|
Topics on this page include: Federal Government "health" agencies, First Amendment protection,
federal research, vaccines, choice in healthcare, Medicare/Medicaid.
I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility...health care and the options we choose
for our bodies should be ours alone to choose...it should not be under the control of the
government.
Ask yourself - when has the federal government ever achieved anything cheaper or more efficient
than the free market? The reason healthcare costs are enormous is directly because of the federal
government being involved in it. 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 It
is the federal government which inflated the costs.
Only AFTER the federal government became involved with their Medicare/Medicaid did costs skyrocket.
The truth is there has not been a free market in medicine for many years...only returning to a
true free market will result in affordable cost and health freedom.
Government "health" agencies:
In my opinion government agencies such as the FDA, and DEA stand in the way to American's health
with all their regulations. Regulations delay and prohibit pain-relieving drugs and potentially
helpful pharmaceuticals/treatments from being available to the American people. The federal
government has no constitutional authority to be involved in healthcare, I believe allowing the
government to control our access to health treatments and research is one of the biggest barriers
to our health.
We need health freedom, which means an end to all government involvement in this area. I believe
the free market (with voluntary private sector research and certification organizations) would
do a far better job than the bureaucratic wasteful and corrupt federal government...and
lives would be saved, prolonged, and enhanced.
Americans should have the freedom to whatever healthcare, supplements, or pharmaceuticals they
choose free from government regulation. It is a private decision between themselves (and those
they choose to trust such as their health practitioners, doctors, etc.). Your healthcare options
should not be decided by some government bureaucracy. A truly free society would have no FDA or
DEA.
Because the best interest of the American people is my priority, I believe the FDA should be
abolished...thus making "off label" drugs and devices readily available to all seeking them
and to all wishing to research them further. In my opinion, this will result in effective drugs
and treatments being brought to the market faster and at a lower cost, the approx. $1.7 billion
currently given to the FDA being saved, and most importantly: lives being saved.
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.
Abolish Federal Research:
Research belongs in the free market as that is where innovation flourishes. I am for our money
being truly spent on health research be it complementary and alternative medicines, as well as
continued exploration into traditional or more conventional treatments, rather than being wasted
by a federal government agency. Big government does not work. Nearly all great advances in
science and medicine have taken place outside of government. Let's not continue to put much
needed research under their control as well. We need less government intervention not more.
If we allow them to continue to use our money for their research we will suffer. I oppose
important research being done with taxpayers money by a federal government agency. Government
research becomes politicized (just look at the debate over medical marijuana or stem cell
research). Such wasteful time consuming (and harmful) debates do not exist in free market
research.
Thus, as one who certainly does believe in support of continued scientific research of traditional
pharmaceuticals as well as complimentary and alternative medicines, I am for an end to
government funding of health research, I would allow Americans to keep more of the money
they earn (by shrinking the size, power and cost of the federal government and ending the
income tax) so the American people can voluntarily give that money towards the research
organizations and causes they favor. Every American could support research into the areas they
wish to fund (rather than the government taking their money and saying it is using it to help
them). If we put that (our) money into private research (rather than permitting the government
to do it), the results would be far more fruitful. 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 to.
Vaccines:
Should our children be forced to receive controversial vaccinations (such as mandating
schoolchildren receive the HPV vaccine)? I do not believe a government (taxpayer funded) agency
should either encourage or discourage such vaccines. And I certainly oppose the government ever
forcing parents to administer HPV vaccines to their daughters. Again, this is big government
intruding upon your rights as a parent. HPV is communicable only through intimate contact. As
such, it poses no threat between children engaged in casual school proximity contact. It should
indeed be voluntary, and it should not use taxpayer money.
Choice:
I support the right of consumers to choose the type of health care they want and the practitioners
and treatments they choose.
Medical care for veterans & New experimental treatments such as HBOT: HBOT is a fascinating
hopeful treatment, and I am amazed at the cases I have read regarding it, and I believe it 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 who have suffered brain injuries is hopeful.
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 our military forces/veterans (or
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.
I believe our military men and women should have access to the very best in medical care, and thus,
as president, I would propose transforming current veterans' health coverage into private insurance
that would let them be treated in private practice by practitioners they choose. Further, I
think that for future enlistments, those entering our services should receive adequate compensation
allowing/requiring them to purchase private insurance to cover service-related injury rather than
having government provided services. This way, service members can have coverage applicable to
their risks, and provisions for years to come for severe injury, prolonged rehabilitation, or
delayed/prolonged ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There would be no more
waiting periods, no refusal for alternative treatments sought, and the best care. I believe
our service members deserve this, and only the free market--private insurance covering care
from private facilities-- can best deliver this to them.
Medicare/Medicaid:
Should be repealed. I believe all such government programs must be abolished, but with the
process of doing so ensuring provision for those already in their elder years who have paid
into the system; I have considered the solution may be with a stopping point of (say for example
the age of 55) with everyone below the determined age to receive a refund of their monies (with
interest) and those beyond the age able to remain in the system for benefits if they so choose.
This way we end this bad unjust system and simultaneously provide for those who have paid into
it for years.
Managed health care as we currently have does not work - the only ones pleased with it are
government bureaucrats, drug companies, corporations and HMOs. But the American people suffer
under its inefficiency. The people will suffer even more under any socialized health plan
(government mandated insurance or any type "universal" coverage), while the same few benefiting
now will benefit greater. I care about all Americans having access to affordable healthcare and
pursuit of any treatment they wish to obtain - only a free market will give us that. 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).
Private healthcare and insurance must be able to be competitive (free from government regulation)
thereby resulting in better care and lower costs. We need health freedom.
In reply to a couple excellent questions I received on my healthcare policy statement, I share the answers I sent in response here as well (received other comments as well at The Nolan Chart website--but am posting just questions/answers here to clarify positions):
Posted By: Mr. 1up
Date: 2008-04-06 17:50:35
I do have a question. I have no doubt that the FDA has more corporate interests in mind, than the
peoples. However, with its complete abolition, I fear that products would be put out on the market
as "miracle solutions", would serve to hurt the consumers who try it.
While those hurt by a product always have a right to sue, I fear damages would far outweigh the
compensation.
Posted By: Christine Smith
Date: 2008-04-06 17:56:23
Thank you for that excellent question. I fully addressed your concern in a radio interview I
did which I invite you to listen to:
Sept. 10, 2007 - Interviewed live about her libertarian approach to health care reform on the
nationally syndicated Healthy Talk Radio, 'America's longest-running health talk radio show,
broadcasting since 1982,' with host Deborah Ray (Ray was named among the top 100 most important
talk show hosts in America by Talkers Magazine).
http://www.libertarianforpresident.com/audio/Sept-10-2007.mp3
I believe that an agency/organization (similar to the UL- Underwriter's Laboratory), being a private (free market) consumer protection agency would be far superior to the job we as Americans want/and mistakenly assume the FDA is doing. I explain more fully in the radio show...
Again, thank you for the question.
Christine Smith
Posted By: Mr. 1up
Date: 2008-04-06 18:43:34
I listened and my question, was indeed, answered. I also like Deborah's point that sometimes,
America doesn't seem much more safer than an unregulated system such as Mexico.
Hurray for dropping Medicare and Medicade!
Posted By: Toeg
Date: 2008-04-06 18:44:12
Christine,
Your points appear sound and well thought out. However, I do have a concern for the person who
is down on his/her luck and needs medical attention. How is it that other nations around the
world enjoy full health benefits for all its citizens at a fraction of the cost we must bear,
and yet we struggle with an ever decreasing number of citizens who can afford even the cheapest
of care methods and whom many have to make a decision whether to eat or pay for pills? What
does Norway, Sweden, Denmark and other nations have for their citizens that we are lacking in
the US?? I am a normal, fairly standard American citizen yet I have no health insurance at all.
If I lived in any of those countries under identical circumstances I would enjoy full health care
benefits for the same cost, nothing. Am I that evil in the US that I cannot be afforded health
care benefits?
Posted By: Mr. 1up
Date: 2008-04-07 00:14:11
Toeg,
Christine brings up the point of how awesome the health care system was in the 50's and 60's when
America was doing healthcare the right way. The church hospitals would sometimes treat people for
free if they couldn't pay for it.
You also need to remember that there is a cost to universal healthcare, through taxation. And also,
I had a buddy break his arm in Canada. He owed $90 to the hospital (as he wasn't a citizen). And
even if the health care is in your own country, you still pay for it...through taxes.
Posted By: Christine Smith
Date: 2008-04-07 15:43:19
Toeg:
Thank you for your comment/question. Out of compassion, I believe we must work for a free market -
free of all government involvement in health provision...and I share this as an example.
Government controlled/managed (funded) healthcare is a failure and a clear example of this is in
one of the nations you cite - 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." I am for people keeping the money they earn - keeping it to spend
as they so choose with a TRUE free market health care system - free from ALL government regulation.
Then the majority would be easily able to afford health care (and insurance), and the generosity
of Americans is proof that with more money in their pocketbooks more money will be given
freely to charitable organizations to provide for those in need. 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.
In Sweden, taxation couldn't keep up with the increased costs due to management by the government,
and I quote from an excellent article I highly recommend to you entitled, "Sweden's Single-Payer
Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations," by David Hogberg, Ph.D., David Hogberg is a
senior policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research, read full article at:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html
Quotes from that article - but please do visit its link to read in full:
"...Global budgeting would prove to have serious consequences for Sweden's health care system,
most notably expanding waiting lists. Waiting lists for surgery and other procedures had long
been a problem in Sweden. Like most government-run systems, the Swedish health care system was
already plagued by declining productivity - a consequence of which included delays in care.11
Global budgeting, however, worsened the problem of waiting lists. With county councils now
operating with fixed budgets and citizens facing few restraints on demand for health care,
county councils needed to ration health care services. An increase in wait times was the result.
By 1988 the wait time for an angiogram - a heart X-ray - was up to eleven months. The wait time
for bypass surgery could be an additional eight months.12
...In practice, the political notion of "equal access" actually means "restricted access." ...
...While rationing may permit the government to save on costs and thereby restrain health care
budgets, putting patients on waiting lists is not cost-free. One study that examined over 1,400
Swedes on a waiting list for cataract surgery found that 5.2 million kronas were spent on hospital
stays and home health care for patients waiting for surgery.28 That was the equivalent of what it
would have cost to give 800 patients cataract surgery...
The article concludes:
Sweden's health care system offers two lessons for the policymakers of the United States.
The first is that a single-payer system is not the answer to the problems faced as Americans.
Sweden's system does not hold down costs and results in rationing of care. The second lesson is
that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work. Specifically, government should not
protect health care providers that fail to provide patients with a quality service from going
out of business.
Read full article at:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html
Again, thank you for your concern on this serious issue.
Christine Smith
|