Christine Smith's Blog

Because of my belief that government has no business being involved in health care whatsoever, I’ve received inquiries asking my opinion about various aspects of my stance of health freedom.

Anytime one uses the word “abolish” in reference to government agencies, many react in fear, thinking that their safety may be jeopardized. Per such questions, I address those issues in this piece, and ask the reader to consider whether they would be better off with or without such agencies, whose operation and regulations are, in my opinion, harmful both morally and pragmatically.

Food, drugs, medical treatments, supplements (and even cosmetics!) are highly politicized in the United States.  Why?  Government intrusion.

I believe true consumer protection and interests can only be served by the private sector.

Below I share my opinion of what health freedom means regarding these issues:

government “health” agencies, federal research, children’s medical care and parental rights, choice of care, experimental treatments, the First Amendment, Medicare/Medicaid & other government managed/regulated health care, and morality.

Government “health” agencies

In my opinion government agencies such as the FDA, and DEA (and others) are a detriment to American’s health.

They are powerful government agencies regulating and thus thereby restricting what is available to us.  I oppose any government bureaucrat(s) making decisions as to what I can or cannot use for my health and well-being.

The abolishment of FDA or DEA would make “off label” drugs and devices readily available to all seeking them and to all wishing to research them. In my opinion, this will result in effective drugs and treatments being brought to the market faster and at a lower cost and most importantly: lives being saved, prolonged, and enhanced.

I believe Americans should have the freedom to whatever foods, healthcare, supplements, or pharmaceuticals they choose to use free from government interference. Your treatment should be a private decision between you (and those you choose to trust such as your health practitioners, doctors, etc.), not decided upon by some government bureaucracy.

On a personal note, several years ago I reported what I had witnessed/experienced to a government agency, and despite a detailed account of what I felt was a serious potential threat to the health/safety of citizens, I received a dismissive bureaucratic reply.

I believe that private sector (free market) consumer protection/research/certification agencies would be far superior to the job we as Americans want/and assume the government is doing.  Consumers are extremely effective at determining good products and those companies/manufacturers thrive, and consumers are to the ones who cause those whose products are unsatisfactory to fail and, when necessary (in regards to safety), have recourse to hold companies liable. 

Consider just how many drugs are regulated (or even unavailable to Americans) which would considerably improve the quality of lives – why are they so kept from us? Do you believe what any government agency deems “safe” or “unsafe” is determined in the same objective manner you’d expect a private entity to do? 

Of course, the government spends a lot keeping up its facade of caring about and protecting you with its “educational” campaigns and warnings.  But even something such as monitoring food contaminations and manufacturing seems woefully inadequate and ineffective.   The FDA’s answer? Just give them more money they say – as in their request for  “a budget of $3.2 billion to protect and promote the public health as part of the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget.” (1)

But the answer, I believe, is not in increasing government agency budgets – but in getting rid of all unconstitutional, wasteful bureaucratic power grabbing regulatory organizations.

 Abolish federal research

Research belongs in the free market. If you’d like to support health research, be it complementary and alternative medicine, as well as for continued exploration into traditional and more conventional treatments, you should support private research.

Government research becomes politicized (just look at the debate over medical marijuana or stem cell research). This is because those are areas in which the government shouldn’t be involved at all.

You, as a taxpayer, should not be forced to pay for research (or medical procedures) you object to.  You’d not have to debate the ethics of such work being performed by the government if you weren’t being forced to pay for it. 

Government (that is taxpayer) funded health research should be ended. If you believe in a cause being researched or in education on certain topics being available, you can voluntarily give that money towards the research and educational organizations and causes you favor. Think of your favorite medical research charities – and consider how much more money you could contribute to the causes you particularly want to support if you keep the money you earned and then you decided where to donate it.

 Children’s medical care

Children are a gift from God.  We are entrusted with their care and nurturing until they are of age to make such decisions for themselves. Just as one will use their mind and heart to make wise decisions in regard to one’s own health, how much more loving parents will do so for their children. 

To vaccinate or not, like any other question (medical or otherwise) which will affect a child’s health and development, is a decision for parents to lovingly make together.    Parents guard a child’s life with as great or greater care than their own.  This is their right.

Should our children be forced to receive vaccinations? I do not believe a government (taxpayer funded) agency should either encourage or discourage such vaccines. It is an area in which parents have the ability to research the efficacy of each suggested vaccine, evaluate the risks and benefits, and make a decision for their children. Thus, I oppose compulsory vaccination. 

Likewise, as to the recent controversy surrounding HPV vaccine, HPV is communicable only through intimate contact. As such, it poses no threat between children engaged in casual school proximity contact, so how/why has it even become an issue whatsoever?  It appears many people assume a prerogative over other people’s children which they do not morally have.  It should indeed be voluntary, and it should not use taxpayer money.

Vaccinations, as with any other medical treatment or procedure, are a decision that an individual (or one’s parents on their behalf) must always voluntarily make.

Government is ever encroaching on the rights of parents, and must be prohibited from doing so.  I support Ron Paul’s Parental Consent Act which would prohibit mandatory mental-health screening of students, and recommend you read his statement introducing H.R. 2218.

 Choice of care

Consumers should have the right to choose the type of health care they want and the practitioners and treatments they want to receive. Just as I choose anyone I hire to do work based on my research of their reputation from other’s personal experiences with them, I trust that relying on recommendations and professional reputation would serve our interests in the public far more than the expensive licensing and regulation providers must now comply with.  Licensing, in my opinion, does nothing but provide yet another means for the taking people’s money by government.

Privacy of our records is just as essential as choice is to the medical care we opt for.

The reason healthcare costs are high is directly because of the federal government involvement. We had an excellent system of health care in America – highest quality and low costs (even for those in poverty) – until the federal government intruded. Remember, only after the federal government became involved with their Medicare/Medicaid did costs skyrocket for care.

The truth is there has not been a free market in medicine for many years.  And, yet, politicians would have you believe it is the “free market” responsible for high costs, when in reality it is those politicians and their government intrusion into this field which is responsible for the often exorbitant cost of care and pharmaceuticals.

New experimental treatments

I do not believe those in desperate medical situations should have to qualify for clinical studies in order to possibly receive a treatment or drug, nor do I think any American should be deprived of any treatment they wish to pursue – the federal government should never be allowed to limit access to treatments & drugs.

For example, HBOT is a fascinating hopeful treatment, and I am amazed at the cases I have read regarding it, and I believe it,as with other experimental treatments people may seek, should be fully available and able to be utilized by all Americans. The possibility of what it may accomplish for the thousands of service members and others who have suffered brain injuries is hopeful.

 First Amendment protected

I support legislation that protects protect first amendment rights to cite scientific information that supports the benefit of dietary supplements, organic produce and functional foods.

 Medicare/Medicaid & other government intrusions into health care

Should be repealed. Abolished now.

Can anything be done about the moneys paid into Social Security/Medicare people ask?  Perhaps.  I’ve wondered if the money can be refunded (with interest) thereby ending this unjust system (no new entrants) and simultaneously providing for those who have already paid into it for years and may already be dependent on it. However, should this possibility be unable to be implemented, I still think both Medicare/Medicaid should be abolished now, as there is no justification for continuing a wrongful system just because its long existence coming to an end will result in further victimization.  There comes a time when one must end something so harmful: One must say: Stop!  No more of this.

It is a sad state of affairs that this nation has gotten to the point where the phrase “Medicare for all” is championed by so many.  Government controlled/managed (funded) healthcare is a failure, and a clear example of this is in Sweden where waiting lists for basic care we take for granted here in the States can be enormous, as well as pain and suffering and death. Result is people are taxed but receive compromised “care.”  So many of the nations once viewed as “enlightened” are suffering under government managed health care, and even their taxation can’t keep up with the costs which increase because of the government intervention.  Do Americans really want “equal” access when it will likely result in rationed substandard care?

I believe the American people will suffer considerably under any socialized health plan (government mandated insurance or any type “universal” coverage), while the same few benefiting now will benefit more.

You want rationed substandard care (with an enormous financial cost)? Then support all these healthcare reforms which will give the government control over your and your loved one’s most personal needs.  You want high quality readily available low-cost care?  Support health freedom – get government completely out of it all together, watch prices plummet, innovation flourish, and again enjoy the best care available as we once had.

 The Morality (or lack thereof) of it all

Forcing some to subsidize care for others is fundamentally unjust, as is price controls, corporate subsidies, government control through licensing and prescriptions, and regulation of insurance and regulation of health providers (and the treatments they can provide & payment they can accept).

Morally, your money should not be forcibly taken from you to finance any health/medical care or research. 

As for the poor, our health care system of the 50′s and 60′s was superb. If one were in financial straits, church hospitals would sometimes treat people for free if they couldn’t pay for it, and there were even clinics (and doctors) who engaged in barter. Prices were affordable, people paid with cash for much, and obtained insurance only for catastrophic medical needs. 

This is the way it worked for decades in America – it only became broken when the federal government jumped into an area it should not have – and it can be fixed by correcting the mistake: remove the government from healthcare completely and the crisis will be eliminated.

It is out of compassion that people think a government health care system is the answer; but on the contrary, the most compassionate and moral approach is to let people keep the money they earn to spend in a free market economy and to give willingly to help others. I believe it is fundamentally unjust (whether it “worked” or not – and the evidence shows it does not work) for the government to force you to give them the money you worked for so that they (supposedly) can give it to someone else. Such an act is not compassionate – it’s government forcing you to do something with your money which you may or may not agree with and of which you have no control over its use (or waste). Compassion is you willingly contributing your money for the care or assistance of another.

 
Some excellent articles for further reading I recommend:

Economists Against the FDA ,September 1, 2000
by Daniel B. Klein, NewsMax.com
Link from The Independent Institute website.

Sweden’s Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations
by David Hogberg, Ph.D., May 2007
Link from The National Center for Public Policy Research.

citation:
(1) http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm152276.htm