I was greeted today at the doctor’s office by a full waiting room, reminiscent of communist polyclinics. It was almost three hours before I saw the doctor for less than five minutes. He was unfocused and hurried.
Six months ago, the wait was fifteen minutes and the doctor was relaxed and had plenty of time to spend with his patients. I asked him why such a long wait and hurry. He rolled his eyes and said, “New Obama care regulations and compliance.”
On June 10, 2010, the President signed an Executive Order creating the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.
The National Prevention Council, chaired by Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, “is charged with providing coordination and leadership at the federal level and among all executive departments and agencies with respect to prevention, wellness and health promotion practices.”
With input from the “public and interested stakeholders, the National Prevention Council is charged with developing a National Prevention Strategy.
The National Prevention Strategy was released on June 16, 2011. The suggestions for this strategy came from “240 website submissions and letters from dozen organizations (not named in the document) submitted directly to the National Prevention Council and the Office of the Surgeon General.” The Surgeon General’s website carried the proposal and the “discussion.” No media devoted time and effort to this story. Yet 305 million Americans are now going to be subject to a strategy that was never put to a vote or referendum.
The National Prevention Strategy is a comprehensive plan that enforces good health not just from quality medical care, “but also from clean air and water, safe outdoor spaces for physical activity, safe worksites, healthy foods, violence-free environments and healthy homes. Prevention should be woven into all aspects of our lives, including where and how we live, learn, work, and play. Everyone—businesses, educators, health care institutions, government, communities and every single American—has a role in creating a healthier nation.” If this sounds Orwellian, it is, but you have not heard the rest.
Did you think that Obama care and Agenda 21 were not interwoven? The word “sustainable” appeared at least a couple of times in the Summary. The document is quite lengthy, 125 pages.
The National Prevention Strategy is not just concerned with addressing the leading causes of death and disability in the United States (heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic respiratory diseases, and unintentional injuries), but also with “preventable behaviors—including tobacco use, poor nutrition, physical activity, and excessive alcohol use.” These priorities have to align with Healthy People 2020 initiative:
If this is not Orwellian enough, required by the Affordable Care Act, the President established an Advisory Group on January 26, 2011 when he appointed 13 people as members, adding two more members on April 8, 2011. Some of the members are doctors; however, the majority are bureaucrats. This advisory group gives guidance to members of the National Prevention Council.
There are 18 members of the National Prevention Council, an interesting mixture of non-medical bureaucrats, with the exception of two:
These individuals intend to promote for the rest of us, a “sustainable healthy lifestyle.” I would love if people lived healthy lifestyles. However, how is that our government’s job to dictate that we live and conduct our lives in a manner that meets with their approval? How are they going to enforce this strategy in real life? How does a safe community and healthy “stakeholders” need the Department of Defense? How can you force reduction of preventable death, disease, and disability in the United States?
A program that mirrors Agenda 21 is Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities (part of National Prevention Strategy) which “helps improve access to affordable housing and transportation options and reduce transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities throughout the country. This partnership efficiently uses federal resources by coordinating housing, transportation, and other infrastructure investments to protect the environment and promote equitable development,” another code word for re-distribution of wealth, the Democrats’ pet project. How is this related to our citizens’ health? It seems to me that it aims to protect the environment at the expense of humans, one of the tenets of Agenda 21.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development also lists in the National Prevention Strategy, the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, a “public-private partnership that implements a cost-effective and integrated approach to create energy-efficient and healthy housing through federal and philanthropic investments.” What is healthy housing? Do we not have building codes and sanitation in this country?
The most blatant Agenda 21 item of this National Prevention Strategy that has nothing to do with health is the Department of Interior’s America Great Outdoors Initiative, which supports a “grassroots approach to protecting our lands and waters and connecting all Americans to their natural and cultural heritage.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, within the Department of Interior, aims to develop the next generation of conservationists by targeting youth and encouraging outdoor activity.” Yes, there are health benefits to being outdoors; I just do not understand how that is going to preserve my cultural heritage. It may preserve Indian heritage and push Mrs. Obama’s Let’s Move campaign as part of “prioritizing traditional native food that consists of locally grown, organic foods.”
Department of Transportation is pushing, as part of National Prevention Strategy, the Safe Routes to School Program, walking and bicycling to school. This program helps make “walking and bicycling to school safer and more appealing transportation choices, thus encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age.” More appealing transportation choices to whom? What if a child lives miles from school or in an unsafe or high-traffic area? What parent in his right mind would encourage a child to bike or walk at any age through heavy traffic and unsafe zones?
The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative is another National Prevention Strategy goal that has “spreading the wealth” written all over it. The White House Domestic Policy Council, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Treasury are planning to transform, with massive infusion of cash, bad neighborhoods into places that provide opportunities, resources, and financial aid to people to “maximize their life outcomes, including achieving health.”
We have been throwing billions of dollars at the “war on poverty” since its inception and we are currently losing this war. Throwing more money in the mix is not going to change the outcome. Changing welfare policy to encourage maintenance of the nucleus family (father, mother, child), instead of rewarding unwed mothers with more welfare, would go a long way to restore the health of our society.
Teaching children about our Judeo-Christian heritage in school, pride in history, pride in being American, teaching right from wrong would also go a long way to restore health to our nation.
Taking freedoms away from the rest of us, and forcing us into a healthy lifestyle decided by all-knowing arrogant bureaucrats, who push servitude, Agenda 21, and environmental stewardship down our throats under the faux excuse of caring for our health, is Orwellian to say the least.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.comCommenting Policy
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement