Ron Paul Unplugged: Get Government Out of Health Care

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on Youth Appeal, Opposition to Medicare, Medicaid

"20/20's" John Stossel interviews Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, exclusively for ABCNEWS.com. Paul wants the government out of health care, and opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and federally mandated children's health insurance. (AP Photo)

Over the last few months, I've heard from hundreds of viewers who said that I should interview unconventional Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. So I did.

In our interview, published exclusively on ABCNEWS.com, we talk about the Iraq war, when war is justified, the proper role of government, immigration, drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, and more.

In this segment, we discuss the 72-year-old Texas congressman's surprising popularity with young people, and then, at greater length, his thoughts on health care. You can watch the full interview here.

Paul's libertarian platform of individual freedom, and freedom from most government regulation, has resonated with young voters.

He's the most Googled presidential candidate, and his videos are the most watched on YouTube. He's a hit on the Internet, a space mostly inhabitated by young voters.

"Young people tend to be more principled, and they like that, and they know I've been dedicated to the principles of the Constitution, and they welcome the idea of somebody that talks about leaving them alone, letting them run their own lives."

When it comes to one of the thorniest issues in the presidential race — health care — Paul has firsthand experience.

He is an obstetrician-gynecologist who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. In his practice, he never accepted Medicare or Medicaid — the government health insurance programs for the poor and elderly — because he objects to government involvement in health care.

"We've had the government involved in our medical care system since the early '70s, we've had managed care. And all of a sudden, nobody's happy with it," Paul said in our interview.

Paul has even gone as far as taking the lonely position of saying government shouldn't provide health insurance for poor children.

What would happen to those kids under his administration? Paul replied by talking about his early experience as a doctor.

"I worked in a church hospital ... and I was paid $3 an hour in the early 1960s. There was no government insurance. But everybody got taken care of. And nobody was charged."

"Should we move to, toward a socialized system, or should we look to the marketplace to help us sort out the problems we have in medicine? My argument, of course, is always looking for the answers in the free market, in private choices, and in individuals dealing with those problems, rather than depending on the state."

I asked him, "How can elderly people be taken care of without a big government program like that?"

"Right now, it's difficult," Paul said, "because we made a whole generation who are too dependent. But the question that we ought to ask is, if we continue to do what we do, how are we going to finance it? There's no funding for Medicare. It's under a greater threat than Social Security.

"Government interferes too often," he argued. "We've become complacent and dependent on the government to protect us, and they fail, and they don't provide the services that they claim."

"The failure of government is becoming more evident than ever before ... the failure of taking care of the victims of Katrina, the failure of the war, the bankruptcy of the Social Security system. The government hasn't protected us from lead in paints ... it just goes on and on."

Does he want to get government out of the business of licensing physicians, and requiring medical schools to be accredited? That is really where the biggest bottleneck is. Not enough physicians because of the licensure and accredidation retrictions.

yes, I believe he does. Just as Albert Shanker said: "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." so too the doctor organizations and lobbyists will advocate for patients as soon as those patients start paying dues (which they can't). Paul has often talked about the 'Medical industrial complex', and has the support of many in the alternative medical community as he has spoken out against the intense liscencing wars fought by the various professional medical groups to attempt to keep this or that monopoly and keep the others out, plus he has railed against the FDA. I think you're right it is probably very difficult to start new medical schools, especially allopathic (MD); osteopathic schools (DO) are a bit easier and have been expanding rapidly, perhaps because many of them are privately funded and run, but I think there is still a great deal of government oversight and meddling. Also, not mentioned is the subspeciality organizations within the doctor organizations whom may attempt to restrict their numbers and shrink the number of residencies available, raising healthcare costs. If you're interested in more on this, especially the public vs private state funding of medical schools you can check this out.

WHAT is a Paul Administration going to do on this issue? What is his program to actually DO anything about this mess? This article is just another bunch of slogans and demagoguery. There is NO program to actually DO anything presented by Paul. What is Paul’s plan of action? What is his program to actually DO anything about this mess?

? I think this interview plus the Kaiser interiew in post 1 give a lot of specifics and a lot of details. If you'd like more, here is a recent bill Paul introduced. The 'specifics' are bolded for your benefit... :)

Introducing the Comprehensive Health Care Act, by US Rep. Ron Paul

Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers." Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.

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.

Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.

Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.

The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care.

Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:

A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.

B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).

C. Makes every American eligible for an Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies.

D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.

By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80% of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.