing medical care.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:9
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients’ bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:10
The patients’ bill of rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:12
A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands increased because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population — just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels became much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:13
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors like being paid adequately for services than in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:14
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increased benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:15
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style”, that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:17
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:18
Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of “something for nothing” developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes, not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level “loser pays” laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:19
In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a “lucky” lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:21
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:24
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
patient
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:25
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:2
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:4
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new “Bill of Rights” such as a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or now a Patient’s Bill of Rights. Why don’t more Members ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services. If over the last fifty years we had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we’re facing today in providing medical care.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:6
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient’s Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent “necessary” to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients’ Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:7
The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third-parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made. A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population — just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels become much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:8
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:9
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increase benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care, limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the policitians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:10
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:11
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style,” that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:12
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:14
Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of the problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of “something for nothing” developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level “loser pays” laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:15
In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a “lucky” lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:17
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:20
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
patient
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:21
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:6
Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:14
H.R. 2260 makes an effort to delineate the prescribing of narcotics for alleviating pain from that of intentionally killing the patient. There is no way medically, legally, or morally to tell the difference. This law will serve to curtail the generous use of narcotics in a legitimate manner in caring for the dying. Claiming that this law will not hinder the legitimate use of drugs for medical purposes but not for an intentional death is wishful thinking. In fear that a doctor will be charged for intentionally killing a patient, even though the patient may have died coincidentally with an injection, this bill will provide a great barrier to the adequate treatment of our sick and dying who are suffering and are in intense pain.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:16
All physicians should be concerned about a federal government agency setting up protocols for medical care recognizing that many patients need a variation in providing care and a single protocol cannot be construed as being “correct”.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:20
This program and this bill essentially nationalizes all terminal care and opens up Pandora’s box in regards to patient choices as well as doctor judgment. This bill, no matter how well intended, is dangerously flawed and will do great harm to the practice of medicine and for the care of the dying. This bill should be rejected.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:10
The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of “assisted” suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States — most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting “assisted suicide” — and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs — it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against — was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
patient
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
patient
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:81
In the early stages, patients, doctors and hospitals welcomed these programs. Generous care was available with more than adequate reimbursement. It led to what one would expect, abuse, overcharges and overuse. When costs rose, it was necessary through government rulemaking and bureaucratic management to cut reimbursement and limit the procedures available and personal choice of physicians. We do not have socialized medicine but we do have bureaucratic medicine, mismanaged by the government and select corporations who usurp the decisionmaking power from the physician. The way medical care is delivered today in the United States is a perfect example of the evils of corporatism and an artificial system that only politicians, responding to the special interests, could create. There is no reason to believe the market cannot deliver medical care in an efficient manner as it does computers, automobiles and televisions. But the confidence is gone and everyone assumes, just as in education, that only a Federal bureaucracy is capable of solving the problems of maximizing the number of people, including the poor, who receive the best medical care available. In an effort to help the poor, the quality of care has gone down for everyone else and the costs have skyrocketed.
patient
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 3:7
I have extensive experience in the clinical use of gamma hyudroxy butyric acid (GHB) . . . I have used these substances for over ten years on hundreds of patients (and have advised thousands through my books and articles on the subject). I have not had one instance reported to me of adverse effects in my patients. GHB is the safest, most nontoxic sleep inducing substance known. It has a wide range of other therapeutic uses. The therapeutic threshold for GHB is greater than almost any known pharmaceutical substance (the LD50 is 40–100 times greater than the sleep-inducing therapeutic dose of 3–6 grams!).
patient
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:44
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and not only is there no evidence of reduced drug usage, we have instead seen a tremendous increase. Many deaths have occurred from overdoses of street drugs since there is no quality control or labeling. Crime as a consequence of drug prohibition has skyrocketed and our prisons are overflowing. Many prisoners are nonviolent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimum sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have nonviolent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers.
patient
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:72
Standards of behavior of our professional athletes seem to reflect the rules followed in the ring by the professional wrestlers where anything goes. Managed medical care driven by government decrees has reduced its quality and virtually ruined the doctor-patient relationship.
patient
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:9
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that no private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on as massive a scale as the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the case of the Medicare clerk who sold the names of Medicare patients to an HMO, to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties have occurred by government agents. Therefore Congress should focus on the threat to liberty caused by the federal government’s use of uniform identifiers.
patient
Medical Privacy Amendment
June 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 41:7
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues that this form of invasion of our medical privacy will not serve us well in medical care. What it leads to is incomplete and inaccurate medical records, because it becomes known to the patient as well as the physician that once this information is accumulated that it might get in the hands of the politicians and used for reasons other than for medical care, I think, it could damage medical care endangered from having a medical data bank set up.
patient
Medical Privacy Amendment
June 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 41:10
I believe it is a fallacy for those who promote the setting up of a universal medical identifier and a universal medical data bank that it is an effort to simplify the process, to streamline the system, to make government more efficient, to facilitate medical research. It has also been said this could be used in law enforcement. But just think about this. If these records can be turned over without the approval of the patient to law enforcement, it really, quite clearly, is a violation of the fifth amendment of self-incrimination. So this idea that this medical bank might be beneficial for law enforcement is rather scary and something that we should prevent.
patient
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 60:4
All we are asking for here is a little bit of return of freedom to the physician, that is, for the right of the physician to freedom of contract, to associate. We are giving no special powers, no special privileges. Trying to balance just to a small degree the artificial power given to the corporations who now run medicine, who mismanage medicine, who destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.
patient
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 60:5
Mr. Speaker, this has given me a small bit of hope. I am thankful the leadership was willing to bring this bill to the floor tonight. We should go through, get the rule passed, and vote on this. This is the only thing that has offered any hope to preserve and to restore the doctor-patient relationship.
patient
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 60:6
We need this desperately. We do not need to support the special corporate interests who get the money. The patient does not get the care. The doctors are unhappy. The hospitals are unhappy. And who lobbies against this? Corporate interests. This is total destruction of the doctor-patient relationship.
patient
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:1
* Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
patient
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:3
* As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
patient
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:7
* Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Congress will follow up on its action today by empowering patients to control their health care by providing all Americans with access to Medical Saving Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they found most beneficial to them, the HMO monster would wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
patient
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:8
* In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to American’s health care professionals. Antitrust laws are no more legitimate or constitutional in the health care market than they are on the software market. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will not just pass this bill but will also support my Market Process Restoration Act and exempt all Americans from antitrust laws. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free-market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar through means such as Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and individual health care tax credits.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE ESSENTIAL RURAL HOSPITAL PRESERVATION ACT
September 20, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 78:8
* Considering that the BBA of 1997 has resulted in Medicare savings of over $50 billion more than projected by Congress surely it is not to much to ask that Congress ensure Medicare patients in rural areas are not denied access to quality health care services because of the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Amendment. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for rural hospitals by cosponsoring the Essential Rural Hospital Preservation Act.
patient
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000 2000 Ron Paul 87:7
* While much of the discussion of identity theft and related threats to privacy has concerned private sector criminals, the major threat to privacy lies in the power uniform identifiers give to government officials. I am sure I need not remind my colleagues of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies, or of the cases of government officials rummaging through the confidential files of celebrities and/or their personal acquaintances, or of the Medicare clerk who sold confidential data about Medicare patients to a Health Maintenance Organization. After considering these cases, one cannot help but shudder at the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ ‘uniform identifier’ into a database.
patient
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:6
* We must restore individual control over health care dollars, and MSAs coupled with health care tax credits and deductions are an important step in the right direction. MSAs and health care tax deductions lower health care costs without sacrificing quality by motivating patients to negotiate for the highest quality care at a reasonable price.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:7
* Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:13
* Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposal, which allow medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.
patient
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:135
Today if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness, and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA- and only after much begging and pleading. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk. The government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in government think that’s what they are supposed to do for the good of the people .
patient
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:79
Today, if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA and only after much begging. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:3
* The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs. However, it was Congress which had caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to costs when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to control health care cost stripped away, and because politicians where unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs, preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients, and mandating that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sounds like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, Big Government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:4
* Mr. Speaker, in reading this article, I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today promoting the so-called “patients’ rights” legislation which attempts to deal with the problem of the HMOs by imposing new federal mandates on the private sector. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs in the free market, and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:5
* As Ms. Brase, points out, so-called “patients’ rights” legislation will only further empower federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions for individuals and entrench the current government-HMO complex. Furthermore, because the Patient’s Bill of Rights will increase health care costs, thus increasing the number of Americans without health insurance, it will result in pleas for yet another government intervention in the health care market!
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:9
Only 27 years ago, congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed that American patients should gently but firmly be forced into managed care. That patients do not know this fact is evidenced by public outrage directed at health maintenance organizations (HMOs) instead of Congress.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:12
Offering “free care” led to predictable results. Because Congress placed no restrictions on benefits and removed all sense of cost-consciousness, health-care use and medical costs skyrocketed. Congressional testimony reveals that between 1969 and 1971, physician fees increased 7 percent and hospital charges jumped 13 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose only 5.3 percent. The nation’s health-care bill, which was only $39 billion in 1965, increased to $75 billion in 1971. Patients had found the fount of unlimited care, and doctors and hospitals had discovered a pot of gold.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:24
As patients have since discovered, the HMO — staffed by physicians employed by and beholden to corporations — was not much of a Christmas present or an insurance product. It promises coverage but often denies access. The HMO, like other prepaid MCOs, requires enrollees to pay in advance for a long list of routine and major medical benefits, whether the health-care services are needed, wanted, or ever used. The HMOs are then allowed to manage care — without access to dollars and service — through definitions of medical necessity, restrictive drug formularies, and HMO-approved clinical guidelines. As a result, HMOs can keep millions of dollars from premium-paying patients. HMO BARRIERS ELIMINATED
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:26
To accomplish this goal, public officials had to ensure that HMOs developed the size and stability necessary to take on the financial risks of capitated government health-care programs. This required that HMOs capture a significant portion of the private insurance market. Once Medicare and Medicaid recipients began to enroll in HMOs, the organizations would have the flexibility to pool their resources, redistribute private premium dollars, and ration care across their patient populations.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:33
The move to managed care has been strongly supported by public-health officials who anticipate that public-private partnerships will provide funding for public-health infrastructure and initiatives, along with access to the medical records of private patients. The fact that health care is now organized in large groups by companies that hold millions of patient records and control literally hundreds of millions of health-care dollars has allowed unprecedented relationships to form between governments and health plans.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:35
Federal officials, eager to keep HMOs in business, have even been willing to violate federal law. In August 1998, a federal court chided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for renewing HMO contracts that violate their own Medicare regulations. THE RUSE OF PATIENT PROTECTION
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:36
Truth be told, HMOs allowed politicians to promise access to comprehensive health-care services without actually delivering them. Because treatment decisions could not be linked directly to Congress, HMOs provided the perfect cover for its plans to contain costs nationwide through health-care rationing. Now that citizens are angry with managed (rationed) care, the responsible parties in Congress, Senator Kennedy in particular, return with legislation ostensibly to protect patients from the HMOs they instituted.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:37
At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:38
Real patient protection flows from patient control. Only when patients hold health-care dollars in their own hands will they experience the protection and power inherent in purchasing their own insurance policies, making cost-conscious health-care decisions, and inciting cost-reducing competition for the cash.
patient
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:39
What could be so bad about that? A lot, it seems. Public officials worry privately that patients with power may not choose managed-care plans, eventually destabilizing the HMOs Congress is so dependent on for cost containment and national health-care initiatives. Witness congressional constraints on individually owned, tax-free medical savings accounts and the reluctance to break up employer-sponsored coverage by providing federal tax breaks to individuals. Unless citizens wise up to Congress’s unabashed but unadvertised support for managed care, it appears unlikely that real patient power will rise readily to the top of its agenda.
patient
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:11
* The American public is right to oppose these regulations, for they not only endanger privacy but could even endanger health! As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these regulations. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information.
patient
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:12
* I ask my colleagues to consider what will happen to that trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers or handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant?
patient
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:13
* Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues agree that questions regarding who should or should not have access to one’s medical privacy are best settled by way of contract between a patient and a provider. However, the government-insurance company complex that governs today’s health care industry has deprived individual patients of control over their health care records, as well as over numerous other aspects of their health care. Rather than put the individual back in charge of his or her medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services’ privacy regulations give the federal government the authority to decide who will have access to individual medical records. These regulations thus reduce individuals’ ability to protect their own medical privacy.
patient
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:14
* These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by placing the perceived “societal” need to advance medical research over the individual’s right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing this latest threat to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution.
patient
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
patient
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:2
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS’s rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent!
patient
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:4
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government has obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.
patient
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information.
patient
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:2
* Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS’s misnamed “federal privacy” regulations, would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into a health care database.
patient
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:5
* As an OB/GYN-with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
patient
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:8
* This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
patient
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:10
* Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
patient
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:11
* Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
patient
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights
August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 73:5
I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose all versions of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Once again Congress is staging a phony debate over which form of statism to embrace, instead of asking the fundamental question over whether Congress should be interfering in this area at all, much less examine how previous interferences in the health care market created the problems which these proposals claim to address.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:5
However, it was previous Congressional action which caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to prices when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to monitor health care prices stripped away and because politicians were unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs and preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients. This legislation also mandated that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sound like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, big government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:6
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:8
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:11
Many members of Congress have convinced themselves that they can support a “watered-down” Patients’ Bill of Rights which will allow them to appease the supporters of nationalized medicine without creating the negative consequences of the unmodified Patients’ Bill of Rights, while even some supporters of the most extreme versions of this legislation say they will oppose any further steps to increase the power of government over health care. These well-intentioned members ignore the economic fact that partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. A vote for any version of a Patients’ Bill of Rights is a 100 percent endorsement of the principle of government management of the health care system.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:12
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered- down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:15
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:17
Congress should also remove all federallyimposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:18
While none of the proposed “Patients’ Bill of Rights” addresses the root cause of the problems in our nation’s health care system, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky does expend individual control over health care by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) available to everyone. This is the most important thing Congress can do to get market forces operating immediately and improve health care. When MSAs make patient motivation to save and shop a major force to reduce cost, physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at the maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
patient
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:20
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.
patient
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant woman unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem.
patient
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry, Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, but will certainly benefit the patients and physicians which both sides in this debate claim to represent.
patient
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:8
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.
patient
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:9
I am working on legislation to provide tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.
patient
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:11
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of HR 4600 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.
patient
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:7
Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible database? Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to violate the rights of American citizens.
patient
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:13
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy” regulation, which allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.
patient
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
patient
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
patient
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by expanding access to Medical Savings Accounts and providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
patient
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:8
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America’s health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
patient
Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.
patient
Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 33:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
patient
Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 33:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.
patient
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB–GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant women unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem.
patient
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry. Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, buy will certainly benefit the patients and physicians, which both sides in this debate claim to represent.
patient
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:7
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.
patient
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:8
I have introduced the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249). H.R. 1249 provides tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.
patient
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 5 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.
patient
Crisis In Healthcare
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities.
patient
Crisis In Healthcare
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 35:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all ilncentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
patient
“Negative Outcomes” Insurance – A Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 39:3
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
patient
“Negative Outcomes” Insurance – A Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 39:4
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.
patient
Comprehensive Health Care Reform Without Socialized Medicine
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities.
patient
Comprehensive Health Care Reform Without Socialized Medicine
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 40:2
Unfortunately, most health care reform proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
patient
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which went into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize health care as much as politically possible.
patient
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:11
As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these privacy regulations and the unique health identifier scheme. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care.
patient
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:12
Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information.
patient
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:15
Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a unique health care identifier violates the Fourth and Fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records, combined with a federally-assigned medical ID, facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act.
patient
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:9
The whole notion that we can deny this right to the States to allow a little bit of compassion for a patient that is dying, I would say this is a compassionate vote. If we care about the people being sick, then we have to vote for this amendment. This will do nothing to increase the use of bad drugs. The bad drugs are there; and as a physician and a parent and a grandparent, I preach against it all the time, but the unwise use of drugs is a medical problem, just like alcoholism is a medical problem; but we have turned this into a monster to the point where we will not even allow a person dying from cancer and AIDS to get a little bit of relief.
patient
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:14
Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection : Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences — sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of all federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.” Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone.
patient
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:15
FDA and Legal Drugs—For Our Own Protection : Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. These same naïve dreamers are the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves, we must prohibit them from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses, and don’t get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available, with full disclosure, to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make their own decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after years of testing. It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society! For those who can’t get a potentially helpful drug but might receive a little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own back yard legally in their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state laws, adding insult to injury.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is a pain management physician who bears the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the War on Drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug kingpins to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:4
Furthering the problem is that patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But, according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary, in many cases, to prescribe such a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids — even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course, opioids bought on the street will likely pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than will opioids obtained from a physician.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.
patient
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:4
Unfortunately, patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary in many cases to prescribe a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids altogether — even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “Our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years of experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.
patient
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment to act in their patients’ best interests. Doctors also should not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.
patient
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
patient
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 10:11
One other point is that as a physician I have come to the firm conclusion that the war on drugs has been very detrimental to the practice of medicine and the care of patients. The drug culture has literally handicapped physicians in caring for the ill and the pain that people suffer with terminal illnesses. I have seen doctors in tears coming to me and saying that all his wife had asked me for was to die not in pain; and even he, as a physician, could not get enough pain medication because they did not want to make her an addict. So we do have a lot of unintended consequences.
patient
Introducing Cassandra Tamez’s Essay Into The Congressional Record
2004 Ron Paul 29:10
I have to admit that this poem has inspired me. Because even though I am but one speck of sand on a beach, I know that I am a solid and firm speck, and that there are other specs like me that compose the sand. I am one of many who may carry the optimistic attitude of commitment to America. Once again, I think back to my efforts of recycling, donating money, and pledging my time, and realize that they were not futile efforts at all. When I recycled, I know it was probably only thirty newspapers out of trillions in the world, but what if I recycled once a month? That would be 360 newspapers a year for a lifetime. I might save a beautiful tree or even more. As for donating money, well 88 cents a day from me might not feed a child, but if only nine more people in my state donate 88 cents, then that child has a total of $8.80, my estimate of money needed for a day. Now, as far as pledging my time goes, I do not think my time spent in the nursing home was a complete waste. I did help one patient who was in pain.
patient
Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 46:7
My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department to prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that monitoring to the States where it should be in the first place, and let us get rid of this idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many pain pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering from cancer.
patient
Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 46:10
And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse.
patient
Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 46:11
Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get adequate pain medication.
patient
Marinol And Terrorism
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 48:5
But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, freedom of choice.
patient
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors. This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain. These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients.
patient
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:3
Doctors and their staffs may even be prosecuted because of a patient’s actions that no doctor approved or even knew about. A doctor has no way of controlling if a patient gives some of the prescribed medication away or consumes a prescribed drug in a dangerous combination with illegal drugs or other prescription drugs obtained from another source. Nonetheless, doctors can be subjected to prosecution when a patient takes such actions.
patient
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:5
A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically justified amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be excessively prescribing. Because so few doctors are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with treating chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often consume significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution of one pain doctor can be heralded as a large success. All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of patients and drugs associated with a medical practice.
patient
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain. Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs. Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients’ best interests.
patient
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:7
HR 3015 also threatens patients’ privacy. A patient’s medical records should be treated according to the mutual agreement of the patient and doctor. In contrast, HR 3015 will put a patient’s prescriptions on a government-mandated database that can be accessed without the patient’s permission!
patient
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:9
One way the House can act to protect patients’ privacy is by enacting my Patient Privacy Act (HR 1699) that repeals the provision of federal law establishing a medical ID for every American. Under the guise of “protecting privacy,” the Health and Human Services’ so-called “medical privacy” regulations allow medical researchers, insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal medical records — without your consent! Congress should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our medical privacy.
patient
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician- patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
patient
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:16
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
patient
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier--an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
patient
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:16
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy'” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
patient
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:2
This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and terminally ill. This type of decision is manageable most of the time without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to determine proper guardianship. The unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which branch of government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was, brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.
patient
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:4
In a free society the doctor and the patient-- or his or her designated spokesperson-- make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing with death and dying issues. The government stays out of it.
patient
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:8
Eventually, government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.
patient
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:18
The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability. Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
patient
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:19
Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years. But lawyers weren’t involved, nor the courts nor the legislators nor any part of the government-- only the patient, the patient’s family, and the doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a federal case of the dying process.
patient
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:24
Hopefully, this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing falls far short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters.
patient
Tribute To Dr. Andrew Messenger, A True Friend Of Liberty
6 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 37:2
As a physician, I know Dr. Messenger is the type of doctor all of us would want to have to take care of us. He is capable, loves his work, genuinely cares about his patients, and is always available if someone needs him. In fact, he loves being a doctor so much that he did not retire until this past year at age 83.
patient
Tribute To Dr. Andrew Messenger, A True Friend Of Liberty
6 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 37:3
Every day he would wake up early to be at the office by 6:45 a.m. He knew that many of his working patients preferred to come in early so he made himself available. Dr. Messenger felt that if he as a doctor was unavailable, he was worthless.
patient
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 75:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
patient
Introducing The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.
patient
Introducing The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 77:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
patient
Introducing The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 77:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new Federal regulations on the insurance industry.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:8
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America’s health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
patient
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act. This act exempts people with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
patient
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 79:4
As a physician who has specialized in women’s health issues for decades, I know how critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have the resources they need to combat these illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act provides a realistic way to help people suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses receive quality health care.
patient
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 79:5
It is hard to think of a more compassionate tax policy this Congress could enact than to stop taking the resources away from working Americans that could help them treat cancer, AIDS, or other terrible health problems. I hope all my colleagues will help people suffering from terminal illnesses, and their caregivers, by cosponsoring the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act.
patient
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:3
Debt is like an addiction: the political pain of withdrawal keeps politicians spending, so they do not offend any special interest groups demanding that government benefits continue. As with all addictions, long-term dependency on a dangerous substance can kill the patient. Dependency on bad policy also can destroy the goose that many believe lays the golden egg.
patient
Illegal Drug Problem — Part 1
9 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 11:7
And alcohol is still now a severe problem in this country. And we knew that Prohibition produced many more problems than the alcohol itself. I think that is true with drugs. I think we have allowed ourselves to be carried away, to a large degree, because now we have laws that lack compassion. We do know, in the medical field, that marijuana can be helpful to cancer patients and AIDS patients can be helped where our drugs are not helpful; and to me this is just sad that we override State laws that permit it.
patient
Illegal Drug Problem — Part 1
9 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 11:8
The overwhelming number of people in the country now are saying that we ought to allow marijuana to be used for very sick patients. Not too long ago, just this week, I had a meeting with a student that came from a central Asian country. He was an exchange student. He says the big subject at his school was, what is the age limit when I can drink alcohol? They would ask him that and he said, there is no age limit.
patient
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:37
The right choice is very difficult, but remaining addicted to drugs guarantees the death of the patient, while our addiction to deficit spending, debt and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy.
patient
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:45
It seems bizarre that it’s so unthinkable to change course if the current policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can’t tell the patient he made a mistake. Instead he hopes the patient will get better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics.
patient
Tribute To UTMB
26 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 71:3
UTMB is one of the major centers of medical research in Texas and in the Nation. UTMB features a multidisciplinary environment that enables scientists and clinicians to work on projects that often have immediate application to patient care. Among UTMB’s areas of strength are neuroscience; pain management and stroke treatment; gastrointestinal health; environmental health and asthma; infectious diseases; vaccine development; cancer; molecular medicine; aging; and diabetes. Among its numerous activities, UTMB hosts summer science programs for middle school, high school, and undergraduate students to help encourage and develop the research work force of tomorrow.
patient
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:10
This legislation not only repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, it also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
patient
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:17
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy’ ” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
patient
Statement On The Iraq War Resolution
14 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 26:13
Resorting to a medical analogy: A wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insisting on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient. In this case, the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity, here at home, and peace abroad.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patients and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:3
As an OB–GYN who spent over 30 years practicing medicine, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:7
Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
patient
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:8
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America’s health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
patient
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 86:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
patient
Introduction Of The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.
patient
Introduction Of The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 87:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the States. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
patient
Introduction Of The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 87:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.
patient
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act. This act exempts people with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
patient
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 109:4
As a physician who has specialized in women’s health issues for decades, I know how critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have the resources they need to combat these illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act provides a realistic way to help people suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses receive quality health care.
patient
NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007
8 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 20:3
As the Federal Government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing Government officials and State-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.
patient
MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008
24 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again forsaking an opportunity to begin addressing Medicare’s long-term fiscal problems. Instead, the legislation before us today, while not without its merits, exacerbates the problems facing Medicare by giving new authority to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), even though CMS’s excessive power is a major reason why so many physicians and patients are dissatisfied with the current Medicare system.
patient
MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008
24 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 39:3
I certainly recognize the need to make adjustments in physicians’ payments. Many physicians are already losing money treating Medicare patients, thanks to CMS’s low reimbursements and the cost of having to comply with CMS’s numerous rules and regulations. Unless Congress acts, many physicians will simply refuse to see Medicare patients. I think we all agree that driving physicians out of the Medicare program is not the proper way to reform the system.
patient
MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008
24 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 39:6
Congress should also reform the Medicare system by providing Medicare patients more control over their health care than is available under either traditional Medicare or the Medicare Advantage program.
patient
MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008
24 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 39:7
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6331 may provide some short-term benefit to Medicare providers, however, it does so by further jeopardizing the long-term fiscal soundness of the Medicare program. Thus, passage of this bill will ultimately damage the very Medicare providers and patients the bill aims to help.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:10
This legislation not only repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, it also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier – an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:17
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
patient
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities.
patient
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 28:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
patient
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. For over a decade, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
patient
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:3
As an OB–GYN who spent over 30 years practicing medicine, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
patient
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:7
Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
patient
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:8
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America’s health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE FREEDOM FROM UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litagation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE FREEDOM FROM UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 32:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF THE FREEDOM FROM UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 32:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.
patient
Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
March 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 39:1
Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities.
patient
Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
March 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 39:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
patient
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:6
Madam Speaker, the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (H.R. 1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government-knows- best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
patient
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act. This legislation protects medical privacy, as well as quality health care, by allowing patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals the sections of Federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a third party.
patient
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:4
One of the major flaws with the federally mandated electronic record system is that it does not provide adequate privacy protection. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the Federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
patient
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:5
Even if the law did not authorize violations of medical privacy, patients would still have good reason to be concerned about the government’s ability to protect their medical records. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. My colleagues should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties and ask themselves what would happen if unscrupulous politicians gain the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records.
patient
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:6
As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality health care is the patient’s confidence that all information the patient shares with his or her health care provider will remain confidential. Forcing physicians to place their patients’ medical records in a system without adequate privacy protection undermines that confidence, and thus undermines effective medical treatment.
patient
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:9
Madam Speaker, allowing patients and providers to opt out of the electronic medical records system will in no way harm the practice of medicine or the development of an efficient system of keeping medical records. Instead, it will enhance these worthy goals by ensuring patients and physicians can escape the inefficient, one-size-fits-all government- mandated system. By creating a market for alternatives to the government system, the op- out ensures that private businesses can work to develop systems that meet the demands for an efficient system of electronic records that protects patients’ privacy. I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act.
patient
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:9
Number eight, bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.
patient
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:11
Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
patient
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:18
Number 15, there must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in the 20th century as a consequence of the Flexner Report in 1910, which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed, and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities, and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physicians’ income and promote allopathic medicine over the natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
patient
Afghanistan, Part 2
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 97:2
I just want to mention a couple of things that I think are bad arguments. One thing is we are involved there, we have invested too much, and, therefore, we have to save face because it would look terrible if we had to leave. But it is like in medicine. What if we, in medicine, were doing the wrong thing, made the wrong diagnosis? Would we keep doing it to prove that we are right or are we going listen to the patient and to the results? Mr. KAGEN. You would lose your license.
patient
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 18 ... Cached
By rushing quickly for the pills of government-enforced sanctions, we may have the best of intentions to cure China of her evil leadership. But unfortunately, those pills will only harm the patient. We must swallow our pride and admit that perhaps the best remedy is not the first solution.
patient
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 20 ... Cached
We will lose the patient if we act hastily, and that cannot be option. It's never an option when I have a patient on the operating table, and it cannot be an option when dealing with China.
patient
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
To the dismay of medical privacy advocates, the bill goes so far as to authorize the FDA to track patients who use certain medical devices for up to 36 months, and even to conduct post-market surveillance of these patients. Just think, a formerly overweight patient may be followed by an FDA agent to make sure they don't regain the weight a few years later.
patient
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
As a physician, I often recommend to my patients that they never just pursue any one plan for fitness and nutrition; intelligent study, moderation and variety are, indeed, the spice of life and health. But there is an unfortunate trend toward restricting the access people have to factual information about alternatives to commonly accepted nutritional programs.
patient
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
I will never make the case against the great scientific and technological advances we have made in fighting cancer and the ravages of age. But those methods are not always the most effective in a particular circumstance, and there is a great deal of scientific proof - growing daily - that following various regimes of nutrition and exercise actually cure some diseases and prevent others. I have a friend who specializes in chemical and radiation therapy for cancer patients, but recently he began using one day a week of practice to study and work with nutritional supplements to those therapies. While he is quick to point out his experience is not conclusive and that every patient's case is different, he has been surprised at how many of his patients respond as well or better with the added nutritional therapies as others do in the course of more widely accepted, conventional treatments.
patient
MSAs best option for better health care
10 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Managed care is dangerous because it all but removes the two most important people from the decision-making process for medical care: the patient and the doctor. The managed care system is one which no one seems to want, yet no one can avoid.
patient
MSAs best option for better health care
10 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
MSAs are a terrific tool because they allows the individual to save money - tax-free - for use in paying routine medical costs. As consumers are able to set aside cash for their routine, or even emergency, medical expenses, they are able to increase control of their care. With their own cash to spend the way they like with whom they like, the patient is no longer held back by the cost concerns of a managed care organization.
patient
MSAs best option for better health care
10 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The MSA will help keep down the costs associated with routine medical care simply because the physicians and hospitals will now have an incentive to offer the best service at the best price. And as the patient is able to negotiate with the doctor, better arrangements best suited for that patient can be made.
patient
MSAs best option for better health care
10 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But MSAs are still not a reality. Recently, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection Act; while an otherwise bad piece of legislation, it did move us closer to universally available tax-free MSAs. Essentially, the legislation removed restrictive caps on the MSAs and changed our tax laws so that either an employer or an employee could contribute to the accounts. Further, under current law, a person can only contribute one-twelfth of their annual allowable MSA total in a given month. The recently-passed legislation allows for single-time annual contributions.
patient
MSAs best option for better health care
10 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
If we are serious about reforming our system of health care, the key must be allowing for more choices and more freedom, not further restricting patients and doctors. The MSA is tool whose time has come.
patient
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Under the guise of "preventing fraud," the medical database would require that every aspect of an individual’s medical history be linked together and easily accessible to government officials and researchers. And what is accessible to government officials and researchers for "good" purposes is also accessible to computer hackers. Suddenly companies would pay for "illegal" information on your medical history, to determine the risk you pose to their benefits package. Or, a political opponent brings up an embarrassing tidbit from your medical past. Or ... the possibilities are endless, including the likelihood that patients will stop confiding in their doctors if it is possible that those remarks could be transcribed into a computer database. Of course, the ultimate solution is to exclude government from its unconstitutional role as a health care provider.
patient
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
This harm comes from limiting the information which consumers have before them. It foolish to think that any one doctor is aware of everything on the market which can help a patient maintain their good health, or recover from illness more rapidly. As a physician, I have always preferred working with an informed patient. They would sometimes be aware of new treatments, medicines or advances that I may have not yet studied. Sometimes that information would lead to new treatment for that patient, other times not, but the more information and choices available to the patient, the better.
patient
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
That may be true, though no more so than any of the more socialist systems in the world perceived as "inexpensive" by those desiring similar government programs here. In those nations, the cost is hidden in individual tax-rates in excess of fifty percent, so the extremely high costs for care are still being paid by the patient, they just don't write the check to the doctor, they write it to the tax collector.
patient
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
For many years, the federal government has taken an ever-expanding role in our nation's medical care through regulatory and legislative activism. Of course, to oppose federal involvement is to be "anti-health care" or "anti-patient." Never mind that routine health care is arguably less efficient and less accessible than in our recent past, with sick people receiving worse care at higher costs.
patient
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Resources once devoted to assisting patients with their needs must be diverted to meeting bureaucratic regulations. Federal regulations imposed on state governments regarding medical care delivery, or on insurance providers, or employers, or directly on doctors and hospitals, all eventually come back to the consumer in the form of higher checkout costs.
patient
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
There are several ways to break the cycle. The most obvious solution is to pull the plug on federal intervention. That, however, is tantamount to political suicide. Who wants to be depicted as wanting to stop "good" regulations and laws, and "hurt" patients?
patient
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
Under an MSA system, a consumer could save pre-tax dollars in a special account. Those dollars would be used to pay for health care expenses, with the patient negotiating directly with the physician of their choice for the care they choose without regard to HMO rules or a bureaucrat's decision. The incentive for the physician is getting paid in cash as the service is rendered, rather than waiting months for an HMO or insurance provider's billing cycle.
patient
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 18 ... Cached
Medical care will always be expensive, regardless of the system. The real question is how much freedom will a patient have in determining the care they receive. It is only when the patient controls the purse strings of his own money that he will have that freedom.
patient
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Another section of the bill will stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a "unique health identifier." This identifier would logically lead to a national database containing the detailed medical history of all Americans. As a practicing OB/GYN for more than 30 years, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity and private nature of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient placing absolute trust in the doctor not to discuss with anyone her health problems. What will happen to that trust when patients know that all information given to their doctor must be placed in a government accessible database?
patient
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
The latest in this trend among the politically savvy is the use of the adjective phrase "Bill of Rights." Every imaginable cause or group has seen a "Bill of Rights" proposed to support it these days: children, patients, airline travelers and so on.
patient
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
We should be suspicious when it is declared we need a new "Bill of Rights." If Congress were interested in protecting the rights of individuals (whether as taxpayers, patients or travelers), then it should adhere to the principles so clearly defined in the original Bill of Rights.
patient
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Contrary to the claims of advocates for increased government regulation of health care, the problems we face do not represent market failure, but rather the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health-care market. While it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), in a free market this cannot happen. But when one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as with managed care, merely making an effort to balance government dictated advantages between patients and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates; because we are trying to patch an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress over this -- or any such issue -- should not be a surprise.
patient
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
If Congress practiced medicine, they'd be using leaches on their patients and offering bullets for amputee candidates to bite before hacking off irreparable limbs.
patient
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse.
patient
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and then change the tax code to allow Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, similar to what is already allowed for employers.
patient
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
While neither the current system, nor the mess produced by the House vote last week, constitutes traditional socialism, it is rather something almost worse: corporatism. As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington, DC. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
patient
Best medicine is liberty
18 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
The more government has been involved, the greater the costs and distortions. Initially there was little resistance to the federal meddling, since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free, while the patients saw they were getting great access without discernable costs. The nation's medical bill grew as the incentive for patients to economize eroded.
patient
Best medicine is liberty
18 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Yet rather than reverse the trend and liberate patients, physicians and the health care market, many in Congress would make the situation worse by adding new regulations and new fees, while eroding services and limiting choices.
patient
Best medicine is liberty
18 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
The most important thing Congress can do is to stop practicing medicine and allow market forces to operate by allowing Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for everyone. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force in reducing cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees with patients. MSAs would help satisfy the American's people's desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care. MSAs will also allow those consumers to do business with insurance provider of their choice, who will cover the needs and procedures for which that family is willing and able to pay.
patient
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
But, instead of working to end the estate tax, or keep our promises with Social Security, or insuring patient choice through medical savings accounts, we waste our time on low priority items. And, instead of looking to our nation's future, like giving parents a true choice in education by providing them with a battery of education-related tax credits, we have two thirds in Congress voting to support continued and expanded participation in a cold war relic.
patient
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
Before implementing these rules, HHS must consider what will happen to the trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database, seen by medical researchers, or handed over to government agents without a warrant. For more information on how to submit comments to the Department of Health and Human Services, feel free to contact my congressional staff by email at rep.paul@mail.house.gov. Please use the words "HHS Regs" in the subject line, and make sure to include your email address in your message. You may also contact my office by phone at 202-225-2831.
patient
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Of course it is true that the people who get hurt most in tough times are the middle class, particularly those at the lower end of the wage scale. But as a physician I know that I must diagnose an illness before I can treat a patient.
patient
Helping Cancer Patients and the Terminally Ill is a Moral Imperative
15 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
Helping Cancer Patients and the Terminally Ill is a Moral Imperative
patient
Helping Cancer Patients and the Terminally Ill is a Moral Imperative
15 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
"When workers are stricken with a grave illness, they need the love and support of their family and friends as well as the best health care they can get. As a doctor who has specialized in women's health issues for decades, and as a member of Congress, I know how truly critical it is that cancer patients as well as those who suffer from terminal illnesses have the resources available to them to combat these illnesses.
patient
Helping Cancer Patients and the Terminally Ill is a Moral Imperative
15 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
"That is why I have introduced sweeping legislation aimed at assisting the terminally ill, and those stricken with cancer, to meet the financial burdens of health care costs resulting from their illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act (HR 4265), would exempt all persons diagnosed with terminal illness, or any form of cancer, from the employee portion of payroll taxes for as long as they continue to suffer from the illness or have significant costs resulting therefrom.
patient
Helping Cancer Patients and the Terminally Ill is a Moral Imperative
15 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
"This bill would allow such individuals to keep their resources for those purposes without adversely affecting their ability to collect benefits. Rather than forcing people who are in such dire situations to continue paying taxes for a retirement they may never live to see, we need to free up resources for them now, without any penalty accruing to them if they can beat these terrible diseases. I have spoken with patients who have suffered from these illnesses, which put such a terrible strain on them and their loved ones. Even when they have health care coverage (and many do not), they still incur all kinds of costs ranging from transportation to and from care centers and certain prescription drugs which may not be fully covered, to hiring sitters to watch their children while they receive treatment. The list is nearly endless. In the legislation I introduced, if the disease goes into remission and all related costs are paid, the employee would again resume paying the payroll tax. This is a conservative program designed to reduce the tax burden of those fighting these dreaded illnesses. We need to offer compassion to those who suffer, but we also owe it to them to stop taking away the resources which can help people beat breast cancer, AIDS or other terrible health problems.
patient
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
As a doctor, I know how crucial it is to insure people's privacy when speaking to their physicians. Unless Congress permanently forbids the development of a medical ID, Americans may not be able to talk to their doctors about matters that are of an utmost private nature without fear of having this information accessed by government agencies! As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. What happens to that trust when patients know any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a database accessible by anyone who knows the patient's 'unique personal identifier?
patient
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
On a more positive note, privacy advocates scored a major victory this summer when the House passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a uniform standard health identifier on the American people. As a doctor, I know how important it is to insure patient confidentiality, and I am very pleased my colleagues supported the amendment. It is the only way to guarantee that national medical ID’s do not become a reality.
patient
Help for Those with Terminal Illnesses
21 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
As a physician, I am especially concerned with those who face terrible terminal illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. Patients facing terminal illnesses need all of their financial resources available to them to fight their disease and pay their medical bills. Yet we continue to impose payroll taxes on citizens with terminal illnesses to fund a retirement they may never live to see.
patient
Help for Those with Terminal Illnesses
21 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Accordingly, I have introduced the "Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act" (H.R. 4265). This legislation would exempt all persons diagnosed with terminal illnesses (or any form of cancer) from the employee portion of payroll taxes for as long as they continue to suffer with their illness or incur significant health care costs resulting from the illness. Compassion and common sense require that we adopt a policy that stops taking needed resources away from those suffering from terrible health problems. This legislation is a realistic approach to helping people pay for quality health care when they need it most.
patient
Help for Those with Terminal Illnesses
21 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
An important provision of the "Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act" ensures that the exemption from payroll taxes provided by the Act does not adversely affect a qualifying individual’s ability to collect benefits in the future. Individuals facing terminal illnesses need more of their own resources available to them to pay medical bills, but they should not be penalized if they survive their condition. Once their disease goes into remission and all related costs are paid, the individual resumes paying the payroll tax.
patient
Help for Those with Terminal Illnesses
21 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Both of these bills allow individuals who are suffering to keep more of their resources, rather than sending needed dollars to Washington. In my medical practice, I have spoken to patients suffering from terminal illnesses. Even when they have health coverage (and many do not), their disease puts a tremendous financial strain on them and their loved ones. The list of expenses they incur is nearly endless, ranging from transportation to care centers and hiring babysitters to watch their children to paying out-of-pocket costs for expensive drugs which are not fully covered. Family and friends can offer compassion and support, but Congress owes it to terminally ill persons to stop taking away the resources they need to fight cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and other terrible health problems. My hope is that citizens in my district (and my fellow legislators) who are truly interested in helping those with terminal illnesses will join me and support my legislation.
patient
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
23 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
The administration and federal bureaucrats will continue to look for ways to increase government monitoring of citizens. Recently, the administration proposed and fought to enact legislation creating a "uniform standard health identifier," clearly as part of a larger plan to create a national medical system. As a physician and privacy advocate, I know how dangerous a federal medical ID would be. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship would be destroyed if the patient knew his or her medical problems would be entered into a federal database. The government has no business knowing your medical history. Virtually all Americans agree with me, because public support for my opposition to the medical ID proposal was overwhelming. Ultimately, the medical ID plan was eliminated by my amendment to a larger bill.
patient
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy?
patient
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
As a physician, I cannot imagine providing my patients' medical records to police as evidence for a criminal prosecution. Like most doctors, I adhere to a strict policy of maintaining patient confidentiality. Medical privacy has existed for centuries between doctors and patients, without government interference. However, the drug war has provided the ever-growing federal government with new justifications to invade your once-private medical history.
patient
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the drug war is not the only threat to your medical privacy. Medical privacy also is under assault by Washington health bureaucrats. The federal government wants greater access to your private medical records than ever before. On April 14, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is scheduled to implement invasive new medical rules written during the Clinton administration. The proposed rules require doctors and other health care providers to give patient records to the federal government for very broadly defined purposes and without patient consent. The rules grant law enforcement access to patient records without a search warrant. Patients will have only limited knowledge of who sees their records, and individuals will not be able to sue health care providers or the government for breaches of privacy. Ultimately, your medical history will be readily available to any government agency that wishes to create a national medical database.
patient
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The dangers posed by these regulations are obvious. Patients will hesitate to disclose information to their doctors if they fear such information will end up in a federal database. Doctors will be unable to provide effective care when patients conceal sensitive medical problems, such as drug and alcohol addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and psychiatric problems. The HHS rules threaten to turn doctors into government agents, who are required to divulge information which ultimately could be used against their patients by federal agencies, law enforcement, and health insurers.
patient
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The most dangerous aspect of the new regulations is the implementation of a national medical record database. All health care providers, including private physicians, insurance companies, and HMOs, will be forced to use a standard data format for patient records. Once standardized information is entered into a networked government database, it will be virtually impossible to prevent widespread dissemination of that information. If the federal government really seeks to protect medical privacy, why it is so eager to have its citizens' medical records easily available in one centralized database? The truth is that a centralized database will make it far easier for both government agencies and private companies to access your health records.
patient
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
HHS officials have sought to reassure the public that the new rules require patient consent before physicians may release medical information. Unfortunately, however, the consent protection has very limited effect. First, your physician likely will refuse to treat you if you decline consent to share your records. This is almost certain to happen, because heavy fines (and even jail sentences!) will be imposed on physicians who don't exactly follow the new regulations. Furthermore, there are very broad exceptions to the consent rule for ill-defined categories such as "oversight of the health care system," "public health," "law enforcement activities," "judicial and administrative proceedings," and "national defense and security." These exceptions give the government almost unlimited justifications to access your private records not only without your consent, but also without your knowledge. The law enforcement exception is particularly troubling, because the 4th Amendment clearly prohibits warrantless searches of medical records by government officials. So while on the surface the new rules may seem to give patients some control, the reality is that the consent protection is largely meaningless.
patient
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
We should remember that private physicians have maintained patient privacy for centuries without government involvement, relying instead on personal conviction, the Hippocratic Oath, and professional standards. Patients once knew without question that anything they told their doctor would remain confidential. However, the physician/patient relationship is certain to change for the worse when control over patient records is transferred from medical professionals to government agencies. When patients know that their sensitive medical information will be turned over to government agencies or placed in a national database, they inevitably will be less open and honest when seeking medical care. Patients with drug and alcohol problems, mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, or other stigmatized health concerns will be especially reluctant to seek treatment. The inevitable result will be a decline in the standard of care delivered by doctors and an increase in health care costs.
patient
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of privately-funded 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 once 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 a third-party insurance company or government program. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. Somehow, however, the clear connection between government involvement in medicine and the decline in our once-proud healthcare system has been lost in the current debate.
patient
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Today most Americans obtain health care either through an HMO or similar managed-care organization, or through government Medicare and Medicaid. Since it is very hard to make actuarial estimates for routine health care, HMOs charge most members a similar monthly premium. Because HMOs always want to minimize their costs, they often deny payment for various drugs, treatments, and procedures. Similarly, Medicare does not have unlimited funds, so it generally covers only a portion of any costs. The result of this system is that doctors and patients cannot simply decide what treatment is appropriate; instead, they constantly find themselves being second-guessed by HMO accountants and government bureaucrats. When a third party is paying the bills and malpractice lawsuits loom, doctors have every incentive to maximize costs and order all possible tests and treatments. At the same time, patients suffer when legitimate needed treatment is denied. HMOs have become a corporate, bureaucratic middleman in the healthcare system, driving up costs while undeniably degrading the quality of our medical care.
patient
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
We can hardly blame the market for our current healthcare woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and patient responsibility keeping costs down. Government has neither the constitutional authority nor the wisdom to determine appropriate contract terms between individuals and health insurers. Congress needs to abolish the HMO mandate and allow favorable tax treatment for individuals paying for health care directly. Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), which are tax-deductible and tax-exempt accounts used to pay medical expenses, should be made available to all Americans. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. No "patients bill of rights" will help us when the money runs out.
patient
Monitor thy Neighbor
22 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
This almost might be funny if it were not real. Imagine the rampant abuses possible with a national spy program. Busybodies across the country will clamor to join the effort and act as self-appointed neighborhood vigilantes. Unscrupulous individuals of every stripe will abuse the program by snitching on ex-spouses, personal enemies, and racial groups they don’t like. Bickering neighbors will enjoy calling in to report unkempt lawns and barking dogs as sure signs of nefarious activity. I certainly hope the Justice department employs some very patient people to field the flood of useless calls.
patient
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
09 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Politics and medicine don’t mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship. A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we’re moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive, but what kind of health care they receive at all.
patient
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
There is no question that medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in this country. We’ve become a society that expects medical care to be guaranteed, that demands a perfect outcome to every medical procedure. Mother Nature provides no guarantees however, and things can go wrong without the slightest negligence by the doctor involved. Of course some malpractice suits are legitimate, and truly negligent doctors should pay economic damages. But far too many suits are filed simply because a patient is unhappy despite the competent efforts of his doctor, and far too many meritless suits are settled simply to avoid litigation costs. The result is malpractice premiums that cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars per year, and increasingly threaten to put some out of business.
patient
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Every American pays for this not only in the form of much higher medical costs, but also in countless other ways. Trauma center doctors have walked off the job in protest. Many doctors feel stressed, unhappy, and unappreciated, which leads to a declining quality of care. Most are hesitant to explore new treatments that could benefit patients because they fear a lawyer will seize on any deviation from standard practices. Similarly, patients endure more and more unnecessary and costly tests ordered by doctors who feel they must explore even the most unlikely diagnoses. Worst of all, the best and brightest young people are abandoning the pursuit of medical careers. Already faced with years in medical school and daunting tuition bills, they increasingly understand that malpractice and economic concerns have damaged the quality of life for doctors.
patient
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The federal approach also ignores the root cause of the malpractice crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contract to viewing it as one governed by federal regulations. The third-party payer system, largely the result of federal tax laws and the HMO Act of 1973, invites insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers into the equation. This destroys the patient’s incentive to keep costs down, because he feels he is part of “the system” and someone else pays the bill. In other words, the costs of medical care have been socialized, even though HMOs are ostensibly private businesses.
patient
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Yet the assessment of liability and compensation should be determined by private contractual agreements between physicians and patients- in other words, by the free market. The free-market approach enables patients to protect themselves with “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment. Such insurance ensures that those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation.
patient
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Medicare bureaucrats also will seek to pay pharmacies as little as possible for drugs, just as they now pay doctors as little as possible for services. Many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients, and now many pharmacies might follow suit. So in addition to the inevitable drug rationing, seniors will have fewer doctors and pharmacies to choose from.
patient
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
First and foremost, we must eliminate the middleman in health care. The HMO Act of 1973, coupled with tax rules that do not allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to pay for health care, combine to force millions of Americans to deal with HMO and Medicare bureaucrats. Whenever a third-party stands between a doctor and his patient, health care becomes inefficient and expensive. Individuals should be able to decide with their doctors what drugs are appropriate, and then reduce their taxable income dollar-for-dollar for all drug expenditures. By forcing employers to offer HMOs and prohibiting individuals from paying for drugs with pre-tax dollars, government enables drug companies to set high prices for deep-pocket middlemen.
patient
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The controversy surrounding popular radio host Rush Limbaugh’s use of the painkiller OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. In most cases patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, so doctors become the target of overzealous federal prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to ordinary doctors prescribing perfectly legal drugs. Federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers are being abused to ensnare innocent doctors.
patient
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Do we really want the Drug Enforcement Administration jailing doctors for the alleged misdeeds of patients? Certainly some individuals abuse prescription pain killers, but federal agents are hardly qualified to decide what kind of drugs are appropriate for pain patients. Zealous prosecutors certainly show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.
patient
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The real tragedy is that the federal government once again has interfered with the doctor-patient relationship. All decisions concerning appropriate medical treatment should be made between doctors and their patients, without government involvement. But, when threatened with criminal prosecution or loss of their medical licenses, many doctors simply have stopped prescribing powerful pain drugs--no matter how much their patients may need them. Some have even posted signs in their waiting rooms advising patients not to ask for OxyContin and similar drugs. It is shameful that government has created an atmosphere where doctors are afraid of exercising their medical judgment.
patient
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices altogether, leaving their patients with nowhere to turn for pain relief. Is the government concerned about the terrible chilling effect caused by its crackdown on doctors? Hardly. In fact, the current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that, “Our office will try our best to root out certain doctors like the Taliban.”
patient
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek relief from other, less reliable, sources--such as street drug dealers. Of course pain drugs bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than those obtained from a physician.
patient
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is being destroyed by federal bureaucrats, who have turned the drug war into a war on pain relief. Americans suffering from chronic pain and their doctors are the real victims of this unprincipled and medically unsound federal campaign.
patient
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.
patient
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.
patient
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don’t necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry’s clinic has been a godsend.
patient
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare 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.
patient
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
We can hardly expect more government to cure our current health care woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.
patient
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.
patient
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Even if Dr. Knox is acquitted of all charges, his life will never be the same. His professional reputation and clientele cannot be easily restored, and the enormous legal bills cannot be easily repaid. So whether federal prosecutors obtain a conviction of Dr. Knox or not, the message sent to other doctors is chillingly clear: prescribe the wrong drugs and we will destroy you. The end result is that doctors become afraid to prescribe pain medication, no matter how appropriate for a patient. The judgment of doctors has been replaced by the judgment of federal drug warriors.
patient
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Those who support the war on drugs may well change their views if one day they find themselves experiencing serious pain because of an accident or old age. By creating an atmosphere that regards all powerful pain medication as suspect, the drug warriors have forced countless Americans to live degraded, bedridden lives. Even elderly deathbed patients sometimes are denied adequate pain relief from reluctant doctors and nurses. It’s one thing to support a faraway drug campaign in Colombia or Afghanistan, but it’s quite another to watch a loved one suffering acute pain that could be treated. A sane, compassionate society views advances in medical science- particularly advances that relieve great suffering- as heroic. Instead, our barbaric drug war treats pain patients the same way it treats street junkies.
patient
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Doctors are not slaves, and they will not continue practicing medicine forever if the federal government insists on monitoring, harassing, fining, and even jailing them. Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment, nor should they be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.
patient
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
patient
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
For decades, the U.S. healthcare 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.
patient
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
patient
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
patient
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 12 ... Cached
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
patient
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.
patient
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
patient
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Scientists at the University of California at Davis recently completed a study that backs up Mr. Forss’s experience, finding that cannabis demonstrates significant relief of neuropathic pain. Many in government call for more studies while people like K.K. Forss suffer. More studies will not change what many patients already know, and that is for some, medical marijuana helps their pain. But over-reaching government gets in the way.
patient
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his more rigorous and expensive pill regimen. Presently, twelve states have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions, to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit from it. K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal. However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
patient
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
In other words, the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single day.
patient
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues. This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.