Government Takeover of Health Care

Secretive Executive Order Establishes ‘Big Brother’ Health Bureaucracy

September 15, 2020

Activist Post - On June 10th, 2010, amidst the chaotic 24-hour oil spill coverage, Barack Obama quietly signed an Executive Order that some claim lays the foundation for implementing Codex Alimentarius, which is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines, and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety (Wiki).

Codex is widely viewed in the natural health world as a draconian measure to centralize control of all food and other ingestibles. While this Executive Order may not go that far, it does seem to lay the groundwork for much more control over our personal life choices.

Executive Order 13544, Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council, is a short document outlining the goals and scope of the order. The title gives the appearance that it only creates a Council, but buried within are detailed plans to carry out the “goals” of the Executive Order. Let’s take a closer look at the order. To begin with, the document appears to create the foundation for a massive new multifaceted bureaucracy with 12 departments consolidated in the “membership” of the new Health Council:

Sec. 2. Membership.

(a) The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(2) the Secretary of Labor;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Education;

(6) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(8) the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission;

(9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy;

(10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;

(11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs;

(12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and

(13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.

(b) The Council shall meet at the call of the Chair.

This group, under Obama’s orders, is tasked with developing an “integrated health-care strategy” for prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices to make recommendations to the President and the Congress, presumably to create more laws to govern people’s life choices. And, of course, like all other Executive Orders, the Council will also be authorized to “carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.” — Sec. 3 (g)

Section 4 of the order allows the council to choose a 25-member civilian “advisory group” which is promoted as a “diverse group of licensed health professionals” which “shall develop policy and program recommendations and advise the Council” on preventative medicines and lifestyle changes. The notion that this group will be developing policy to manage preventative medicines and “healthy” lifestyles of Americans smells of Big Brother. It also seems to be another example of where a civilian advisory group (no doubt infested with corporate interests) will further control the herd of wild humans.

One of the goals is to compile the recommendations into a report for the President, within one year, to contain the following:

Sec. 6 (d) contains specific science-based initiatives to achieve the measurable goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation, and targeting the five leading disease killers in the United States;

(e) contains specific plans for consolidating Federal health programs and centers that exist to promote healthy behavior and reduce disease risk (including eliminating programs and offices determined to be ineffective in meeting the priority goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services);

(f) contains specific plans to ensure that all Federal health-care programs are fully coordinated with science-based prevention recommendations by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and

(g) contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.

Although the reference to Codex Alimentarius may be overstated, the document clearly states that policy recommendations should be based on the goals originating from the Healthy People 2010 Program, which does indeed include food safety. And that is not the only place where their objectives stray from traditional disease prevention; there are amazingly detailed recommendations for family planning, environmental health, and injury and violence protection to name a few. They also take on controversial topics like Genomics and Immunizations.

Probably the most disturbing thing in this E.O. is that it makes it a national priority to address lifestyle and behavior modification through policy. It is unlikely that the government will try to jam the entire draconian Codex down America’s throat all at once. Instead, it seems the government is incrementally proposing legislation for food safety, dietary supplement safety, and lifestyle modification legislation separately.

Examples of the incrementalism include recently proposed corporate-government legislation like the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510), the Dietary Supplement Safety Act (S.3002), and Chris Dodd’s on the way out the door and not fearing backlash from voters Livable Communities Act (SB 1619) — which has been referred to as a social engineering bill consistent with the much maligned anti-freedom U.N.’s Agenda 21, which George H.W. Bush signed America up for.

On the ground, the establishment already has begun zapping the rats down their suggested corridor with police raids on private raw food cooperatives and Amish dairies. Additionally, they seem to be using the recent salmonella egg recall to promote their food safety bill, playing out the traditional problem-reaction-solution method of instituting freedom-smashing policies. There seems to be enough evidence to the claims that this Executive Order establishes and consolidates more control over our lives.

Missouri Vote Puts Health Care Back in Crosshairs

August 4, 2010

AP – Missouri voters' overwhelming opposition to requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance puts one of the least popular parts of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law back in the political crosshairs.

Even if the vote sets no legally binding precedent, it will help mobilize foes of Obama's agenda in the fall midterm elections, and that could make a difference in some states with close congressional races that could decide the balance of power in Washington.

On Tuesday, Missouri voters cast 71 percent of their ballots in favor of a state measure to bar the government from requiring people to carry health insurance, and penalizing those who don't.

That approach is at the heart of the federal health care law that Obama signed in March. Starting in 2014, Americans would be required to carry coverage, with exceptions for financial hardship. Government would help pay premiums for millions, but those who still refuse to sign up would face a tax.

There's little chance that Missouri can wall itself off from the insurance requirement since federal law usually supersedes state law. But sponsors of the measure were looking to send another kind of message.

"The Missouri vote is significant politically because it will help rally people who oppose the Obama administration to go to the polls in the fall elections," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health school professor who tracks opinion trends on health care. "It shows the debate is still alive, and that's what the sponsors wanted to do. They wanted to reintroduce the idea that there is still a debate going on."

At least two other states — Arizona and Oklahoma — have similar measures on the ballot in November. And sponsors of Florida's version are appealing to reinstate it after a state judge struck the measure from the ballot, ruling that a summary for voters was misleading.

In Colorado, supporters submitted 130,000 voter signatures to the state last week for a ballot measure challenging the insurance mandate, about 50,000 more names than are required.

Arizona, Colorado and Florida are states with House and Senate races rated as toss-ups in November. A few years ago, state ballot measures against same-sex marriage helped turn conservatives out in the contest between incumbent President George W. Bush and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry. Bush won.

Foes of the health care law also seek to overturn the insurance requirement in federal court.

Twenty states have joined one of the cases, pending in Florida. This week, a federal judge rejected the Obama administration's request to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to formal arguments.

Opponents of the mandate argue that the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring individuals to purchase a particular product, especially one that costs as much as health insurance.

The administration says the requirement is well within the government's authority to regulate interstate commerce, and penalties for those who don't comply stem from the power of Congress to levy taxes. The obligation in the new health care law was originally a Republican idea, dating back to the 1990s. Mitt Romney signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006.

An individual decision not to carry insurance affects society because others have to pay when that person gets sick and seeks treatment, supporters also argue. Reforms in the law — such as requiring insurers to accept people with medical problems — won't work if individuals are allowed to postpone getting coverage until they need it.

Democrats sought to play down the significance of the Missouri vote.

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who's coordinating the Democrats' strategy for hanging on to the House, pointed out that the turnout in Missouri was low — less than 25 percent and overwhelmingly Republican, given a number GOP primaries up for grabs.

"That doesn't tell you what people's view of health reform is," Van Hollen said. "The numbers are totally distorted because of the lopsided turnout."

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who backed the health care law, said the results reflect the fact that voters have been bombarded with anti-government criticism of the new law and aren't fully aware of its positive aspects.

"'Big government, bad government, don't trust 'em' is a pretty simple message," said McCaskill.

Missouri voters interviewed at the polls expressed a general frustration about the government telling them what to do.

"This is a free country and government needs to stop," said Cassandra Bosch, 34, a stay-at-home mom from Jefferson City. "You don't have to come into my home and tell me repeatedly what to do."