tv Senator Rand Paul Address to Conservative Youth Conference CSPAN July 31, 2017 7:39pm-8:32pm EDT
touch or being discussed. i want to just briefly thank again the american conservatives nd hillsdale for having us here. i want to thank ross, ben, and aaron for joining us and i want to encourage everyone to continue reading the people that have been up here today because the question of cities and to have ways in which we live together are getting, in anything, more and more relevant and there's some fantastic work being done on that by people who have been on this panel and others. so please help me give a round of applause. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.
visit ncicap.org] . >> i'm going to get you right over to senator rand paul speaking right now at the conference. he's been speaking for about ive minutes now. senator paul: at some point, lincoln was a politician. he said if we can keep the union together and keep slavery, we'd settle for that. he got there by somebody had ideas and somebody said slavery is wrong. so we need people, i think in every time who are trying to think beyond the moment of what's the next thing we can do. there are issues of great performance that -- importance that we find. the idea of whether babies mean anything or children mean anything. do we just say no big deal? the question i asked debbie wasserman schultz about a year ago was when does life begin?
many of them say when you take the baby home. really? so if you're baby is in the hospital for a couple of months, it's not really alive? in my practice i would examine babies that were sometimes a pound, pound and a half. when they're born really early and get oxygen too soon they can develop abnormal blood vessels and become blind. you almost never see it now because there are cures. you hear people say i'm not for red light cameras. i hate them, by the way. but you have to be for something even more important that precedes that. individual liberty and rights. we have to understand where our liberty comes from. that our liberty precedes government, that our liberty comes from our citor. if we don't understand that, we get confused and then when uncle bernie comes along and says -- well, health care is a right.
well, if it's a right does that mean you have a right to the envoluntary servitude of those who are going to give you the health care? if you have a right to concrete items, where does it end? here we are sitting debating obamacare and my side -- god help us -- [laughter] my side decides that the only way we can replace it is to have nearly $300 billion insurance stabilization program. they say insurance is too expensive so we'll tax everybody, put it into a fund. give it to the insurance companies who can charge less. so i raised my hand, which is always a danger at lunch. i said i haven't had a new car in a while. they're very expensive. if we could have a new car stabilization fund that would help me. and i have two kids in college. could well a college
stabilization fund? my kids drop their phone in rivers, lakes, you name it. and iphones are expensive. could we not have an i phone stabilization fund? when indict -- did it become a republican idea to tax, stick entitle a fwunled, give to it a company and tell them to lower -- lower their prices? it is not republican, it is not conservative. that's still what they're talking about. when they say we don't have a replacement, they want a government replay. so we got into this detective at the very beginning. i was on one of the television programs and i said yes, we should replace it at the same time because we need to offer something positive to the people and i would replace it with freedom. freedom of choice, competition. legalize the sell of inexpensive insurance. then everybody said yeah, we need it replailsd but turns out we disagreed on what replace
was. to many replace was keeping much of obamacare in place. adding an insurance fund but then keeping the regulations in place. wait gets to is this -- you are the next generation. you have to think through things. for example, what are the unintended cons conventions. the problem in washington is we have big hearts but small brains. sort of a dinosaur kind of syndrome up here in more ways than one. but the thing is, people say we must help people so well to let people buy insurance who are already sick. because if we don't we're foot good people and then compassion is equated with money. people start throwing all kinds of money at every problem which isn't republican and isn't truly compassionate if you destroy the country in the process. the thing is let's throw more money at this and it got biger
and biggernder but the fundamental flaw of obamacare is this -- if you tell people they can buy insurance after they're sick and then you put a bunch of mandates on insurance to make it more expensive so poor people and working class people can't afford and it say you can buy it when you're sick. they wait to buy it until they're sick. so you get sicker and sicker people and the young, healthy people don't buy it. so what did the republicans offer to replace it with? they said we'll subsidize it. they weren't going to fix it so what is the real problem here? do you think i don't care about sick people? my family are sick, very sick. trying a lot of my life to get people well. so i do care a lot about sick
people but i want to get something that helps. if your house is on fire, do you call your insurance agent and say i forgot to get homeowners insurance. i need it. no, you call a fireman so if you are sick, we do have government health care. it's call medicaid. but if you're very, very sick and it's costing $1 million a year to keep you alive and the insurance company knows exactly how many it costs, you can't insure against that. then you say we're going to take all the sick people and put them together and call it a high-risk pool. the insurance companies know exactly what it's going to cost. when the insurance executives came in, i said if you no longer force people to buy insurance, the mandate. you don't co-that but tell them they can buy insurance after they're sick, it might be worse than obamacare. we keep what was in obama cares care but we get rid of the
force. we don't want to force you to buy insurance but if you keep the regular haitians in place that still say you can buy it after you're sick. people do. it will not work. really the problem is, and this is true to have anything. you could say, for example, that water is so important, how could we leave that up to individuals to figure out how to get water? food is so important. cars are so important. how could we possibly let free individuals make arrangements to buy and sell thing with their neighbors? we have to get the government involved. i'd wipe out all the obama regulations tomorrow, including preexisting conditions. dulls that mean i don't care? what happens for those who fall through the cracks? you don't have a right to health care. we may have an obligation. do you have a right to health care? no, but do you have an obligation to help people who
don't have health care? absolutely. there's a difference between an obligation and a right. are you your brother's keep summer in a religious sense, absolutely. but should big government be your brother's keeper? . no what i don't want the freshman government to do it. one, i think you lose your liberty in the process, but two, they're not very good at anything. people will ask me, do you think government is inherently stupid? i say well, i don't know but it's a debatable question. they can't even deliver the maim. the post office -- [laughter] they haven't figured out that we have email is the first problem. but the post office loses a billion dollars a quarter. $4 billion a year so they came to my committee a couple of years ago and they said well, to retain good people, to have a good post office, we're going to have to pay the executives more. i raised my hand, which is
always a problem. and i said well, how many athlete. does it take to lose a billion dollars a quarter? you think you have to pay people two become to lose that? if the standard is losing $1 billion a quarter -- when you look at it, there are two main categorical reasons why you want to be for limited government. small government, really at every level but particularly at the federal level. i call it the liberty argument and the efficiency argument. the liberty argument, when you work and you get sick and let's say you have $100. whose money is it? it's your labor. you traded for something that paid you $100. we're going to have taxes and we're going to have some law enforcement, national defense and several -- there's probably one or two other things. i can't remember the other ones.
we'd have a small government that does things and you'd have some taxes but if i told you you made $100 and the taxes were going to with $90 out of every 100 would you think i stole something that was yours, that i took some of your liberty? so the argument is for the lowest taxable level you can have in the government we have to have to do things that can't be done in the private marketplace. mostly national defense. very few other things. national defense needs to be done by the government. even sbifmente programs and all, that i'd do it at the state level. they're not very good at the federal level and they end up destroying people. what's the number one way you get self-esteem? can anyone give it to you? you're the self-esteem generation. everybody tries to give it to you. everybody gets a trophy.
serving a winner. no, you get self-esteem by doing something. it doesn't mean that everything is a concert pianist, not everyone is an opera singer, a professional baseball player, a doctor or a lawyer but you get your self-esteem by doing things so i think big government comes in and takes that away from you. you get it through work. i say yes, we should have work welfare, ts for absolutely. work is not a punishment. work is the reward. work is how you feel better about yourself, no matter what it is. that's how you get your self-esteem by doing something, producing something. we have to figure out what we think government should do. the first argument against big government is liberty argument. that if i give up 90% of your check, you're losing your liberties. my dad used to say well, the
church isn't -- didn't ask for more than 10%, he didn't think the government should either. the other argument is the efficiency argument. this kind of goes with the baufs. a great statement by milton friedman said nobody spends someone else's money as wisely as their own. that's why government is not efficient be. that and because there's no profit motive. the invisible hand of self-interest. people say how terrible it is. what if government didn't direct all of our economic affairs and people were selfish and wanted more money for their family. self-interests, trying to maximize profit leads to efficiency. capitalism is that supply and demand curve crossing. what's the result of it crossing and finding the intersection? the most amount of goods to the most amount of people at the cheapest cost. you want central planning, go visit venezuela, go visit cuba. applause]
conservatives are very good with the second amendment. that may be their best amendment, probably. i'm all for the second amendment. i am very supportive personally, in public and every which way you can think, but the think i -- thing is you have to think of all the bill of rights. you want to defend the second amendment, you have to really believe in the first amendment. without speech, discourse, the ant to organize and associate with fellow believers in the second amendment or any other amendment, you're not going to keep it but you also have to have the fourth amendment. a spend a lot of my time trying to protect the fourth amendment. that says the government can't come in your house without a warrant. the warrant has to have your name on and it they have to spetch what they want. why is this important? because you live in the digital era. you don't even remember the era
before the digital error. it's not that the government is going to come into your allows and ask for papers. we don't have papers anymore. the peace officer, we don't have mail anymore. but your whole life is on your phone and the government has no right to look at it unless they individualize. they have to put your name on a warrant and go to a third party, an independents judge. why is this important? because you can see how people get carried away sometimes. the jeasms attacked us in world war ii and we were angry. those people who are asian or looked asian, we have to round them up, put them in camps. we forgot about justice, individualization of whether someone is guilty. the presumption of innocence new mexico proven guilty. we have to be careful. when edward snowden reveal that would all of our information was being collected, that was a big deal. i would argue that we might not
be safer in the sense that if you delect too much information, you might overwhelmed with the information and not be targeting what you need to do. recognize the boston bombers? into russia, they made public postings. it was like absolutely go after that. go after social media, go to the judge. if i'm the judge, call me. i'd have kevin -- given a warrant to look at any of their stuff. the guy that fwommed nightclub in florida. you know the f.b.i. had information on him? he'd been investigated for a year and a half. six weeks before that he goes to buy a thousand rounds of ammunition in a gun store. they had him on video. the f.b.i. never investigated. but we're getting too consumed with getting everybody's stuff instead of targeting those people who are suspicion. if you come across the border, anybody in this room can be denied demid answer to the
country unless you have your password. that's wrong. i've worked on a bipartisan level to say you have to individualize. you can't just say anybody coming across the border. you have to get a warrant. ask an independent judiciary. the reason is there are still people who might make judgments on either what you look like, who you are, what you do, where you're from as opposed to saying there is a risk this person is a criminal and there is evidence, probable cause that we should look at their stuff. when we look at our system, though, compared to over countries, i think the real fallacy -- this is another berniism. he said we have the worst childhood poverty in the whole world. [laughter] . are you kidding me? have you traveled anywhere in the world? it is never good to be poor and we do have poor people in our
country but if you compare the poor in our country to almost any other country, it doesn't compare. go to india, central america, travel in africa and you'll find out what poverty is really like. so we do need to be proud of our system but when we're discussing anything, obamacare or whatever it is. do you want freedom or coercion? big government or to be left alone? but you have to have sufficient confidence in free. why do we still have obamacare even though hey all promised us they would vote for it? because the people who bromsed not to vote for it showed insufficient confidence in freedom. you know there was a time when the church took care of team? when the government didn't do anything. we've forgotten this with our churches too. many churches have gotten involved and more socially active in helping poor people.
but it's your obligation to take care of your fellow man. but i think it's also important for us to know that we live in the richest, freest, most humanitarian country in recorded history in 2014 -- 1 [applause] quirks in 2014, we give away $400 billion, not the government, almost $400 billion, individually to our churches, the salvation army, to help our fellow man to read nearly $400 million. many countries are in in their gdp. we gave that away. -- that isn accident not an accident, it came from embracing freedom, capitalism, the right to exchanger labor and your services with your neighbor. it came from the great wealth, and we have to remember that and become less confident of it. -- i will -- i will become
and become confident of it. i will lend -- i will end with this, there was a painter by the name of robert and right, and he sent -- he said that his exultation was to paint like a man coming over the hill singing. theke the image of that optimism of it. i would say, when you go back out into the rest of the united states, think about the optimism, the hope that comes from freedom, from the system that has made america great. great,want america to be you have to understand why we came and why we became great. and remember the image of a man coming over the hill singing. thank you very much. [applause]
>> i think within a do a couple of questions, as long as there is a questions or hard questions. >> thank you senator for coming today. i had the pleasure of meeting you, and i just wanted to ask him a i understand your frustration with republicans at not being able to repeal obama care. but would you be willing to gibbering the midterms, help increase the republicans in the that you said there are only 52, not enough republicans to get the job of repealing obamacare done. republicans are better than democrats, all right? [applause] i know this is a nonpartisan group but i will tell you that there is not one democrat that will repeal any regulation. there was not one democrat that will repeal any taxes.
but that is why we needed to do better on this, because it was only going to be republicans repealing it. and a full repeal some of obamacare, we might have actually gotten to part of the compromise where we could work with democrats. but we are stuck now with nothing appealed. so yes, we need more republicans, really, we need more conservatives. so really, it is your job to go out there and get more people. >> thank you. high -- hello, i am from the university of texas austin, and my question to you is, kind of a opposite of the party related question, a lot of us in this room or political active now, but not all of us wants to become directly involved in politics. how is it that we can push forward the principal in your mind, that helps make the country great and continue to make the country great, without being actively vertical.
how do we perpetuate a system where liberty can survive? sen. rand paul: i think you have arm yourself, intellectually. the that is how you win debate, ideas have consequences, and you have to in the debate. let's say you don't want to knock on doors, and you do not have any -- anyone you feel like working for, there are other ways. there are people here throughout the country who work in political foundations, who work you talksities, and about having some influence, if you were to teach economics or political science at one of our colleges, teach hundreds of kids and have influence of them. there is education, and you can also go out and -- is it ok for he goes out and becomes a billionaire and tries to help road i ron? that stroop am kidding around, but that is serious. some people are good in business, but then they want the next generation to be able to
enjoy the freedom they did, and give back. that is one way to help and give back as well. there are people who give to candidates, but i believe that arming yourself is the most important. you have to be able to win the intellectual battle, win the debate, or at least be able to contest it. that way, become armed intellectually. >> thank you. senator, i came from the university of florida, i am the one who give you the business card. [laughter] uh, i was originally born and raised in brazil and got my citizenship two years ago. [applause] the reason i got my citizenship is because over the years, i truly learned to understand what it means to be an american, and i am really prideful of that.
that is why became a citizen. my question is, what do you think is the single most important american value that we must distill in our immigrants to learn to love this country and appreciated? the single most important -- that is a big question. [laughter] i think -- i guess the thing is that there are very important attributes that we should all religious, moral, compassion, obligation, things that are very important to read but the thing about america that is amazing, is that, we leave you alone to make that decision. i will not make it for you, no one will make it for you. we all have religious traditions, but the thing is that no one can actually tell you that. but in not telling you that, it tends to work out that we don't defend into chaos. we have government as part of the stability, but we also tend all searching to help our
family first and our community, it tends to work. but anytime you get the government involved in any level, it tends to distort things, -- like i say, all you have to do is go to brazil, venezuela, and see the horror. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> evening senator, i am the aairman of the chapter at university. you are talking to us tonight about principles of liberty and efficiency and things like that are read i find so often that people don't want to engage in the discussion, they say that it is too simplistic or reaction is stick. -- reaction is. debate, --itate the how do you facilitate the debate? sen. rand paul: some people will
only listen to the efficiency argument, but we win that argument hands down. ask people if they want their health care to be delivered by the post office. [laughter] the federal government is not very good at anything, and as much as i am a believer that we have an obligation to our veterans and that we should take care of them when they get home, the v.a. doesn't work that well. this, butes to say the reason it doesn't, is because it is socialized to read i would be more for letting veterans have insurance to go see a local doctor for the most part, because the could actually participate in a system that actually works, and they do not have to wait around for eons. workedworked -- i have in the v.a., and i do not want to say that it is all bad, but the waiting times, and one of the things we have right now is that we are actually losing more soldiers to suicide than combat. you do not want to tell a soldier that is having bad thoughts, come back in a month.
for an appointment with a psychiatrist. so we have to realize that we can win on the efficiency argument, that the government does not work very well. and if you going to read some "zlet's- henry economics in one lesson ", i give it to all of my students. fallacy, isindow another one, all of these are things that we can be armed with because they really fit a lot of the situations that come up. but you are right, a lot of the people, you cannot get to them. the constitution, morality, does not mean anything. but it does not mean that we cannot make these arguments. lack of efficiency in central planning. evening, you have recently sponsored a couple of bills, to amend the bill of rights. i was wondering if you still
believe that the bill of rights sufficiently patrols the federal government?sen. rand paul: if were going to amended, the next amendment should be that we have to pay attention to the bill of rights. the bill of rights is awesome, but one of the first important of the 10 limits of the constitution, is the ninth amendment. big american of a georgetown professor who has written about it. it says -- those rights not listed are not to be disparaged. that really, it is a partial listing. you had to put the ninth and 10th amendment on there, because someone said -- if we list them, people will think that that is all you have. so really, the only way they got it through, is by putting the ninth and 10th amendment saying -- power is not -- hours not granted to the federal government, -- they are not to be disparaged. this is pretty important, and we
still have the debate that divides conservatives and liberty -- libertarians little bit. the ninth amendment says that it doesn't have to be in the constitution by the conservatives believe that it does. to privacy, itht is implicit, but it is there. property, is another one, the strong emphasis to write to property. -- to a right to property. based on the individually owned part of poverty, but some of the things i have thought of our term limits, that have proposed. what else that i have proposed are you thinking of? >> the fair act. sen. rand paul: oh, the fair act. it talks about civil asset forfeiture, and says that basically, you should be innocent until proven guilty. if you are walking down the street with $500, the government
cannot take your money and just 8 -- you did not do something wrong, or we will take your money. it is something that i disagree on with general jeff sessions -- with attorney general jeff and it is really uniting a lot of people to read the federalist society seems to be on our side on this, and that was -- the wall street journal had an article on it. like i say, sometimes conservatives are perceived as you're all about austerity and all you care about is the budget -- this is a really human issue, but it ought to be fixed. >> >> i am from the university in arkansas. given that republicans, three of them are not voted to repeal and replace obamacare, do you think it would be a good idea to let obamacare fail, as it will do unless private enterprise picks up the pieces? is a toughaul: it
discussion, and a tough conclusion to make the red obamacare is failing, and i think most people acknowledge it . the democrats created it, and it was imperfect to say the least. a mistake to keep most of it in place, and put a republican band-aid on it that i do not think will work. then all of a sudden everyone says -- the republicans couldn't fix it and they made it worse. so there is part of me that says -- well gosh, we need to make sure, whoever is this possible for this -- what is responsible for this fiasco -- there is a big debate with republicans in general -- most of our caucus leaves that if would do not do something will be with -- be blamed for not doing nothing to read and it will have consequences in 2018. i believe that if we do nothing, and you put your names in the midst of obamacare and now it is called trumpcare or ryan care, and you do not fix it, i think it will be worse. every proposal, even the partial
repeal, none of them fix the fundamental flaws of obamacare. the fundamental flaw is something called adverse election. telling you that the people that don't have to buy. then have the acceleration of premiums. that is a big deal because 50% of the country has only one insurer. --s isn't the whole thing about 10% of health care, but we could fix it. i talked to the president before i came here, and i am still wishing for a market reform that would allow individuals across datelines, to join an association -- in association and have one person negotiate for them to read it could be the chamber of commerce, which has about 5 million people. aarp has about 20 million, can you imagine the surprise, if you are in an association of millions of people, versus you and your wife, trying to get insurance. no one should be stuck in the
individual market. it is not -- it is not a result of the free marketplace, it is the result of a tax structure that we developed in two -- after world war ii. i say, let's give people an avenue for an exit out of it. goave recommended that they back and reevaluate the law, and start approving lots of groups to have associations, which will help equalize the negotiations between insurance companies and individuals. which i think is greatly lopsided, and i think big insurance has become the epidemic of crony capitalism. like every other procedure in washington, saying -- gimme, gimme, gimme, someone else's money. [laughter] you for taking your time to do this. my question is on your previous answers, that the military station of the police force. --ce 2013, police facet police fatalities have continue
to increase and this year they are already up 18% over the previous year. so i was wondering, do you believe that the militarization dethe police force, -- the -militarization of the police force, -- how would you address the situation? sen. rand paul: i would argue that we have not yet done it. we have debated it, and there are some like myself who set that team new hampshire doesn't need a tank, or a mine resistant ambush vehicle that is 27 tons for a town of 500 people. i think we have gone too far. weaponryhe surplus that we gave out, we give up the 7000 aon nats. -- bayonets. we are not going to use those in our cities. if you talk to the police, they will tell you that there is a difference between fighting a war.
difficults a very job, and war is different because of the rules of engagement restraining our soldiers. police, you go into a combat zone every day where everybody is a american citizen with rights, and you have to make sure they are actively committing a crime before you use violence against them. policing is a difficult job. should they have sophisticated weapons, yes, absolutely. people mistake this thing about drones, i had a speech on drones one time, but it was not about drones, it was about the bill of rights. for example, if your sister is being held by kidnapper at gunpoint, would i allow drone to go through the window and kill the kidnapper? absolutely. but would i allow obama to go in trop a bomb on so-and-so in michigan who sends in males to his cousin and -- emails to his i don'tn lebanon? no,
think so. you cannot do that to people who may be tangentially connected to a terrorist, maybe. but there are some weapons that are appropriate. bomb shields, sophisticated equipment that i would be four. they are nuts, i would -- bayonets, i would not before. thanks, things like that, i think they go too far. or might be a rare occasion for things like that, that for the most part policing is different and they have a tough job. i know that terrorism has made it get worse here, but we did not have so many people walking around with semi automatic weapons all the time, on the streets. now we have more of that red it is -- now we have more of that. i think we need to be careful, the difference between being a police, and being in an army. i will be attending stanford
university, and i was wondering -- >> you couldn't get in anywhere else? [laughter] sen. rand paul: just joking, that the compliment. >> for someone interested in producing bidding in government, would you recommend or advise first having a career in the private sector?sen. rand paul: eileen in that direction, that is where i came from. for 20iced medicine years, but i don't think everyone is the same. but people who asked me my advice, that would be my advice. have a career, then run for office at some point in time. it is also easier financially, to be financially solvent before you go into it, because you don't really get rich in public office. in fact, it is a struggle sometimes. i think you get another perspective too, because in washington, we do not have that there areen or women, a handful in the senate, but i think they bring an important
perspective. not so legalistic, but more east in -- how -- more based in how i tend in that direction. have a career first. >> i am from hopkins committee college in kentucky. my question is pretty simple, what is america's greatest accomplishment? [laughter]aul: i think one of the things that when you look back to our revolution, that really distinguishes us, and really leads to our greatness in one way, is the idea of meritocracy career and not just that it is based on merit, but you could argue that since feudal times, people may have risen higher,
but if you had lived in europe before the revolution, you had to be almost of royal lot or lineage. so that was 25% of the people. and i think that is one of the most remarkable things that happened in our country -- barbara tuchman who is a historian, writes about this. when we came over, it wasn't just while tea, but everybody. we for advancement, progress of the world, it was just about 10% of the commoners -- now all of a expands. it was imperfect, blacks were excluded from it for the first 180 years of or so, and then women were also excluded from it. but it has expanded, and we are progressing, technologically and in many ways. because we have expanded the groups of people to go to. now, african americans, we now have women. that i next stage, think, in development and productivity for the world, is that when education reaches into
the far reaches. i think, it can through the internet. i do not want to name any countries, to disparage them, but there are countries in the far reaches, who haven't learned calculus or astronomy, there are smart kids but we haven't gotten to them. and the internet can now find them. and to a certain extent, even in our state of kentucky, there are people in our rule parts of the with -- go to high school in thate graduating class, there is no calculus in that school to read so if you go to a bigger school, there will be one. so if you go to a ton of 2000, and you go to that school, and you are the brightest kid, you could be learning calculus on the internet. -- i would sayon that the opening up of meritocracy to a wider group of people in the united days, not just royals, was probably one of
the most amazing things about the beginning of our republic, and our success. >> i come from the university of texas in austin, so, addressing your point on health care, stabilizing individuals in emergency situations, if they are insured, that is an unfair burden that is not paid into the insurance market. so, why and you are a penny in, should individuals not have a mandate to buy insurance, and they are putting an unfair disadvantage on individuals and reaping the benefits? sen. rand paul: the history of medicine in our country, and i think, in some other countries, was that we had an obligation to read you do have an obligation to take care of your fellow man. so when you are a physician and a hospital, it is actually called privileges. so i have a privilege to operate at a couple of hospitals in my town.
along with that privilege, i sign a contract, i am not sure it is written, but there is a contract which says that i cannot continue to work there unless i see anybody who comes through the emergency room. -- itis a lot now happened way before that too am a before the beginning of american medical history, we have been seeing people who could not pay any money. and we say, well, it is a transfer of costs, yes? the difference is, we're getting to a society where those who come and have an expectation, and have no belief that says. -- i/o anything for the service we have discounted the service up our medical providers. there were stories of people being them in things in exchange for helping them. they really appreciated it. sometimes you see people for free in the emergency room, and you ask them to come the next day, and you say, in order to help cover our costs, they will bring $10.
and they will come in with a truck full of cigarettes, but they are not willing to pay it. . so we have discounted the value of it. there's always going to be some cost shifting, i guess the question is, do you want to have a small number -- then do not hire a large number. so, with 95% people paying, and 5% not, the transfer to help the 5% gets built into insurance. and i think we can handle it. 50/50, that40, or is impossible. so do you believe in coercion, and telling your fellow man to do -- when we force people to have car insurance -- i guess in my mind, for the most part, free people can come up with solutions without coercion. say thatmight have to people have to pay, and if they don't pay, they will be billed.
and there will be an expectation of payment. there are other ways to fix it as well, you could say that people who were not willing to pay, shouldn't have a right to sue the doctors in the hospital. most lawsuits come from nonpayers then pairs. which disrupts the system as well. it is like anything else, in your committee, do you want to have 5% of the people on welfare, or 50%? have to figure out how to have a robust economic engine that helps 5%. and really, when you get to 5%, your getting sometimes to full employment. i came from a county today, that has 3.7% unemployment. you know what the number one complaint in from businesses in kentucky? the number one complaint is that they cannot find enough people to work. they are short of labor. but they cannot find specifically enough people who are drug-free and have a work ethic. that is a problem. we have to figure out how to help people without hurting
them. i have one quick example them will finish up, but i cannot resist -- unemployment insurance. if you are compassionate you want to give people unemployment insurance,. attacks, butp -- when we are in -- it is a tax. aat we are -- when we're in recession, do you want to give them more? you talk about moral constitutional arguments, versus an efficiency argument. they study the employment patterns of hiring people, if you are the boss and two workers come in and they are absolutely identical question mark that one has been out of work for three weeks and the other one has been out of work for 99 weeks, guess who gets picked? the one who has been out of work for three weeks. so, i being generous, you have kept him out of the workforce for so long. so, the policy is not working.
we did not think through the consequences of it. so many mistakes because we do not think through the unintended consequences of it. so, we could mandate a lot of things, we could make insurance works, but the question is where do you stop the mandates? where do you tell people -- when you stop telling people what they need to do? emboldening,r have i would rather have them reduce things -- there is a charity called helping hands in christ. i do not give any cash to anyone. no one touches any money. if you're having trouble paying your utility bills, they sit down with you and give you advice on how to deal with it, then they will write a check or send a money transfer to the utility company. you can have compassion that is constructive. so, i think we always need to look for the choice that involves less coercion. last question. >> thank you for letting me take a selfie with you earlier.
sen. rand paul: no jokes, right? >> no sir. what was your inspiration for getting involved in politics? sen. rand paul: my father. i grew up in a political family, and i probably went to 1000 of his speeches or more. i listen to his interviews, and i was interested in it from a young age. i went to more barbecues and you can imagine, picnics, knocking on doors. i was interested as a kid, came up here in high school as an intern, and worked as an intern in his office as well as in college. then i spend a lot of time were physician, practiced medicine, but always dabbling in it, always asking for ways to get involved. in durham, when i was in my presidency, i asked, how can we do that? ratingstarted legislature, developed a group, and we were on local tv to read
because we got active, and nobody was rating state legislature. think my dad was a big influence, and i grew up in a political family, and just had a big appetite for it. thanks everybody [applause] . >> thank you again, senator paul. students, i have a few announcements for you. we are very excited for a wonderful week. we are looking forward to hearing from some amazing leaders in the conservative movement. so with that, i have some amounts men's the red breakfast tomorrow will be at 8 a.m., and the ballroom, a hot breakfast. we encourage you to get up early and enjoy that in the morning.
as a reminder, your room keys will be handed out to you, this afternoon. any problems with your room, i will be in the dorms till about 10:00 in the lobby, to troubleshoot. -- hundred $50 -- $150 turkey, so please be careful not to lose it. -- $150 per key. over to the right, our staff will be there to help guide you to read finally, we are excited for this wonderful program. the nation -- being in the nation's capital is exciting, and we want you to have fun and have a wonderful conference, we just want to remind you that you signed a responsibility pledge. we ask that you behave responsibly and abide by our local and federal laws here in the district of columbia. with that, another round of applause for senator paul. we will see you on the patio. [applause]
in doinge interested walking tour of the monuments, it is optional. we will be meeting in the hall in the lobby at around 9:15 p.m.. now, to the group photo. thanks, guys. announcer: it was announced today that the white house khamenei kish and director anthony scaramucci, would be leaving the white house -- anthony scaramucci, would be leaving the white house. we will get an update next on c-span. then, a discussion on lone wolf terrorism. later, in case you missed it, we will show you kentucky senator rand paul's remarks from george washington university.
>> c-span, where history unfold daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by americans public -- cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable and satellite television provider. trump's briefly with reporters after new chief of staff, john kelly was sort in. as home and secure -- homeland security secretary in the trump administration. john: we just swore in kelly, he will do a spectacular job, i have no doubt. as chief of staff. what he has done, in terms of homeland security, is record-shattering. if you look at the tremendous result that we've had, and the spirit.