Originally published at The Freemen News-Letter. 

​Would you ask a hungry fox to guard the henhouse? Of course not. For the same reason, Americans should be very wary when “Congress debates solutions to soaring [healthcare] bills.”  

Most people do not believe that the mainstream media reports honestly and objectively. Some still do, likely due to some residual credibility that may cling to the highly partisan, opposite-of-objective misinformation masters called the legacy or complicit media. 
Consider the facts. 

Reporter Samantha Manning of CMG Washington News Bureau announced that Congress will discuss how to solve the problem of unaffordable healthcare prices. “Unaffordable” applies to both individual Americans and the nation.

Last year, the U.S. spent $4.8 trillion on its healthcare system, an amount greater than the entire GDP of Japan, which added $2.24 trillion to a Biden-Harris record debt of $33.17 at the end of 2022. The average U.S. family healthcare costs in 2023 were equally unaffordable, a staggering $31,065. 

To call healthcare bills “soaring” is no exaggeration. Where is the money going? Are the doctors responsible for “price-gouging,” to use V.P. Harris’ phrase? Data shows that payments to doctors – “allowable reimbursement schedules” released by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) – pay only a small fraction of physicians’ published prices. In many cases, physicians in their offices are paid below the cost of doing business, which is why solo practitioners have been driven out of practice. 

If not to physicians or hospitals, where is the money going? Studies estimate that between 31 percent and more than 50 percent of U.S. healthcare spending does NOT pay for patient care! It pays for BARRCOME – bureaucracy, administration, rules, regulations, compliance, oversight, mandates, and enforcement. In other words, Washington pays its bureaucrats $1.5 trillion to $2.4 trillion “healthcare” dollars, taking those dollars away from patients, taxpayers, and health care providers.

For proof, look no further than the Affordable Care Act (ACA). To pay for all the BARRCOME, such as 50 state Health Exchanges (Dr. Deane was a Director), the ACA took $716 billion from the Medicare Trust, money intended to pay for seniors’ in-hospital care. 

When most people read about a congressional commission to curb healthcare fraud, new rules to activate price transparency, or the recent legislative effort to reduce healthcare spending, they think price lists just appear. Recouping fraudulent medical bills is not free, and we’re already paying the salaries of members of Congress, so how can a new commission cost money? 

When the government does anything, it costs taxpayers and people in the marketplace lots of money and other resources. The Mueller investigation into the Russia Collusion scam by the Hilary Clinton campaign cost $32 million plus 2 ½ wasted years. Washington paid $80 billion to Pfizer for a self-styled CoViD “vaccine” that didn’t work and harmed the health of millions. 
The ACA cost $2.6 trillion. Bernie Sanders admits his Medicare-for-All plan could cost $40 trillion, which represents one-third of the combined productivity of all nations on Earth. 
Imagine how much more care providers could have given patients with $32 million plus $80 billion plus $2.6 trillion, or how much more money could stay in people’s pockets.

Every time Congress legislates a fix for our failing healthcare system, three things happen. First, they move us closer to national insolvency by spending trillions of more dollars we don’t have. Second, they worsen the doctor shortage and make it more difficult for families to pay expenses by taking money from paying care providers to compensate bureaucrats.  Third and worst, with each new regulation, access to medical care goes DOWN – the seesaw effect. Paraphrasing an old beer commercial, spend more, less care. 

This is why the old aphorism applies. Would you ask the fox to watch the henhouse? That is the same as expecting Washington to reduce healthcare spending.

Listen to my discussion with Mandy Connell. ​

And once again pass a giant Continuing Resolution to keep spending until the end of December. Do you really think they are going to craft and pass 12 spending bills before Christmas? No, they won't. That means either another Continuing Resolution or a giant pork filled Omnibus bill that allows everyone in Congress to hide the pork they are bringing back to their districts so they can keep getting re elected. I've got Former White House OMB Chief Economist, Vance Ginn, Ph.D., today at 2:30. We're talking about how Congress is pretending that there is not a spending crisis. It’s time to address the root issue — overspending. Excessive government spending and deficits lead to inflation, higher prices, and a weaker dollar. When the government runs deficits, the Federal Reserve prints more money by mostly buying Treasury securities to cover the deficit. Find Dr. Ginn's website and sign up for his newsletter here.

Originally published at Sen. Rand Paul's office website.

​WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-08), introduced the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act. This bill will prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to direct online platforms to censor First Amendment protected speech, reinforcing our collective commitment to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a streamlined iteration of the Free Speech Protection Act, tailored to address the standing issues highlighted in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Americans are a free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment to protect our God-given right to free expression, recognizing its fundamental importance to a free society,” said Dr. Paul. “With the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act, we will strip away the barriers preventing judicial review of coercive government tactics that silence dissenting voices and ensure that no government official or contractor can undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We must confront and dismantle this censorship apparatus to protect our fundamental right to free speech.”

“I have repeatedly said that the government cannot do by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly. This is exactly what happened with the Biden Administration pressuring social media companies to suppress the free speech of American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act will not only ensure future litigants would have standing, but also would also apply to the plaintiffs in Murthy,” said Rep. Hageman. “Our forefathers ratified the First Amendment recognizing that government actors would always seek to control public discourse in order to protect their own power structure. No one has a monopoly on truth, and the Biden administration and federal agencies are not entitled to declare that American’s speech is ‘mis-information,’ ‘dis-information,’ or ‘mal-information’ and silence the message, especially when you consider how much accurate and truthful information was squelched during Covid-19 and the 2020 election. We will continue to fight to protect our First Amendment rights.” 

“Americans have a God-given right to free expression, and the constant attacks on the First Amendment from government bureaucrats make safeguarding that right all the more important. Malicious actors within government should never be allowed to silence and censor Americans, and Americans targeted by the Censorship Industrial Complex deserve their day in court. This legislation will ensure just that by removing barriers for judicial review and cracking down on those who aim to trample on the First Amendment,” said Rep. Bishop.

The bill would:

1. Empower individuals to sue government officials who coerce online platforms into censoring constitutionally protected speech.
2. Apply to past First Amendment violations and establish a presumption of liability for any government official attempting to pressure platforms into censorship, thereby overcoming the causality issue identified by the Supreme Court in Murthy.
3. Provide a vital mechanism for all Americans to protect their constitutional rights and challenge government overreach. It ensures that government officials are held accountable for any attempts to infringe upon our fundamental right to free speech.

Additional support:
“In the covid era, the federal government systematically suppressed legal online speech that contradicted its policy priorities, including criticism of covid misinformation spread by the government on topics like immunity, school closures, mask and covid vaccine effectiveness, vaccine injuries, and vaccine mandates. Given the recent failure of the Supreme Court to protect Americans against this threat to free speech rights, it is vital for Congress to act to secure the First Amendment. I am pleased that Sen. Paul has authored such a bill which will prohibit Federal employees and contractors from censoring legal speech. I encourage all law makers to support the bill,” said Jay Bhatthacharya MD, PhD., Stanford University and plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Rights that cannot be vindicated in court are not rights at all. By closing the courthouse doors to Americans who are victimized by government censorship campaigns, Murthy invites the government to violate First Amendment rights at will—so long as it does so indirectly, utilizing numerous government agencies, rather than directly or through a single agency. Murthy essentially gives the government a blueprint on how to censor American citizens. This legislation says, ‘not so fast’,” said Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech.

“As we inch closer to a crucial election in November, Congress should act swiftly to stop government censorship by proxy and protect Americans’ access to information. By restricting federal employees and contractors from encouraging platforms to suppress speech directly or indirectly, this bill is an important step in the right direction. Heritage Action applauds Sen. Paul for fighting government overreach and the weaponization of censorship on Big Tech platforms,” said Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action.

“Let the people sue government officials who are working on the taxpayer dime to censor everyday Americans. Senator Paul is valiantly defending our Constitutional free speech rights. This bill is a no-brainer,” said L. Brent Bozell III, Founder and President, Media Research Center.

“Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation allowing citizens to sue the federal government for censoring their speech, protecting First Amendment rights. For too long, federal entities have violated free speech using government power and funds. This bill ensures courts cannot dismiss these cases on standing grounds, preventing constitutional abuses. Senator Paul’s initiative is a crucial step in safeguarding free speech, a cornerstone of our free society,” said George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

“The Supreme Court’s failure to decide the Murthy v. Missouri case on the grounds that Missouri did not have standing in their attempt to protect their citizens against unconstitutional government censorship was a travesty. Senator Rand Paul’s introduction of legislation to provide states standing to sue on censorship cases would provide perhaps the only vehicle for broadly protecting free speech rights from the federal government coercing and suggesting censorship via corporate social media proxies. Americans for Limited Government proudly supports the Rand Paul legislation,” said Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.
​
“Senator Rand Paul has long been a champion of free speech and individual liberty, and this is on full display today with his legislation that will help preserve our freedoms that some in the federal government too often are trying to destroy,” said Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and Former Chief Economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“As social media has grown to allow Americans more free and unfettered speech online, there have been highly motivated efforts by government officials to limit speech online using both direct and indirect forms of coercion. This is a direct challenge to the spirit and future strength of the First Amendment. The Consumer Choice Center strongly supports Sen. Paul’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act” as a vehicle to end unconstitutional jawboning and hold public officials accountable when they aim to suppress public discourse and free expression online,” said Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center.

“The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a necessary corrective to the Supreme Court ruling that current law does not provide standing to victims of government-directed censorship to get their day in court. Congress should pass it quickly to allow citizens to appropriately defend their First Amendment rights,” said Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment.

“No government should have the ability to control American free speech online or censor us from speaking. NetChoice applauds Sen. Paul for taking this important step to defend the First Amendment from government officials that abuse their power by trying to suppress open and free dialogue online. Sen. Paul’s bill makes it clear that Americans have the right to challenge the government for jawboning in court. NetChoice looks forward to working with Sen. Paul and the U.S. Senate to get this issue right so that Americans and businesses are protected from government interference when exercising their constitutionally-protected speech,” said Carl Szabo,Vice President & General Counsel, NetChoice.

“The recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri seemed to give government officials free rein to push social media companies to censor speech they dislike. Sen. Paul is stepping up to fix this by ensuring citizens have standing to sue when they do this. Free speech makes a comeback,” said Jim Hanson, Executive Director, America Matters.

Background:
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark First Amendment case, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek an injunction against government officials who attempted to pressure platforms into censoring speech related to COVID-19. The court’s decision hinged on the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against future censorship, rather than compensation for past violations of their First Amendment rights. However, the plaintiffs would not have been able to seek compensation, even if they wanted to, as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to acknowledge a cause of action allowing individuals to seek compensation from federal officials for past First Amendment violations.

Like countless other Americans, Dr. Paul was also targeted by the pervasive censorship regime during the pandemic. In 2021, Dr. Paul posted a video on YouTube to educate the public about the potentially harmful consequences of relying on ineffective cloth masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. YouTube took down his video and suspended his account for a week. This blatant suppression of dissenting views led him to announce that he was quitting the platform and would henceforth post his content on Rumble.com. 

You can read the bill HERE.