Pres. Cand. Chase Oliver w/ the Medical Caucus - 07-25-2024

Speaker A: Okay, so let's just get started.

>> Chase Oliver: can you hear me?

Speaker A: All right, I got you now. so, Chase, you've been a vocal advocate for medical autonomy on your twitter. Can you elaborate on what specific policies you would implement to ensure individuals have the right to choose their healthcare treatments without the government being involved?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. So, the first thing I would say is, I think probably, you know, I always try to say something nice about people I'm running against. So I'll say the nicest thing that Donald Trump did was, I think, right to try legislation which allowed people who were suffering to try medical, therapies that were outside of FDA authority. Because, you know, if you're facing a terminal illness, you should be able to try anything you can to be able to survive and thrive. This also allows for new innovation, to be able to create breakthroughs. I think we should expand that notion to your healthcare autonomy should be really yours alone. and removing kind of any barriers outside of your decision making as an adult, to what you want to do with your body in terms of your healthcare decision making, whether it's, whatever therapies you want to take, whatever medications you want to take. really, that should be up to you as an individual. one of the greatest libertarian axioms out there is good ideas don't require force. Like, you shouldn't be forced to take care of yourself. Like, that's kind of an instinctual thing for most people to seek out the best way to take care of themselves and to seek out health and wellness. And as we've, seen so many times in our history, the state actually getting in the way of that can prevent both healthcare innovations, new, therapies, new technologies, but also lead, to suffering because people can't access healthcare because it's too expensive. And that's because government has had its finger, in the industry for so long that costs are rising far faster than inflation.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's great. So, piggyback off of that.

Will you strongly oppose government mandates related to health care

so will you strongly oppose government mandates related to health care? and how would you address any current existing mandates, such as those related to vaccination or health insurance requirements?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, so, I'm not a mandate guy. You know the joke. I'm lgbt, so the joke is I like mandates, not mandates. so, yeah, I'm somebody who, again, good ideas don't require force, and we shouldn't have to require these mandates for vaccinations. I think people who want to take them will. I think people can look at the data for themselves and their healthcare providers can advise, them as they see fit. And that should be a decision that's made by individual people. so many things like libertarians, just because we don't need the government to do things don't mean that we don't think people will do them like people will. Again, most people will still do what they're going to do with regards to their health care, with or without a mandate. And that includes health insurance mandates. And I think what we've seen, from Obamacare, the promise that mandating health care was going to somehow lower the cost of health care just didn't come to fruition. I certainly didn't have lower cost of health care. Of course, I was insured under Obamacare when I worked in the restaurant industry. but working paycheck to paycheck, I certainly couldn't afford the $10,000 deductible if I were to get really sick. so while I was technically on paper insured, that insurance was pretty useless to me, in many cases, especially if I had gotten really sick. So, no, I don't believe we need those mandates. In fact, I think we need to loosen up the regulation and restrictions so we can buy health insurance across state lines. We should be able to buy medications across international borders because these would create market forces to lower the cost of health care for every american.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's definitely, I feel you with the insurance because I've been in that position.

With informed consent being a cornerstone of medical freedom, what steps would you take

so with informed consent being a cornerstone of like the medical freedom platform, what steps would you take to ensure that informed consent remains a standard in medical, in medical care across all states? And how could you, expand informed consent protections?

>> Chase Oliver: So I think one of the best areas in terms of informed consent that's going to have doctors actually fully being as transparent as possible, trying to provide as much information, something like, removing tort caps. I think the judicial branch is actually somewhere where we want to see that happening. Because if we remove tort caps on malpractice, and juries can actually bankrupt a doctor for not providing that informed consent. And a patient can maybe be injured due to lack of transparency or the fact that a doctor is hiding information from their patient, I, think would be a great free market mechanism to ensure that doctors are being as thorough as possible, as cautious as possible when need be, because, sometimes you don't want to rush headlong into things. You want to actually look at the full spectrum of information as a healthcare provider. and then, as far as, legislation, of course, we need to have full transparency laws for drug trials, so long as there's going to be an FDA, which, of course, is a libertarian, I don't think we need one. but as long as we have one, there should be full transparency into all drug trials, as much as possible, in plain English. for our congress to be able to have oversight over, but also for the average consumer to be able to reach out to their doctor and with this information, be, able to provide the best health care possible. So those are the two areas that I think informed consent need to be attacked from, both on the legislative side to ensure that any regulatory agencies that are providing drug trials, are as thoroughly transparent as possible, so long as they exist under government auspices. if you get rid of the FDA, you have market forces to do that. and then, on the other side, from the medical provider side, you want to remove tort caps. So that way, malpractice is something that actually, is taken very seriously, both by the provider and the malpractice insurance company to ensure that doctors are providing as much information as possible to patients.

Speaker A: Yeah, definitely.

Would you support removing barriers that currently prevent patients from suing vaccine manufacturers

so, and continuing on, just kind of keeping with the same theory there, would you support removing the barriers that currently prevent patients who are vaccine injured from suing the pharmaceutical companies? and how would you address the legal protections that big pharma currently enjoys?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, I'm somebody who believes in equality under the law, and that includes civil litigation. You know, I don't support qualified immunity for police. I don't support immunity from civil, litigation for vaccine manufacturers or anybody else. frankly, I think that kind of protectionism, only will lead to more corruption into the industry. and I think anybody should be allowed to take their case to a courtroom. And if a judge deems it worthy of going, to trial, or if a grand jury convenes and sees that there's a criminal conviction that's needed, I, think that no industry should be shielded from these things. I think these things should be argued. There's a reason why we have three what are supposed to be co equal branches of government, and what we've had lately is we've had a judicial branch that is actually legislating from the bench whole cloth, creating doctrines, things like qualified immunity, when really their role is to actually properly interpret and adjudicate disputes. and so instead of them being doing the job of the legislature, I think we need to get courts back and doing the job of a judicial branch, which is to adjudicate these disputes. And, in particular, when it comes to suing big pharma, they shouldn't be protected any more than any other industry is. frankly, if I harm somebody, somebody should be able to take me to court for harming them, the same as if I'm providing them a drug or if I'm assaulting them. Either way, if a harm is done and you can prove that harm in a court of law, there should be damages awarded to you.

Speaker A: Yeah, I definitely think we need to work on holding everyone equally accountable.

Fitzheffer: Declaration of Independence, 9th amendment protect medical choices

so do you agree that the Declaration of Independence, the 9th amendment, and the 14th amendment protect medical choices? and how do you interpret these documents in the context of medical freedom? And what legal actions would you pursue to reinforce this interpretation?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, I think both those amendments, both reinforce the need for medical privacy as well as the need for bodily autonomy, which is really at the core center of medical freedom, is that you own your own body. You get to make the decisions about your own body, and that includes healthcare decisions. Good or bad, your body is your body. and I think, you know, both of those, throughout your court cases have regularly shown that that is, a sacrosanct thing, that this is an essential part of liberty, is that your bodily autonomy, your privacy as to your healthcare, which, should be really the most private thing to you. You know, it's really nobody's business unless it's affecting, you know, unless you're in public life. You know, if. If I were to be sick, right, as a presidential candidate, it would kind of behoove me to declare those things. But if I was just a private citizen, my business is my business. If you're not running for public service or public life, it shouldn't be anybody's business about your health care, frankly. and I think both of those reinforce that. And certainly as a candidate for president, if I were president, United States, I would reinforce your right to privately practice your healthcare decisions and work with your doctor. As you see Fitzhe, you know, I can think of no other right that is more essential than the right to own your own body and the decision making that's involved with that and being able to do that without the scrutiny of other people. you know, to me, that that is kind of essentially to the core of liberty.

Speaker A: Yeah.

You've criticized the FDA and CDC for overreaching

so I know earlier in our conversation, like, you've criticized, the FDA and stuff, so you kind of said other times with the CDC and the FDA, with their overreaching, can you detail your plans to limit the power, of these agencies without, compromising any public health.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. So, you know, I, for instance, would like to get rid of the FDA and CDC completely. I'll use the FDA as the example here of, like, we don't. Why don't we need an FDA? the question should be, why do we need a central governing authority to be judging the safety and efficacy of drugs when there could be firms that are compelled to do that in the private marketplace that could be funded, by the pharmaceutical industry to provide trust in their industry. And what you would have there is you would have competing firms testing safety and efficacy, and you could see through transparency, like, who is providing the most transparent information about what these drug trials are going through, who has the best safety record, you know, who has the most thorough study of drugs before they get put onto the marketplace or approved as safe and effective, and then combining that with, torts and basically saying that if you're done wrong, or these independent, firms have not been properly safety testing or not been properly efficacy testing, and you can show the cracks or the fissures there, the problems in their studies, you can take them to court for that. And so, again, this would be a private market pressure to actually ensure more thorough study of drugs before they get approved. Whereas right now we have an FDA, and when the FDA approves something that then goes bad, basically, they've shielded those people from liability. They've shielded the drug makers from liability. And the FDA, they don't really pay the price either. and so I think we have to have some sort of citizen protection. And when you privatize this system, you create a mechanism for citizens to protect themselves. as opposed to just having to rely on the government saying, hey, this is great, because there have been times when the government has signed off on drugs that have been extremely harmful. And if there have been more thorough safety and efficacy testing, maybe some of these drugs that had to be recalled for Vioxx and others would never have gotten to the marketplace had they been more thoroughly tested.

Speaker A: Yeah, I definitely say, I think that piggybacks back to holding the pharmaceutical companies responsible for their stuff.

Medical freedom caucus advocates for a 28th amendment to the constitution

so the medical freedom caucus advocates for a 28th amendment to the constitution, and this explicitly, protects medical freedom. would you support this amendment, and if so, how would you plan to garner the necessary support to have it pass?

>> Chase Oliver: Now? I would support this amendment, but I also have to be realistic in recognizing that the. The chances of being able to pass any constitutional amendment these days with how partisan and hyper polarized everything is, would be a challenge, because if you seek to get republican support for a constitutional amendment, immediately, by reflex, every Democrat would be against it and vice versa. And so the first thing we have to do is create the conditions to get a constitutional amendment passed. And that involves electing people, in the third party and independent movement across the country. it involves building the framework, actually have that support that we would need on the ground in state legislatures, because you do need three quarters of state legislatures. And so the way you start building the ability to pass constitutional amendments once again, which we have not done in quite a while, and, you know, frankly, there's probably several things we could pass that would further secure people's liberty and, tie the government's hands, which is what we need in a lot of cases. But, to do that, we have to create the conditions on the ground to get those passed, and that involves us growing the third party and independent movement. But absolutely, I would support that. But it starts with creating those conditions. So what would I do to move towards being able to pass that, starting to support third party independent voices and races all across the country? What I'm doing is the libertarian candidate for president, coincidentally. but also, you want to start reaching out to those in the two major parties that might be able to side with you. certainly there are people who side with medical freedom in both the Republican and also in their own way, in the Democratic Party, because there's the pro choice movement in the Democratic Party. And if you remind people who are pro choice that they also need to be pro medical choice, that this is also centered to bodily autonomy, you can actually probably win over a lot of people who are currently fighting for, their reproductive freedom. Right. but you have to remind them that with that freedom and that bodily autonomy also comes the autonomy from drugs and from big pharma and from the ability of the government to decide what you can and can't put in your body.

Speaker A: Yeah, definitely got to get everybody involved with everything.

You have emphasized the importance of bodily autonomy in your campaign

So, now kind of, you touched a little bit with, pulling in that, like, pro choice and bodily autonomy. you have emphasized, throughout the whole time of your campaign the importance of bodily autonomy. how would you address situations where some professionals cite public health concerns as they're, As this might conflict with individual rights, such as, like, stuff during the pandemic.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. So, you know, I understand people might be wanting to take a public health look at things, like, from the broad spectrum, but you can't use that to determine people's individual choices. and so a healthcare provider saying, well, this is good for public health, if they can't argue why it's good for your health. to me that that's kind of the more important thing that an individual healthcare provider should be discussing with you as a patient. and what we've seen, by the way, is many of the decisions that were m made by the so called public health experts in the wake of the pandemic were extremely harmful. namely the lockdowns where we saw tens of thousands of businesses go away that never returned again. We saw hundreds of thousands of businesses adversely affected and they're still trying to recover from that in the marketplace. And then we saw so many people, have, to say goodbye to their loved ones through plate glass or through plastic screensh, instead of being able to hold their hands, or loved ones, like those kinds of things did not actually work, were not shown to truly be in the public's best interest. And so I'm a skeptic for much of the public health experts. who I trust to help me make decisions on an individual basis is a doctor that I trust, and I would hope that they would be viewing it through the individual lens, not through the collective health lens for what's good for me. Now, that being said, you know, I don't want to restrict, doctors from being able to advise patients, but I would say as an individual american, I would advise you as a consumer to really be thinking about is your doctor thinking about you or is your doctor just taking the advice from on high and just, you know, top downing it to you? Or are they tailored making the discussion that they're having with you on a one on one basis based on your personal healthcare history and your personal needs. if it's the former, find a new doctor. If it's the latter, hold on to them very close because that's a good doctor and that's one you want to keep supporting.

Speaker A: Yeah, you definitely want to kind of do your shopping when you pick in a doctor of who really has your best interests at heart.

Do you believe that mandates enforced vaccinations violate individual rights

so, again, keeping with some of the mandates and stuff, do you believe that mandates enforced vaccinations violate individual rights? and how would you balance this stance with the need to protect public health in scenarios where vaccination rates are deemed critical by some professionals?

>> Chase Oliver: So, again, I'm not going to be a, fan of mandating or requiring things. In fact, I think that violates the liberty of your bodily autonomy. But again, good ideas don't require force. Like, if there's a disease like that is killing, a lot of people, most people, and there is some sort of vaccine that shows some sort of risk to mitigate against that, just without government coercion, a lot of people are going to do that. Like, that's the problem. It's not the fact that medical technology is available. It's the fact that the government is coercing you to take that technology, which loses public trust, which creates skepticism. If there was no government forcing these things on us, most people would still be doing it, if they found that their healthcare professional is advising it, if they see data that shows that it helps. You don't need force to do those things. The only time you need force to force things on people is if something is kind of not fully effective or, you know, something that, people don't trust and they're being forced to do it. Like that is a problem with trust in our public institutions, but also just. And that's been eroded for, you know, my entire adult life. Certainly public trust and public institutions have been eroded when we've been lied into wars, when we've been lied to about the purposes of legislation, when we've been lied to by our leaders and our public officials. And so this furthers that erode and trust when they're mandating this behavior of us, as opposed to saying, this is, available, talk to your doctor, make the decision for yourself, as opposed to saying, you must do this. And I think we saw that, most insidiously, with the OSHA requirements of any employer with over 100 employees requiring vaccine mandates, I, of course, oppose that. And the courts eventually did, too, once the case made its way through. And using bodily autonomy, that's what they cited as part of the reason why they opposed this OShA mandate.

Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I think we've developed a, I think everyone in the communities and public has, developed an oppositional defiance level, on some things where you're telling me to do it and no, even though you could present everything beautifully, but you're telling me I have to do this is a big force. And a lot of people are like, no.

>> Chase Oliver: yeah, a lot of people are naturally skeptical of those kinds of things, and it's because they've seen what happens when government forces things on people. In the past, I mean, just in our own history, we've had forced internment, we've had, the Tuskegee experimentation happening, being forced on the population there. In terms of public health things, we've had, all kinds of force that have been applied to populations in our past. forced reservations for native american populations. you know, we've had so many examples of government force being used against entire groups of people collectively in ways that are stains upon our nation. And when you stop having that happen is you stop having government have the authority to put that force upon people in the way that they have in the past.

Speaker A: Yeah.

I'm not going to mandate that health insurance companies provide alternative health care

now, what specific measures would you take to ensure that individuals have unrestricted access to alternative treatments? And how would you address the potential for misuse or misinformation when it comes to alternative medicines?

>> Chase Oliver: So, as far as alternative medications, of course, being somebody who doesn't want to mandate things, I'm also not going to mandate that health insurance companies provide alternative health care. but I do think that should be a mechanism in the marketplace. That should be something that healthcare providers are saying, hey, in addition, traditional health care, we'll also provide you alternative or holistic medication coverage. that should be a tool that's allowed in a free marketplace. Certainly, if any more open health insurance marketplace, that might be an attractive benefit that people might see and want to join in their health insurance pool. This is also why, by the way, I think we need to separate our health insurance from our employer. because that has our employer choosing our healthcare provider for us, and it also locks us into our job. We, might not like our job, but we like the insurance. and it keeps you from maybe going to a better job or a different job or starting your own business. I think we need to fully lock ourselves away from our employers choosing our healthcare because you might want a different healthcare coverage spread for, yourself and your family than, say, your coworkers might want. and so you should be able to jump into a health insurance pool that isn't just made up of your coworkers, but it's made up of all sorts of people in your community, in your area. and so, but getting back to why, I don't want these things forced on people is because it erodes that trust. So, for me, you know, I am somebody who is not, seeing the value and the force of government being applied to public health, so much because it erodes so much trust, of course. There are definite things we can do to lower the cost of healthcare again

Speaker A: so we kind of touched on this a little bit, and stuff. we agreed to promote a free market healthcare system. and can you just kind of give us what this would look like under, an oliver administration. And, how would you address, like, issues like affordability and accessibility? And we did touch on this a little bit. I just want to kind of make sure we fully cover it.

>> Chase Oliver: So, just rounding out to it, there's definite things we can do to lower the cost of healthcare again. being able to buy health insurance across state lines, being able to buy medications across national boundaries, and then, of course, supporting healthcare models to compete with the traditional insurance model. Namely, I think the best, rise in the marketplace is direct primary care healthcare, DPC healthcare. if people aren't familiar with that, that's where you pay a monthly rate to a doctor's office, who then provides you direct care. and if there's any costs out of pocket, it comes from you directly, as opposed to processing insurance paperwork and having copays and all this stuff. And what you see for millions of Americans is this is actually a much more affordable model than the traditional health insurance model that might have a high deductible that's really unaffordable for that person. And so, providing these market competitors, traditional health insurance will actually have health insurance companies lowering their costs overall. The other thing we need to see is price transparency. if you know what the procedure is costing and you can shop around the area, you can find the best and most affordable provider for that service, for things like mris or x rays or CAT scans. You, want to be able to have that price transparency from hospital to hospital, from clinic to clinic, so you as a consumer, can actually save your, insurance, pull money, and through that savings, you'll have lower premiums over time. This is, of course, part of increased transparency in the marketplace. Something that Gary Johnson, for instance, championed when he was running for office that, we still don't have now, eight years later, with two different presidents, one named Trump and one named Biden. So if you're looking for them to provide that to you, sadly, we're going to be waiting, a long time. But, I think that makes a lot of sense that you should know the cost, because if you do, you can be a more informed consumer, just like we do with anything else. you can see the price on the shelf. It's not that way with healthcare, though, and that has led to the rise in cost. And of course, the more government gets involved, just like any other industry, the faster it rises beyond inflation. Just look at both healthcare and education for a perfect, symbol. Ah, of that.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Would you support banning vaccine databases altogether

so just to keep everything moving, would you support banning vaccine databases altogether for instance, like states like New York and Pennsylvania currently have like a government controlled vaccine database. And what's just kind of, what's your perspective on this issue?

>> Chase Oliver: I don't think you need to have a government database for that. I think, in a world you can have, you know, vaccination status being part of your health profile that's known to your healthcare provider, but doesn't necessarily need to be known to the state. and then you can provide that information if needed, or if there's some sort of need for the state to have that information through a warranted process, through due process, that's where that belongs. But really, I don't support registries of anything similar to gun registries. I don't think you should have a vaccine registry either. but I do think that that information can be provided to you and held for you by those who are providing vaccinations, namely, private healthcare providers. And so, no, I don't find there's a need for having a state database, especially when that data is already going to be kept by your health insurance company, your doctor's office. we shouldn't have to have some sort of registry from the state.

Speaker A: Yeah. and then just continuing pigging back off of that.

Would you argue against discrimination based on vaccines vaccination status

now, would you argue against discrimination based on vaccines vaccination status? and how would you enforce anti discrimination measures in various sectors, such as employment, with Medicaid, medical, professionals and education professionals? Because I know, coming from the healthcare sector, there's a lot of places that part of their, like, hard stops on employment are you need to be vaccinated.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. so I think the mechanisms for that enforcement is in the free marketplace, because I do believe in free association and property rights. But I think what we need to understand here is that if you're a firm that is denying people employment on the basis of vaccination status, you're going to lose good employees one way or the other. If you're a firm that says, I will only take non vaccinated employees, for instance, you're going to lose a lot of good vaccinated employees. If you're a firm that says, I will only take vaccinated employees, you're going to lose out on good, unvaccinated employees. And so I, have to be true to my libertarian principles and let businesses do stupid things I do. and that does require freedom is not perfect, and freedom is not, something that makes everyone protected all the time. Freedom is, you know, does require that we support those property rights. Now, I can personally say that I think it's a stupid decision. I can personally say that I, if I were running a business, would never run a business that way. But I do believe we have to, just the same as we allow a gas station to say, no shirt, no shoes, no service to come in my building. We have to allow property owners to maintain that. Right. And it sucks and it's horrible, because people may lose jobs, but the beauty of the free market is that when one, you know, is that if one firm is losing their resources based on that, another firm can pick them up and basically provide better, you know, a better outcome. But that's the truth. and, you know, and I understand why that would make some people upset, but it's similar to any other property. Right. and as part of medical freedom, we have to allow businesses, and those who own those businesses make stupid decisions with regard to medicine, so long as it's not being forced by the monopoly of force of government, as long as it's not the government saying, you have to do this, because that's wrong. Regardless, it would be wrong if the government said you're not allowed to bring vaccinated people into your building. Just as wrong as it would say if the government says you're only allowed to bring vaccinated people into your building. You have to decide for yourself. And if you're going to lose good talent because you're depending on vaccine status as to whether somebody is going to be able to provide good health care, I think that's wrong. And I think what we saw in the height of the pandemic, when we saw good nurses being fired because they didn't want to take a vaccine that they weren't fully sure of, and then they lost their job when weeks earlier, before there was a vaccine, they were being hailed as heroes. And there were people outside every night banging their pots and their pans, to signify their love for the healthcare provider. Well, where was the love when they wanted to make that decision for themselves? I think that's something that government policy can't necessarily fix if we're speaking from the freedom perspective. But culturally, we need to look at what was going on there. And why did that occur and why did so quickly, the powers that be determined that those truck drivers and those rail workers and those healthcare providers and those restaurant workers and those people who were still providing jobs and work, delivery drivers, they were heroes until they weren't. And that's really something to be concerned about.

Speaker A: definitely. I've seen the one week coming from being your hero to the next week. I can't stand you. I know firsthand how that all felt.

Amos Miller in Pennsylvania supports growing and selling food without government intervention

now continuing on the medical freedom caucus, we've linked food freedom to medical freedom. what policies would you implement to protect the rights of individuals, such as Amos Miller in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if you're familiar with his, position with growing and selling their own food without government intervention.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, I think you should be able to. There shouldn't be really a lot of market intervention in the selling of food. And, one of the things I want to get rid of is the government picking winners and losers as to what farmers can grow. The agricultural department, through subsidies and through kind of that coercion, kind of forces farmers, to grow what the government wants them to grow. I also am opposed to things like, I support the right of GMO's and other organizations to make foods, but they need to be properly labeled so that people know what they're buying. I do think that that transparency in the marketplace is needed because you as a provider, if you're selling genetically modified food, it should be known to people so that way they can make the best determinations in the marketplace. I also think we need to get rid of the practice of. One of the reasons why I want to get rid of the ag department picking winners and losers for what people grow is they end up growing huge swaths of one crop, namely corn and wheat and soybeans, when they should really be diversifying their crop, which is actually healthier for the soil and better for the marketplace. and, you know, I'll end with this. you should be able to buy raw milk, you should be able to buy eggs right off the farm. you should be able to grow your own produce and sell it as you want to. Like, you should be as a farmer, be able to, you know, slaughter, and process meat and be able to sell that. recognizing, though, that if someone is harmed by your product, you're no longer, you know, you're not shielded from liability from that. In fact, again, that that would behoove you to probably be as clean as possible. And if you're not, you're going to get shut down as a farm. So again, utilize the judicial branch for what it's for. but pendulet said it best. We pay money, taxpayer money, to subsidize corn, and then we grow the corn and we have too much corn and so we turn it into corn syrup, and then we put corn syrup in everything, and then it's making everybody fat. And then the Democrats are like, why don't we tax the sugary sodas? Well, why don't we just not subsidize the effing corn to begin with? That makes the corn syrup artificially cheap. So they put it in all the foods. Like, this is dumb. We subsidize the corn, and then we tax the corn on the other end. Why don't we just not do either and let the marketplace determine what farmers need to grow? And then lastly, I just want to throw this out there. People who are scared about shining farms, foreign, owned farmland is 3% of the farmland in this country. And of that 3%, only 1% of it is owned by China. China is the 10th largest foreign entity that owns farmland. The Dutch own more farmland in this country than the Chinese. So if we're worried about, oh, we're going to go to war over farmland, we're going to go to war over, what? With the Dutch?

Speaker A: Yeah, no, I have basically, it's informed consent for our food and a free market for everything. I definitely have it. Have it in healthcare. We should have it in our whole lives with stuff.

There were rumors that you supported mask mandates during the Covid-19 pandemic

now, again, just kind of quelling some of these questions, during the Covid-19 pandemic, there were some rumors and whispers going around that you supported mask mandates. Do you want to address that, clarify anything? and kind of clear the air with that?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, I've never supported mandating mask wearing. Now, have I worn masks when property owners deemed that I had having to wear that during the pandemic to shop or to campaign. For instance, when I was running for Congress in the summer of 2020. 2020. yeah, I did, because I wanted to continue to campaign and spread the word, and I wanted to continue be able to shop and live my life. And if a property owner deemed that I would do it, I didn't want anybody to be forced to wear a mask. but of course, I also wasn't the person who's, like, going to shy from being photographed wearing a mask because I'm so worried about what people will think. No, I'm wearing one because, you know, it's, shoot, it was 2020. It like, I wagered, you know, many people were wearing masks that didn't want to be wearing one necessarily. I didn't love it. It's not my favorite thing. You know, I don't like breathing all over myself. but, you know, that's what I did at the time because that's what I, a, was obeying property owners requests, but b, at the time I thought maybe, hey, this maybe helps. And anything that might help my immunocompromised family, let's go for it. And later on we realized, you know, much of that was much to do about nothing. But the fact is it's not hurting anybody for me to have been wearing a mask at any time, especially since I was never, ever, ever supporting the government mandate that behavior on anybody. do what you want to do. And I think it's also ridiculous now that we have legislation in some localities wanting to outlaw the ability to wear a mask in public. frankly, what that does is that gives way for computer recognition cameras, to be able to start identifying our faces. and I think it's actually kind of based to confuse those cameras, those AI cameras, as much as possible. So, you know, do what you want to do. Wear a mask, don't wear a mask, it's up to you. And then we've also seen like, you know, culturally, people have been wearing masks in Asia during allergy season for years because it just keeps some of the pollen from getting in their nose. And to me, like if you want to wear one, wear one. Like that's up to you. it's not going to hurt me. And the government, of course, shouldn't mandate the behavior, just like I don't want them mandating any behavior that I do. f the government, it's not their determination to make.

Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I had it, I had times I wore masks because like I have things I need to do and if this is something that keeps people from like, leave me alone, I get to do what I need to do and it's, it doesn't hurt, it doesn't hurt you any more than it just annoys me. Like, I normally wear glasses, so a mask and glasses, I can't see anything.

>> Chase Oliver: Yep, fogs right up.

Speaker A: So like it was, I was miserable. I was miserable the whole time. And I work in an eR, so it's definitely was a nightmare with glasses and masks. And it was, yeah.

>> Chase Oliver: See, for me, one of the things that people criticize is that I had a tweet because I found a little chain that you can put around the mask so that way you don't have to like shove it in your pocket, which I found to be really gross. Like that's just kind of gross. And so I was like, yeah, I have this thing now I can take it down. I can be mask free when I need to, but when I got to walk into a store that requires it, pop it right on, and people are like, oh, my God, he's so pro mask. I'm really. I'm just pro, like, glasses chain, because it was a glasses chain that I had repurposed, ease for me.

Speaker A: Like, because then it's like, I don't. I had a couple different things where I could, like, wear it and not have to hide it in a pocket or my purse and be like, oh, where is it? No, it's right here.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. That's disgusting, having to throw it on a table, like, a random table. Like, I don't want to put that on my face. I didn't really like wearing, like I said, I didn't really like wearing masks anyways. I had friends who, were veterans who had real PTSD or being in confined spaces, they were very claustrophobic. And wearing a mask, really affected them. For them, they were just like, I'm not going to wear a mask. and what was sad for them is they had to change a lot of their life because a lot of businesses would let him enter the store, things like that. His wife had to do the grocery shopping, for instance. And, you know, that's. That's not optimal. But of course, I'm glad he had the just, you know, that he recognized that he didn't want to wear a mask and didn't have to, unfortunately, you know, to enter these businesses, these properties, they required it of him. And many times he went elsewhere. He said, okay, I just won't shop here anymore. we just won't go to this restaurant anymore. We won't do this. And businesses lost money because of that. And so, again, that's the free marketplace working.

Speaker A: Yep. They gained business from others that said, yeah, sure, that's a great policy, and lost it from ones that said, I can't stand it. So it balanced itself out, which I think is just exactly how things should.

You've advocated allowing parental choice for children to receive puberty blockers

in past social media posts, you've advocated for allowing parental choice, for children to receive puberty blockers. Now, is this a personal opinion, an official campaign policy? Kind of both. Do you want to kind of clear the air on that one?

>> Chase Oliver: So, here's the thing. I don't have kids, trans or otherwise. I'm not a parent, but I do know people who are parents, both of trans kids and non trans kids. And, I want them to be able to make the decisions for themselves. And the healthcare decisions for themselves and their family. that is not advocating one avenue for treatment or another for a child suffering from gender dysphoria. What I am maintaining is that a doctor and a patient and a parent should be the ones making those determinations, because God knows I'm a politician who does not have a medical degree. I don't think most of the critics online, sadly, most of the people on Twitter don't have medical degrees. If we did, we'd have millions and millions of doctors out there. but what I see is a need for parents to be making this decision for themselves. If, my nephews and nieces were going through this, I would want my brother and his wife to make that decision, not some bureaucrat, because I know that my brother and his wife, my, sister in law, have unconditional love for their kids. and that's really where the auspices of this belongs, you know, I think that parents should be in charge of this decision. and that speaks to everything regarding medical, treatment beyond surgery, which should be for over the age of 18. The reason being is surgery is a permanent body modification. and it's something that requires an extra level of care in terms of anesthesia and recovery time. And, most of that stuff happens when you're an adult. So, I think it should remain in that realm of being an adult. But with treatment for kids, those drugs exist. Medical boards of professionals, have determined that they are an effective treatment, in some cases, for children suffering from gender dysphoria. In those rare cases, I want to keep the freedom in the hands of parents, not bureaucrats, one way or the other. I don't think schools or government should be forcing those treatments on people either. I think that that's wrong to do. I, think it's already enough of a difficult situation because I've met. I have met parents of trans kids, and I have yet to meet one who was like, oh, this was just the easiest thing for us to deal with. This was totally normal and no problem at all. Every single one of them were like, hey, man, this is unknown territory. We're trying to figure this out. You know, we're trying to work with medical and mental health professionals to understand that's where it should be. And so for me, that's where I'm going to keep it, is trusting that parents can make better decisions than me. Is that not the parent of the child who doesn't know their child? So that's the, that's the thing.

Speaker A: yeah, now to kind of piggyback off with having it being like the parental choice and everything. and again, it seems like an informed consent thing. Now, there's a lot of people that are countering and saying that it doesn't matter if the parents choose or if it's all informed consent. it's still viewed as child abuse. What's your take on the people that say that they think it's child abuse, no matter if it's informed and educated and a group decision and everything?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. So as of right now, that would be, that would be an opinion. That would not be a fact. And if you want to take that to court and you want to be able to prove in front of a jury, in front of a judge, that this is actually child abuse, that's where that realm exists. And in fact, that's where the realm of all child abuse exists. you take people to court, you file charges against them, you as a parent determine these things. But again, I want this to be in the realm of a parent, a doctor, and a patient. I don't want the government to be doing these things. I don't want schools to be having to decide, you know, not to tell parents about things, because, frankly, gender dysphoria and being trans is a major thing. Every parent of a trans person has told me that, that it's a major life decision, and it's a major life thing, happening in their lives. School shouldn't be preventing parents from having a say in that. Okay. when it comes to parents having disagreements upon the treatment schedule for their child, that needs to be adjudicated in a court of law or through a neutral arbitrator that exists. Ah, that doesn't need to be something that's decided one way or the other, just top down from a bureaucrat. One way or the other, we shouldn't be defaulting, and we shouldn't be treating things, without treating them on a case by case basis, because that's where all healthcare really belongs is in a case by case basis.

What do you see as the biggest challenges in implementing medical freedom policies

Speaker A: All right, now, going just continuing on, I think this is the last question that I have. now, what do you see as the biggest challenges in implementing medical freedom policies? and how do you plan to overcome them, either as a candidate or just in general as a political figure?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, I think the biggest things is the ancestral relationship between the health industry and our government is the biggest impediment to getting healthcare freedom because, much of those impediments exist because our legislators are bought and paid for, by big pharmaceutical, by the health insurance lobby, to basically prevent a lot of the things we've talked about today from coming to fruition, from, even getting committee hearings, for instance, because there's real fear that if we up in the industry and we change the way people access health care or access, their medical freedom, that it's going to cost health, insurance companies some money. And yeah, it will, because if we create more market competition, it's going to lower the cost of healthcare and, tighten the market up. But that's good for consumers. And I think we need to be thinking about what's good for the average consumer, the average american family, and not necessarily what's good for the bottom line of the giant corporate interests all the time, because, they are basically rigging the game for themselves. and that's preventing us from having more options in the marketplace, more transparency in the marketplace, more, you know, and more freedom in the marketplace. So, I think we need to, there's so many areas of health, of healthcare that we need to look at. You know, one of the areas we've been talking about a lot in Georgia that we've been really making headway on in a bari, you know, any. In a multicoalition fashion, you know, a single issue coalition is the, ending of con laws, certificate of need laws, because this has prevented rural hospitals from being built without government certification and the need for the government to sign off on clinics being built. And what that's done is it's actually created choke points in our rural hospitals, here in Georgia. So that would be something I would absolutely advocate and that we haven't talked about yet.

Speaker A: Okay. so I pretty much looks like we're wrapping up with time here, because I know we have a set locked time here. so just as we close, today's great question and answer with Chase Oliver.

Medical freedom caucus invites all presidential candidates to participate in a Q&A

I just want to take a moment to address, the broader political landscape. in an era marked by deep divisions and intense partisanship, it is crucial, that we find ways to bridge the divide and engage meaningful dialogue like we've had today. the medical freedom caucus is committed to fostering such conversations. And we believe that every presidential candidate deserves an opportunity to share their vision, and answer the tough questions and really open up those converse lines of conversation with, constituents. and again with that, we extend an open invitation to all the presidential candidates, regardless of their political party affiliation, to join us for a q and a session here. our aim is to provide a platform where candidates can articulate their policies, discuss their plans for the future, and address the critical issues facing our nation. We are dedicated to asking the tough questions no matter to matter to our audience, particularly those related to medical freedom, individual rights and personal liberty. by participating in these discussions, the candidates can demonstrate their commitment to the transparency, accountability, and the democratic process. it is tough to be so open and honest in dialogues, and we want to make sure that we can understand each other, and work towards solutions that benefit all the Americans, to the presidential candidates like Chase, we encourage you to accept our invitation and join us for a q and a session, with the medical freedom caucus. Together, let's bridge the divide and move towards a more united, informed, and empowered electorate.

Chase Oliver offers tips on how people can get involved with Vote for Liberty

And I want to thank Chase for coming on here, and pretty much kind of let you wrap up here, chase, tell every our listeners and stuff, how they can reach the campaign, get involved, learn more about your policies and your platform.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, so, if I could just round up the conversation. I think to put it in a nutshell is, when government gets involved in an industry, it often makes it worse nearly every time. And the healthcare and medical industry, is no different. So, f the state support freedom, of all people to decide their own healthcare, for themselves and their own families. But, if you want to check out the campaign, you can go to votechaseoliver.com. that is our website where you can find media links, our platform, lots of great, information and stuff to check out. You can join us, on our mailing list. You become a volunteer and join our team. You can become a donor supporter there as well. We would welcome that support. And if you want to follow us on social media, it's ace for Liberty and all the major platforms, you know, Facebook, x, Instagram, YouTube, and, TikTok. So, I'm going to be heading out and just a little bit, actually be doing a tick tock town hall tonight. But just keep up to date with what the campaign is doing on social media. We'd love to have your support, your following and all that good stuff. So, thank you guys for providing me the opportunity to speak to you and your audience. And I hope everybody out there, gets to live their life as free as they want to. And I will sign off here, the same way I do all the time, wishing everybody who is watching and listening out there, a life of peace, love and liberty. God bless you.

Speaker A: Thank you, Chase. Have a good night.

>> Chase Oliver: Good night.