| Ron Paul On Health Care: The Crazy Uncle Can't Talk About S-CHIP
On September 30, 2007, with the debate over S-CHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program) in the air, Ron Paul decided to speak out in his weekly "Texas Straight Talk" column, published on his website. The only problem for Paul is that-as with virtually all major spending programs-he is diametrically opposed to the majority of the American people. In fact, he is diametrically opposed to most conservatives.
For example, quoting from a diary I wrote in early 2006:
Since 1984-the first year all the relevant questions were asked in the GSS-a majority of extreme conservatives (self-identified 7 on a 1-7 scale) said we were spending too little on a combined measure (call it NatWelfComp) of whether people think we're spending too little, too much or about right on seven different areas-Social Security, welfare, "improving [the] nation's education system," "improving & protecting [the] environment," "improving & protecting [the] nations health," "improving the conditions of blacks," and "solving problems of big cities." The number of extreme conservatives who thought we were spending too little on one or more programs (net: i.e. "too little" on two, but "too much" on one is a net of "too little" on one) was nearly twice the number of extreme conservatives who thought we were spending too much: 59.3% to 30.7%. This can be seen in the last column of the chart below.
So, Ron Paul decided to do what crazy uncles always do in such situations: he decided to talk about something else. In his column titled "Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children", he barely even mentions S-CHIP at all. And for very good reason. Not only is taking care of children's health enormously popular (people are funny that way-a baby cries, and all their libertarian principles go out the window), but S-CHIP has nothing to do with Congress controlling health care-it's the State Children's Health Insurance Program, stupid!
Ron Paul starts off well enough. In the first paraghraph, he not only mentions S-CHIP, he spells out what it stands for:
This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.
With a strart like that-and the fact that Ron Paul is a life-long doctor-we can expect a detailed argument about S-CHIP, right? Well, not so much...
Ron Paul: Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.
Okay, look, as lifelong troublemaker, he's preaching to the choir here. If they'd had all those little pills around when they had me in their clutches at the Moreland School District, they would have pumped me full of them quicker than you could say "Rumplestiltskin!" But that was a local school district, and it had nothing to do with paying the bills if I actually got a real disease. So could we please get back to the subject?
Ron Paul: With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.
Right, like I said, I'm with you on this one, dude. You don't have to go on aluding to unspecified evidence the way you do in virtually every column of yours I've ever read. But could we get back to Congress? And health care? Please?
Ron Paul: Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as "suicidal" or "depressed," or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.
Right. And one of the biggest questions is, "Why do we medicate kids who come from troubled backgrounds, rather than deal with the root causes of the problems in their lives?" But you're opposed to spending money on any of those problems, too. So could we please get back to Congress? And health care? Please?
Ron Paul: As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.
Speaking of ADHD, could we please get back to Congress? And health care? Please?
Ron Paul: Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.
It's also important to hug your kids. But that won't help pay the bills when they have a burst appendix. Now, could we please get back to Congress? And health care? Please?
Ron Paul: We don't need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That's what parents need to be doing.
That's it? That's all that Ron Paul has to say about insuring millions of kids so that they can get health care in the richest country on Earth?
Well, of course it is! Because libertarianism has nothing to say about providing health care. It's all about freedom don'tcha know! Freedom to die, as it just so happens. "These are the breaks," as Curtis Blow would say.
Ron Paul On Global Warming: The Crazy Uncle Does It Again!
Way back on December 15, 1997, Ron Paul devoted his "Texas Straight Talk" column to global warming, in an outing titled, "Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda: Environmentalism has become refuge for those opposing liberty and American goals".
In the course of this column, like the column above-purportedly about health care-he says nothing whatsoever about the actual problem at hand, except to obscure it. His sole concerns is to pound the table and accuse shadowy others of dark plans and evil intentions. HP Lovecraft, your copyrights are being violated!
The column began: In blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the United States, the well-being of American families, and even reasonable science, the Clinton administration last week sounded the trumpet blast of victory in signing on with an international treaty dealing with environmental issues.
As so often is the case with crazy uncles, the first thought is "who let him out of the attic?" "so many lies, so little time!" Treaties are an expression of sovereignty (it's in the Constitution, "you could lool it up" as Yogi Bera would say), floods, forest fires, hurricanes and the like are not good for the well-being of American families, and there was zero peer-reviewed evidence against global warming-just as there is today-so Ron Paul's on a real roll here.
Ron Paul: In Kyoto, Japan, delegates from more than 150 nations gathered to set new, international guidelines for reducing the so-called "greenhouse" gases. As one might imagine, the villain in the eyes of the participants were the "greedy Americans," and as such we will bear the brunt of the treaty's wrath, while communist China and the world's other oppressive regimes can pollute all they want.
Actually, the US was responsible for vastly more pollution than the developing world, and the only way to get them to believe that we weren't just trying to scam them was by taking the first steps on our own-those who have polluted the most in the past should take the lead in cutting back now. Not a hard proposition to understand. The Kyoto Protocols were clearly envisioned as just the first step, and it was universally understood (by people who understand anything, that is) that future steps would involve universal compliance.
Wikipedia explains:
Common but differentiated responsibility
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a set of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that 1. The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
2. Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
3. The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.[15]
In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change. However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions.
Ron Paul: Those on the radical environmental fringe, who organized this conference, have been using questionable "science" to raise the fear that some environmental collapse is just around the corner unless immediate, radical action is taken.
The "radical environmental fringe, who organized this conference" is better known as the United Nations. Ron Paul is convinced that the UN is run by the Bavarian Illuminati. Others, who point out that the Bavarian Illuminati was disbanded in 1776, are not so sure.
Ron Paul: We've only been able to accurately study the levels of atmospheric gases for some 25 years.
Actually, there are CO2 level records stretching back at least 650,000 years, trapped in ice cores. The data analyzed didn't go back quite that far in 1997, but it certainly went back more than 25 years.
Ron Paul: To definitively claim today's weather patterns are the result of naturally-occurring cycles, or part of a long chain of natural events, or something man alone is creating, is unsound simply because more data is needed. In the respectable scientific community, there is considerable debate over how to interpret the global climate data.
This was certainly true in 1997 (it's not today), but it was totally irrelevent from a policy-making point of view. When faced with a possibility of extreme danger, it is hardly prudent to wait for 100% proof that it is coming. Scientists are extremely cautious in coming to conclusions, which is all to the good for the sake of establishing a foundation of certainty for policy-making. But even a 10% chance of 100% catastrophe requires serious attention, and the evidence for global warming in 1997 was already well beyond 10%.
Ron Paul: Therefore, urgings for radical action based on claims that the earth is about to boil are wrong-headed.
Nobody claimed that "the earth is about to boil." Nor was Kyoto calling for "radical action." It was a sensible first step, and had we taken it at the time, we would be far ahead of where we find ourselves today.
Ron Paul: In fact, all available evidence points to the contrary, that the temperatures are getting cooler, on average.
This is a flat-out lie. As of 1997, the three hotest years on record were all from the 1990s. Only one year from the 1990s was cooler than the hottest year from the 1970s, and that year-1992-was cooler because the eruption of Mount Pinotubo spread high-level particles around the globe, which helped block the sun's heat.
Ron Paul: To be fair, many in the environmental movement are honestly concerned about man's impact on our land, air and water, and are sincere in wanting only to do what is right. At a basic level, we all should be concerned about those things.
When the vast majority of the American people care about something, it's not a good idea to accuse all of them of being Satan's spawn.
Ron Paul: But sadly many in the movement are more guided by a complete, unabashed hatred of free-markets, capitalism and the American way of life, as well as a complete disregard for the well-being of their fellow man.
And Ron Paul's proof is...? (Damn, where's J. Edgar Hoover when you really need him? Or, better yet, Joe McCarthy?)
Ron Paul: Using the shrill scare-line of impending natural disaster, the world's opponents to liberty have become the world's radical environmentalists… And the leaders of the international environmental movement.
Again, paging Senator McCarthy! Paging Senator McCarthy!
Ron Paul: So while science is at best uncertain about "evidence" for eminent global environmental disaster, the radical fringe has not let facts stand in their way.
Just like the radical fringe firefighters who respond to fire alarms without actually seeing the flames for themselves until they arrive on the scene.
Ron Paul: And so we have the Kyoto treaty as a result; after all, no political leader wants to be seen as "anti-clean air," no matter what the science says about the provability of the environmentalists' claims.
Again, simple concept: if there's a chance of something really bad happening, and the longer you wait, the worse things will get, then it's only common sense to take steps before you are certain.
Do I really have to explain this principle to a doctor?
Ron Paul: Under the terms of this treaty, the US would be required to make big cuts in emissions over the next 15 years, while Communist China - the world's biggest polluter - is not required to do a thing, nor are the hundreds of other polluting Third-World nations.
Again, the principle of the worst, and most established polluters going first in making pollution cuts was a practical necessity as a first step, in order to convince the rest of the world that we weren't trying to change the rules and slam the door of development in their faces.
Ron Paul's claim that China was "the world's biggest polluter" was simply 100% false. At the time, China was predicted to attain that status by 2020, but it subsequently acheived dramatic reductions in greenhouse gases, even though not required by treaty-quite unlike the US.
The New York Times reported in June, 2001:
China Said to Sharply Reduce Emissions of Carbon Dioxide
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: June 15, 2001
In the debate on global climate change it has long been a given that China, with its huge population and endless coal reserves, would overtake the United States early this century as the biggest source of the atmospheric pollution that scientists believe is warming the planet.
That specter of runaway Chinese emissions has been cited by President Bush as a major reason for describing as ''fatally flawed'' the 1997 Kyoto agreement to protect the climate. The treaty exempts developing countries, including China, from its initial, binding limits on the output of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases that scientists believe are causing traumatic changes in the climate.
But treaty obligation or not, China has already achieved a dramatic slowing in its emissions of carbon dioxide in the last decade, Chinese and Western energy experts say. That record of progress has pushed further into the horizon the day that China will surpass the United States as the lead culprit, and it is something that Mr. Bush seems to have overlooked in his harsh appraisal.
Chinese officials insist that their country will do its fair share to combat a serious global threat.
''We already have one of the world's best records in improving energy efficiency,'' Zhou Dadi, director of the Energy Research Institute of the central government's State Development Planning Commission, said in an interview.
''Our challenge is this: Can we give people an acceptable lifestyle and also address the problem of climate change?'' Mr. Zhou said.
''As an energy expert, I think we need a demonstration from a developed country to prove that a high living standard can be associated with lower carbon emissions,'' he said. ''Then China will follow that example or even do better.''
In the most surprising development, China's annual output of carbon dioxide in the last four years of rapid economic growth has actually declined, according to data compiled by the United States Department of Energy. While the numbers could be overstated because of flaws in both economic and energy statistics, some experts think, China does seem to have achieved a stunning if temporary reversal of the usual trend during economic expansion.
''China's emissions of carbon dioxide have shrunk by 17 percent since the mid-1990's,'' according to an April report from researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. ''Remarkably, over the same period, G.D.P. grew by 36 percent.''
''Even without undertaking binding commitments under an international agreement,'' the researchers concluded, China ''has nevertheless contributed substantially to reducing growth in global emissions.''
This achievement has been a welcome side effect of China's shift to market prices for fuels, including an end to coal subsidies, and its programs to encourage energy conservation and fight urban air pollution, mainly by curbing the burning of coal.
Only a few years ago, many studies projected that China would emerge as the world's leading source of carbon dioxide by 2020, but these recent developments appear to have put off that day by years or even decades.
In short, it's hard to imagine how Ron Paul could possibly be more wrong on the facts. But never fear! He'll find a way. I promise!
Ron Paul: This treaty will wreck havoc on the US economy if it becomes law. This will force many industries to close their doors here and move to China (or a similar nation) to escape the new regulations, throwing thousands of Americans out of work.
The same way China's economy was destroyed in the late 1990s, right? Because Americans are so much stupider and less innovative than the Chinese, right?
Ron Paul: Further, limiting the use of coal, gas and related sources will increase energy prices not only for businesses, but the individual consumer as well. So not only will many families be tossed into unemployment lines by these environmental radicals, but many more people will face a reduced standard of living just to heat their homes.
Because diversifying energy sources can't possibly reduce prices. When have new energy sources ever increased productivity and reduced costs? Such wild-eyed promises have been proven wrong over and over again, ever since the invention of fire.... Oh, wait...
Ron Paul: Also suffering under this treaty will be the sovereignty of the US and the agriculture industry. Under the still-sketchy terms of the treaty, the US will cede some control over the day-to-day policy and regulations of the American rice growers and cattle ranchers to United Nations bureaucrats.
Ron Paul just loves him some images of the Bavarian Illuminati directing our every move. But as per usual, he's just making stuff up. Under the treaty, different countries develop their own means of implementation.
Ron Paul: Why rice and cattle? Because rice paddies and livestock produce methane gas, which the radical environmentalists claim will destroy the planet. I hope this is not lost on anyone; the biggest threat to the planet apparently are not man-made chemicals, but rice and cows.
How stupid can a person get and not turn into a vegetable? Just because something contributes to a problem does not make it "the biggest threat."
And this guy is a doctor?
Ron Paul: Further, under terms of the treaty, military action would have to be significantly curtailed. While I am a staunch opponent of policing the world, it is unreasonable that the US government would be prevented from moving troops because of the terms of an "environmental" treaty. Of course, the treaty does exempt military maneuvers which are officially sanctioned by the UN high command.
This is just about the point where the family decides that crazy uncle is no longer a family problem, but that outside professional help is needed.
Ron Paul: Perhaps the bottom-line of this treaty is not that polluting is bad, or that we are facing a massive environmental threat. The bottom-line, apparently, is that Americans are bad, and that the notions of free-markets, individual liberty and capitalism are a threat to the radical agenda of the international liberal-left.
This sort of throws a whole new light on his tirades against anti-psychotic meds, now doesn't it?
Ron Paul: The treaty makes it clear that anyone can pollute, as long as they are an oppressive regime, a communist dictatorship, or have the approval of the international bureaucrats, though perhaps that is redundant.
Yes, uncle. The nice men with the butterfly nets are here to take you to the parade!
Ron Paul: Providing for a clean environment is a noble and laudable goal, but this treaty is not about protecting natural resources. This treaty is bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy. This treaty is nothing more than anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism, and it must be stopped.
That's it folks! Ron Paul's answer to global warming: it's all a Commie/Bavarian Illuminati plot!
Conclusion
Moral: If it's a problem, libertarianism can fix it. If libertarianism can't fix it, it's not a problem!
Procrustes would be so proud! |
