Health Freedom - Ideas for Change in America

The FDA has made its own regulation that states that: " Only a drug can cure, prevent, or treat a disease." Keep in mind that the FDA is one of the most powerful government organizations in the entire world. The drug companies and the FDA coluded to create a monopoly for the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA's monopoly takes away our right and freedom to choose what we put in our body and our right and freedom to manange our own health care.

My suggestion is to make a mammoth change in "business as usual." The bottom line is the "monopoly" must come to a swift
ending. The FDA was founded to protect the public, which it can
no longer pretend to be doing. Drugs that are approved by the
FDA kill people and make people sicker. That is a proven fact.

End the monopoly! Take the unconditional power away from the
FDA. BEGIN AGAIN. START OVER. Form a new FDA, that knows
how to protect the American public from deadly drugs. Then and
only then will you be able to give back the freedom of choice that was guaranteed to all Americans by our Founding Fathers.

If our new President truly believes in change, the "things" that are
broken in our Government must be fixed. Too much power breeds
corruption and greed, and infects the entire government.

Thank you for reading my suggestion.

Suggested by Vickie Davis on 01/17/2009 @ 07:23PM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
View 1 Comment

I see at least two different main lines of thought in this thread: 1) we own our bodies; 2) we want the government to pay for or at least control insurance companies, health care providers, and manufacturers of food and drugs (through either direct ownership or strict regulation). I think the issues need to be sorted out. I believe that "health freedom" is essentially #1: Every person owns his or her own body and should have the ultimate decision about how to use and maintain it. Any adult should be able to eat, drink, recreate, smoke, work, take medicine, or receive medical/therapeutic treatment as he or she sees fit. This means, unfortunately, that some people will do things that are definitely or at least potentially harmful to themselves, whether intentionally or accidentally. But that is the flip side of being free. As long as what you do and decide doesn't harm anyone else, your freedom to do with your body as you please should NEVER be violated, directly or indirectly, by the government.

On the other hand, medical products and treatments, food and drink, recreational facilities and opportunities, etc., rarely appear without cost to SOMEONE, and it is not fair to force anyone else to pay your expenses in these areas. Also, just because you don't like a particular thing or don't think it is healthy, is no reason to prevent someone from making it, offering it for sale, or using it. If somebody wants to sell genetically modified crops, or irradiated food, or blemished fruit, and other people understand what they are getting and voluntarily accept it even so, then it's not your place or mine (or our government's) to tell them "no you can't."

In short, I can get behind the "health freedom" of interpretation #1, but I observe that for some to have "health freedom" under interpretation #2, others must lose their own freedoms of choice and action; I cannot accept or support that, and I hope that any practical proposals based on the idea of "health freedom" will be based on interpretation #1.

Suggested by James Merritt on 01/17/2009 @ 04:34PM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

There is room for improvement in the quality of our food and water, but completely pure is impossible, and reducing contaminants to 1000 parts per billion can double or more the price. Even a century or two ago, most of the food and water had more than 1000 parts per billion of stuff that is possibly harmful. Sorry this is complicated. Moderation is best, as many more people will go hungry, if we shoot for extreme levels of purity.
We should step up labeling mandates, so those who can afford the best, can identify the best, and know the country of origin. We may have to withdraw from the GATT agreements to label the country of origin. Gradual withdrawal from GATT is likely best for the majority of Earth's inhabitants. Those of us who have to shop for the low price will have to hope our immune systems can deal successfully with a bit of poison in every bite and sip. Neil

Suggested by raymond cox on 01/17/2009 @ 12:51PM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

Besides having natural health options covered by insurance, I believe we need to speed up insurance payments to providers. I am a provider and payments are lagging several months behind the service. As a lone practitioner in a recession that can mean months of wondering if bills can be paid while waiting on insurance payments. And I am far from alone in this. I would like to see some kind of time limit on how long insurance companies can keep monies already earned.Adding to that, I would like to see practitioners and their clients make the decisions about what a patient needs rather than have an insurance agent do the prescribing. What health training does an insurance agent possess and what legalities allow him/her to prescribe what can be done for a client? Who put the insurance companies in charge of patient care?We need to be responsible for our own care and for being able to choose the kind of care we want to practice. We need to be able to go to practitioners who can tell us what nutrients are being depleted by the drugs we take. We need to be educated consumers, responsible consumers with responsible practitioners.Real health education needs to be done in schools all the way up the ages so kids emerge with some basic knowledge that is not based on what drug to take when, but on preventative approaches.My motto in my practice is "Health is life's bottom line." That motto is also good for our country. Without health, what do we really have?
Linda Mac Dougall, MA,HHP,LMTwww.ilresources.com/MacDougallConsulting.htm

Suggested by linda mac Dougall on 01/17/2009 @ 10:50AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
View 1 Comment

A direct arrow to better health in America would be the purification of our food and water supplies. These two acts alone would show a direct and positive effect on the nation's health. The manner of accomplishing these two objectives would be absoute pure standards with regard to our water supplies and the diminishment from current practices to zero of artifical chemicals in any form in our food chain. Better living through chemistry has proved both false and fatal.

First and foremost would be to have an agency that is not in league with corporations, but holds the purity standards to an absolute standard overtime. If we set out the goal to have clean water and pure food supplies, then in stages the steps to achieve this will map themselves out.

For example, if we are to have absolutely clean water supplies in 10 years, then we begin by cleaning up the water supplies: factories, polluters, waste disposal, water procesing etc. This process has begun, but not with a "pure" standard, but acceptable levels as described by agencies that have proven that they cannot be trusted. If pure is the absolute, there can be no fudging on that. No more "acceptable levels". This would include water used for irrigation of the food supplies. Our guidance for targets would be Nature. What would we have expected to find in the water supplies 200 years ago, before industrialization. What was the condition and quality of the water when Native Americans were the only inhabitants of America. That would be our starting place in identifying the eventual goal.

The credibility factor of the governmental regulating agencies is critical and pivotal. Of all the discussions on what is and is not the responsibility of government, the purity of our food and water supplies is inarguable. Over time we have seen the effects of poor diet and toxic foods and water in our national health, which has caused this outcry for a national health care system. If we return to pure food with good nutrition available in it, there would be a dramatic decrease in the need for medical attention.

Once the populace is returned to pure diet and water, the benefits would blossom: returned energy for focus in creative and positive ventures. It is very difficult to focus on earning a living, thinking a new thought, and being a positive force in the world when you don't feel good or spend your days involved in doctors visits and treatments.

We must be able to know that those items we choose to purchase are made from the highest quality ingredients without compromise. We are a nation that is learning to value quality, and as such must award those who produce quality and insure the highest standards.

I agree that we ought to be able to choose what health care methods we desire and not be limited to those defined by medicine. However, it is equally important that if we are choosing natural methods such as herbs, tinctures, homopathic and other such natural treatments, that those products be uncompromised. The standard for the term organic must be umimpeachable. Once again, this is where a credible and trustworthy agency must be in place and uncorruptible.

These are lofty goals and require a higher consciousness, which must come into play if any of this is going to happen. We must come to know that there is enough for everyone and that our individual good is not at the expense of the good of all. They are one in the same.

So my suggestion for health care is to target the food and water supplies and return them to their original pure and potent state.

Kathy Kirk
Applied Spirituality
http://www.appliedspirituality.com

Suggested by Kathy Kirk on 01/17/2009 @ 09:09AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
View 1 Comment

I own a health food store and see hundreds of people treating themselves naturally. I see people bring down cholesterol, blood pressure, help anxiety, sleep, and most ailments that there is a drug for I see natural non toxic products working better. I see and hear this every day, from many different customers....

If I was to claim anything I would get in trouble, why? These products are working, and are natural. People are healing themselves naturally and should have the freedom to do so.

Also Vitamins cannot say what they are for on the label, or they get pulled off the market for making claims, this is an unjustified attack on the natural products industry.
For example the recent Airborne settlement... Everyone I talk to says the product works well to stop a cold, no one was complaining, why should they have to pay millions, for showing a guy sneezing on the picture.

I can buy freely, cigarettes, alcohol, FAST FOOD, and all have been shown to cause disease in the body. People should have the right to treat themselves as they see fit, and have access to natural products.

So great this made the top ten!

Suggested by katherine schneider on 01/17/2009 @ 08:57AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

Americans cannot have health reform or health freedom when the food industry is allowed to lie. Part of health freedom is the ability to make healthy choices. This is impossible when people are misinformed or uninformed. So please, close legal loopholes that allow false claims like "all natural" to be made, and allow toxic ingredients to be hidden under headings such as "natural flavorings".
Because: the health of the American people directly reflects the current American diet.

Many issues in this country are intertwined. True change will require a broad focus.

Look for advice from people like Michael Pollan, Ron Paul, Dr. Mercola. They will be helpful with the issues surrounding health freedom and reform.

Suggested by Elizabeth McCracken on 01/17/2009 @ 07:32AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

I had hesitated to contribute earlier to this discussion because I believed that my views would be very much in the minority. I'm heartened to see that health freedom made it to the top ten.
It's crucial not just in the U.S. but also from a global perspective to strengthen the recognition of health freedom as a fundamental human right. An important new resource has been given to human rights activists, in the form of a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, who deals extensively with torture and ill-treatment against people with disabilities and gives a lot of attention to the health and medical contexts. This is especially relevant for recognizing forced psychiatric interventions as a form of torture or ill-treatment, but he articulates standards that can be used more widely, and free and informed consent is highlighted. See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/torture.htm for more information and the text of the report.
As a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, the U.S. should study this report and put its recommendations into practice, including the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (and I would add, without any reservations, understandings or declarations).
In order to achieve freedom from forced/nonconsensual psychiatric interventions, laws will need to be changed at the state level. Currently, laws in all 50 states authorize deprivation of liberty in psychiatric institutions or hospitals as well as the administration of drugs and electroshock against a person's will, and the use of isolation and restraints. These laws violate our health freedom and also, because they target a particular group for detention and violation of physical and mental integrity, constitute discrimination. In every state, the details may be different, but in New York, the reform would be repeal of Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and if necessary, replacing it with a provision affirming that mental health care and treatment, including admission to a hospital, may only be on the basis of free and informed consent.
The law, both statutory and case law, on capacity to make treatment decisions, also needs to be changed if the right to free and informed consent is to be made meaningful. In mental health law, the notion of capacity has been used to justify forced interventions. In a state of mental or emotional crisis, we may have trouble reaching our own decisions and/or articulating them clearly, but this should be an occasion for giving the person support in making decisions rather than taking away the right to make decisions and substituting the will of another person. This way of approaching legal capacity is known as supported decision-making or the support model, and it is required of parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (See http://www.un.org/disabilities for more information; also http://www.wnusp.net and http://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/working_groups.html). We need to have working groups of lawyers, users and survivors of psychiatry, and other affected groups (e.g. people with intellectual disabilities, people with autism, people with dementia) coming together to figure out how best to put into practice a legal framework, policy and programs compliant with the support model. This does not have to wait for ratification of the CRPD.
Mental health alternatives that are non-coercive and also not hostage to the pharmaceutical industry exist and work, the best resource I know is the book Alternatives Beyond Psychiatry edited by Peter Lehmann and Peter Stastny. We need to have working groups on this as well, to define criteria for alternatives and put them into practice with a minimum of bureaucracy, in ways that are affordable and accessible to all, and on a large scale. Help in getting off psychiatric drugs, including a "harm reduction approach" (see www.freedom-center.org) needs to be part of the creation of alternatives. Some funding scheme needs to be found that does not require people to get a medical (psychiatric) diagnosis in order to get help with mental health/ life crisis/ spiritual issues. I believe it could be part of health insurance if we take a broad view of health as overall well-being, and this could strengthen the advocacy for other non-medical health measures, like tai chi, yoga, etc., which similarly should not be only for the privileged who can afford them.
Some things in Barack Obama's health care proposal as outlined so far concern me from a health freedom perspective, and I think should be dropped.
The plan to make health records electronic alarms me from a health freedom and privacy perspective. Health records may contain information that we choose to share with one health care provider but not others. They may also contain inaccuracies and outright lies and unflattering opinions (health care providers are human) that will follow us everywhere we go. It will make it more difficult for the very people who have most trouble accessing good health care due to prejudices of health care providers (e.g. people who are homeless, have a psychiatric or substance abuse history, etc.) to start with a clean slate, and will also result in more people avoiding health care for this reason, with unnecessary cost to health and life.
I believe that the costs outweigh the possible benefits to individuals, and that the main benefits would be from an institutional perspective, serving the needs of providers to have information that they feel is trustworthy and easy to access. But seeing health as a human right, the individual interests need to outweigh the institutional. The new president's health care reform team should abandon this proposal and consider other ways to meet their objectives.
I am also concerned about the proposal to include mental health in general health care. We have already moved considerably in this direction, with primary care doctors including mental health related questions on their intake forms. Primary care doctors are not trained in any mental health alternatives (needless to say) and are barely trained in dispensing psychiatric medication. I have personally witnessed very casual prescribing of strong drugs, by well-meaning doctors who seem to be unaware of the harm they can cause, including addiction. It is also difficult for a person who does not want to bring mental health issues into a medical context to refrain from answering those questions, especially in situations (typical health care providers and clinics that take insurance) where the doctor's authority often goes unquestioned.
This trend should be reversed and a moratorium put on integrating mental health with the general health care system, pending full exploration and development of a policy centered on alternatives as described above. Mental health screening, of children in schools, of post-partum women, and generally, needs to be stopped. These programs take advantage of people at their weak points (a woman exhausted from giving birth, children who are not legally empowered to refuse consent) and promote a simplistic and unhelpful approach to human distress.
Medical personnel, including psychiatrists, need to be re-trained in dealing with psychiatric drugs - to understand these drugs as toxic mind-altering substances that in small doses may be helpful to people to change their consciousness to achieve desired effects, rather than as an uncritical "treatment" for notional illnesses that have no diagnosable physical pathology.
We also need to strengthen the culture of autonomy of health care recipients and free and informed consent. Free and informed consent has devolved into a means to protect health care providers and their insurance companies from medical malpractice suits, where it should be a provision of information and professional advice in an interaction among equals. I notice that medicine is the one context where clients do not usually call a professional by his or her first name, unlike law, accounting, engineering and anything else I can think of.
I am in the process of incorporating a U.S.-based non-profit and will provide more information when it is complete. I also am currently one of the chairpersons of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (www.wnusp.net) and a member of the steering committee of the International Disability Alliance CRPD Forum and coordinator of its Legal Capacity Task Force. I look forward to working with other like-minded individuals and organizations.
Tina Minkowitz, Esq. tminkowitz@earthlink.net

Suggested by Tina Minkowitz on 01/17/2009 @ 07:27AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

Our fight for Health Freedom must include our right to access quality natural health products and services in our current health care system. Millions of Americans are rightfully asking- why can't I have a natural health approach when I am paying for health insurance? Likewise, our Federal payers, including Medicare and Medicaid, must have Health Freedom included for all.
We must be sure that Health Freedom is incorporated in whatever health plan is decided soon by the new administration.

Suggested by Dr Mary Zennett on 01/17/2009 @ 07:02AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
View 3 Comments

I want to have free access to vitamins, herbal remedies, and natural, unpasteurized, non-irradiated foods. Makers of herbs and vitamins should not have to lie about the health benefits of these treatments, as they do now. If an herb helps prevent cancer, then it should say on the bottle, "this herb prevents cancer." Currently, the FDA suppresses all information on natural cures. The only way to promote a natural remedy in this country is if you are not selling anything. This is health freedom to me, the freedom to choose between allopathic, homeopathic, natural and alternative medicines. If I break a bone then I want to be stitched up and put in a cast by an allopathic doctor. If I get cancer (which about 70% of is preventable with a simple vitamin D supplement) then I want to be treated with Gerson's therapy, a natural treatment for cancer based on herbs and raw fruit/vegetable juices, a treatment with a high success rate and none of the damaging effects of chemotherapy. I want the right to choose what kind of treatment I should have. I want information freely available about all kinds of health choices. And I want both allopathic and natural treatments covered by health insurance.

Suggested by Zoe Madden on 01/17/2009 @ 06:28AM PT