Editorials | Opinions
|How the 2010 Election Results Will Affect Health Care and Health Freedom|
Mike Adams - NaturalNews
go to original
November 03, 2010
In what appears to be a broad backlash against Obama-era policies, U.S. voters swept Republicans into office in record numbers in last night's election. As of this writing, Republicans had clearly taken the House but failed to win a majority in the Senate. This effectively ends the Democratic super-majority alignment among the House, Senate and White House.
So what will this mean for health-conscious consumers and medical patients? Will this result in any improvements on the health freedom front?
|The medical industry, you seem doesn't care whether Democrats or Republicans are in office. It can buy influence with either party. Remember, it was the Bush Administration that handed Big Pharma a Medicare drug monopoly.|
A clue is found in the behavior of Big Pharma and health insurance companies. Even before the election was over, they were already focusing new efforts on lobbying Republicans, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The medical industry, you see, doesn't care whether Democrats or Republicans are in office. It can buy influence with either party. Remember, it was the Bush Administration that handed Big Pharma a Medicare drug monopoly. Obama merely expanded and extended that monopoly with Obamacare health reform.
Ballot measures challenge federal health insurance mandates
In two states - Colorado and Arizona - voters weighed in on ballot measures designed to effectively block federal mandates that will force citizens to buy health insurance (or be penalized by the IRS). Arizona's Proposition 106 appears to have passed, meaning that Arizona will soon find itself in a Tenth Amendment showdown with the federal government over whether the feds can force Arizona citizens to buy federally-mandated health insurance. (Gee, the fact that we're even talking about this show you just how overreaching the federal government has become the days, doesn't it?)
In Colorado, Amendment 63 appears to have been defeated. Sadly, this means the state is surrendering its citizens over to the interventions of federally-run Obamacare regulations. Colorado has apparently forgotten that all-important part of the Bill of Rights which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's the Tenth Amendment, of course. But even this amendment seems increasingly irrelevant to a federal government that chooses to ignore all the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Emergence of the Tea Party?
One notable new element in play in this year's elections was the Tea Party, which has emerged as a force to be reckoned with. The Tea Party believes in lower taxes, smaller government, stronger border protections, halting debt spending and the elimination of special interest groups (among other things). The Tea Party does not maintain a strong direct position on health freedom or the censorship of nutritional science by the FDA, but it can be reasonably inferred that the Tea Party's opposition to "intrusive government" likely overlaps many of key issues on the health freedom front.
Make no mistake, however: The Tea Party is not synonymous with health freedom. In fact, some of the strongest supporters of health freedom are from the far left. The issues of health freedom, banning GMOs, and ending seed monopolies seem to cross all the traditional party boundaries. Supporters of such fundamental freedoms range from tie-dyed hippies to ultra-conservative church-goers. What all these people have in common is a desire for freedom in the realms of seeds, food and medicine.
Interestingly, the political party that most closely aligns itself with principles of health freedom and food freedom is the Libertarian party. Congressman Ron Paul is, of course, a libertarian at heart, and he is the sponsor of the Health Freedom Protection Act (which Democrats and Republicans refuse to bring to a vote).
Libertarians have a longstanding fundamental belief in individual sovereignty and true freedom combined with drastically reduced government spending (and a much smaller government altogether).
Interestingly, Rand Paul has apparently succeeded in his bid to become a U.S. Senator. He bridges the gap between Republicans and Libertarians by claiming to be "not quite" a Libertarian. It's not yet clear what his final position is on health freedom, but he's clearly in favor of drastically cutting government spending and reducing the size of government. He is also strongly opposed to Obamacare mandates.
Conventional medicine depends on Big Government
Make no mistake about all this, though: The survival of the cancer industry, Big Pharma and the entire conventional medical complex depends almost entirely on Big Government dishing out the cash via Medicare, Medicaid and vaccine purchases. Big Government is also the enforcer of conventional medicine through the FDA and FTC, both of which seek to criminalize any systems of healing or natural medicine that compete with the pharmaceutical industry.
Cutting the size of government - regardless of which party takes credit for it - is probably the most effective way to end Big Pharma's dangerous monopoly over the medical system and restore health freedom to the American people.
It has become painfully clear over the last two decades that neither Republican nor Democratic legislators will bite the Big Pharma hand that feeds them. To really sock it to Big Pharma and unleash health freedom in America, it's going to take a drastic cut in the size of government. That cut will almost certainly never be delivered by legislators or the voters... government will only shrink through catastrophe - a sudden collapse of funding due to a rapid devaluation of the dollar and the inability to sell off new government debt to international investors.
That day is no doubt coming, and I pity the fool who happens to occupy the White House when that day of reckoning arrives. (It may yet be Obama if things happen quickly.)
In the mean time, don't expect any health freedom miracles from the new wave of Republicans in the House of Representatives. From the point of view of Big Pharma, the only thing that has really changed is the names of the corrupt politicians being bribed with campaign contributions.
The voters, in other words, can keep sending new people to Washington all they want - Big Pharma will keep corrupting them and making sure they suppress health freedom and keep conventional medicine's deadly monopoly locked in place for years to come. Remember this: The real battle is not between Democrats and Republicans; it's between corporations versus the People!
And no matter who sits in Washington right now, the corporations can always buy the influence they need to keep destroying our collective futures in order to accumulate more money for themselves.