Sustainable Health: Are You Ready to Be Forced into Health Prevention?

Sustainable Health: Are You Ready to Be Forced into Health Prevention?

Site Administrator posted on July 20, 2011 14:17

Sustainable Health: Are You Ready to Be Forced into Health Prevention?

Are you ready to be forced into health prevention? A newly UNELECTED board has absolute control of every aspect of your life – that was the real goal of ObamaCare. 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. 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. 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. READ THE FULL ARTICLE – we’re in trouble BIG trouble:

Sustainable Health: Are You Ready to Be Forced into Health Prevention

Canada Free Press

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.

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 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:

Eliminate health disparities (euphemism for spreading the wealth)
Promote healthy development and healthy behaviors across life stages (who decides what is and is not healthy, sounds very controlling and totalitarian)
Create social and physical environments that promote good health (are we going to be moved to some Elysian Fields, the land of milk and honey?)
Interventions will reach beyond the health care and public health sectors to include activities that influence health in areas such as:
- Housing
- Transportation
- Food and nutrition
- In-school and outdoor education
- The workplace
- The environment”

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:

Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, Council Chair
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Tom Vilsack, Department of Agriculture
Secretary Arne Duncan, Department of Education
Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Federal Trade Commission
Secretary Hilda L. Solis, Department of Labor
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency
Director R. Gil Kerlikowske, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Director Melody Barnes, Domestic Policy Council
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk, Department of the Interior
Acting Chief Executive Officer Robert Velasco II, Corporation for National and Community Service
Secretary Robert M. Gates, Department of Defense
Secretary Shaun Donovan, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Department of Justice
Secretary Erik K. Shinseki, Department of Veteran Affairs
Director Jacob J. Lew, Office of Management and Budget
Secretary Ray LaHood, Department of Transportation

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.

Join citizens4freedom on facebook and share us with your fb friends. We are 3500+ strong for freedom!

Posted in: Health Care Articles, Corruption, Big Government, Communism , Federal Power Grab, Lisa Douglas WC Leg. 2nd Distr., Agenda 21

Actions: Send To A Friend | Bookmark | Comments (2)

Comments

# Site Administrator

Monday, July 25, 2011 2:12 PM

Katherine:
OMG, this is nothing but a dictatorship. I have to defend what I eat, how I sleep, what exercise I get -- every aspect of my life -- to a panel of people? I don't think so. My God, what kind of nation are they aiming for? This isn't Orwell, it's something out of a flat our horror movie or nightmare! By 2020?

"Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'
Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020

Read more: Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=10...

http://conservativedailynews....

“There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”

Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.

Argued that the Internet posed a threat to democracy because it promoted cyberbalkanization, a phenomenon whereby people isolate themselves ideologically within groups that share their own political perspectives, while turning a blind eye to any views or facts that might challenge their beliefs. To counter this tendency, he called for government-imposed diversity on websites promoting a particular political perspective. Specifically, he suggested that all partisan websites should feature “electronic sidewalks” providing links to resources that offer opposing views. In a 2001 interview, he elaborated: “Sites of one point of view [would] agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.”

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”

“The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize ‘positive’ rights, not just ‘negative’ rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits. The bottom line is that Congress would no longer have the discretion to decline to enact liberal policies. The triumph of the left would be constitutionally mandated.”

“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.” (yah, that worked out well for them didn't it?)

“If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler brainstorm about ways to increase the number of organ donations that Americans make each year. They theorize that the main reason why more people do not arrange to donate their organs posthumously is because in order to do so, they are required to actively give “explicit consent” for such procedures, which few people ever take the time to do. To remedy this, Sunstein and Thaler advocate a policy of “presumed consent” — the opposite of explicit consent — whereby the the government would “presume” that someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation unless that person has explicitly indicated his or her wish to prevent such an action. Both realize, however, that such a proposal “is a hard sell politically” because “[m]ore than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter.” Thus they propose an alternate solution – “mandated choice” — where the government forces all people to make a decision on the matter: “With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

“We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also has stated that livestock and wild animals should have legal “rights” and should be empowered to file lawsuits; that the human consumption of meat is a practice that should be ended permanently; and that the use of animals for work, entertainment, science, and food is akin to “human slavery.” ”[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,”

Authored 2008 paper proposing that the government use a variety of methods to limit or eliminate conspiracy theories critical of the U.S. government. These methods suggested that the government could:
* ban conspiracy theories outright
* impose a tax on those who advance conspiracy theories
* engage in counter-speech to ”discredit conspiracy theories and theorists”
* hire private parties to engage in counter-speech
* engage in informal communication with such private parties, encouraging them to help
”Our main policy claim here is the government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”

This sounds a lot like they're getting started on that.

# Site Administrator

Monday, July 25, 2011 7:29 PM

Katherine:

It's absolutely frightening. You should look into Obama's other czars.....

John Holdren and Paul and Ann Ehrlich co-authored the 1977 book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Holdren is Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar.

http://zombietime.com/john_ho...

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it." [...] "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control."

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men." [...] "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.."

"Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

"a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits." (As I was typing I thought they meant the UN document that would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans but then I realized this SH question sounds kind of like the beginning to what Holdren suggested here?)

"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force." [...] "The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

Btw, speaking of the above, how about a Federal Truth Agency or a Ministry of Truth? Or regulating free speech?
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
http://truth2america.com/gene...
http://www.examiner.com/conse...

Sustainable Health: Are You Ready to Be Forced into Health Prevention?

Sustainable Health: Are You Ready to Be Forced into Health Prevention

305 million Americans are now going to be subject to a strategy that was never put to a vote or referendum

Comments

Post Comment