Search OCA:
Get Local!

Find Local News, Events & Green Businesses on OCA's State Pages:

SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS

Intelligent Nutrients

Intelligent Nutrients

The Organic Harmonic Science of Health and Beauty

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps

Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps

Best Selling Organic Soap in the US

Botani Organic

Botani Organic

Organic, Naturally Occurring Vitamins & Supplements

Aloha Bay

Aloha Bay

Organic Palm Wax Candles and Himalayan Salts

Eden Organics

Eden Foods

Nurturing more than 350 North American organic family farms

Frey Vineyards

Frey Vineyards

America's Oldest Organic Winery

Hillary Clinton's Universal Health Care Plan: Buy Health Insurance or Else!

As candidates for U.S. President continue to battle for their respective parties' nominations, details are beginning to emerge about their (disastrous) health care plans. The New York Times is now reporting that Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan will be accomplished through "enforcement measures" that may include garnishing the wages of people who choose not to buy health insurance. What this comes down to, of course, is yet another form of medical tyranny where citizens are forced by threat of financial penalty to participate in conventional medicine's health insurance scheme that pushes drugs, surgeries, chemotherapy and other harmful treatments while disallowing converage of naturopathic health therapies that really work (like nutritional therapy).

Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan, then, is nothing more than a system for threatening all Americans to buy health insurance, and then financially punishing them if they don't. For people like myself who choose not to participate in America's drugs-and-surgery health care scam, Clinton's proposal would equate to yet another form of government-inspired financial tyranny that further erodes personal freedoms in a country that claims to be "free."

Clinton claims that people who choose to not buy health insurance are a "burden" on those who do, as if our opting out of that whole system of sickness and disease is somehow costing the nation extra money. It isn't, of course: People who choose to prevent disease and stay healthy while refusing to buy health insurance are actually saving money for the nation and, in fact, adding productivity to our economy. It's the sick people who eat junk foods and take pharmaceuticals that are the real financial burdens on society, and those are precisely the people who typically stay enrolled in the drugs-and-surgery system of health insurance.

With Clinton at the helm, the government will now exercise yet more control over your paycheck, stealing yet more of your money by confiscating a portion of your wages and turning them over to corrupt health insurance companies that do absolutely nothing to encourage real health.

It would be yet another government scam to further enrich the corporations that make money by keeping people sick and diseased, and under a Clinton regime, the enforcement of this ridiculous measure would push the United States of America ever closer to a nation of pharmaceutical enslavement where virtually all options for alternative medicine are eliminated. Consumers must be required to participate in conventional (pharmaceutical) medicine, didn't you know? And the government, of course, knows what's best for your health.

The Clinton-led invasion of your paycheck If this wasn't a serious plan put forth by Hillary Clinton, the whole thing would be laughable. It won't be so funny, however, if Clinton becomes President and starts dictating such policies to the American people. If you thought George W. Bush was insane with his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, just wait until Hillary Clinton starts invading your personal lives and weekly paycheck. By the time you pay off the IRS, the mandatory health insurance scam, your home mortgage and local property taxes, you have just enough left to pay for prescription medications and junk food. And that, of course, is right where the folks in charge want you: Broke, diseased and powerless.

Clinton believes that the best way for society to solve problems is to force the people to follow government policy, and take away their paychecks if they don't. It's a form of financial tyranny, and the fact that she's announcing all this even before winning the election indicates just how little respect Clinton has for individual liberty and real freedom.

Fortunatately, Obama is giving Clinton some stiff competition on the Democratic side, and if we're lucky, we won't have to face the possibility of seeing Clinton elected. I'll take Obama over Clinton any day. And yet, the only real choice for people who desire genuine freedom is, of course, Ron Paul. As President, Paul would get the government out of our lives (and our paychecks), returning freedom and responsibility to the American people. This fact -- that people might actually have to think for themselves -- scares the bejeezus out of at least half the U.S. population, and that's why they're continuing to blindly support status quo candidates who openly stand for more war (McCain and Huckabee) or more Big Brother enslavement (Clinton).

In terms of health care, the NaturalNews ranking of candidates to support, is:

1. Ron Paul: A champion of health freedom. Would curtail FDA powers and restore health freedom to America.

2. Dennis Kucinich: No longer a serious candidate, but he's a vegan, and he believes in preventive medicine and protecting the environment.

3. Barack Obama: Believes in universal health care coverage, and he's an outsider who doesn't have as many dirty corporate ties that keep the Clinton machine running. Obama supports animal rights (he says), and might be willing to rock the health care boat if elected president. Obama holds promise, but we'll have to wait and see whether he's willing to stand up to Big Pharma.

Beyond these three candidates, there is nobody else that has a position on health care that NaturalNews can support. Even Obama's health care plan remains to be seen -- it might end up being just as bad as Clinton's. If there's one thing we've all learned about politicians, it's that they will say anything to get elected. Just because they promise something doesn't mean they'll pursue it once they get into office.

The truth about health care that politicians won't dare admit

Want to know the real truth about health care in this nation? I tell it like it is:

1. Health care spending will bankrupt this nation. 84% of the U.S. government's budget is now spent on three things: Disease, debt and war. The national debt is now over $9 trillion (see clock). The U.S. dollar is losing value. This nation will not survive its own crushing debt. Expect hyperinflation of an increasingly-worthless currency.

2. No elected president will propose a health care system that actually makes people healthy. (The disease corporations wouldn't stand for it.) There is simply no profit to be found in teaching the public how to avoid disease. Eliminating disease and the sick care industry would put millions out of work and implode the economy.

3. All this talk about "who pays" for health care is a joke. Unless you start talking about ways to keep people healthy and ban the advertising of pharmaceuticals, junk foods and sodas, we will remain stuck in a system of disease management where nobody wins!

4. The Fall of Western Medicine is fast approaching. When the United States collapses under a worthless dollar and a desperate hyperinflation bailout attempt, much of what the U.S. espouses will also be shunned by nations around the world, including its deadly system of pharmaceutical-based medicine. The collapse of the U.S. money supply will inevitably result in the collapse of Big Pharma's profitability, since it is nothing more than debt spending (at all levels: Personal, municipal and nation) that currently supports Big Pharma's monopoly prices for pharmaceuticals.

Haven't heard these statements from mainstream politicians? Of course you haven't. Expecting popular politicians to tell the truth is like expecting pigs to fly. Only Ron Paul dares to talk about reality, and for his efforts he's been marginalized by the MSM.

Let's face it: The American voters love to be lied to. In fact, they can't accept a President that tells them the truth. What they really want, when it comes down to it, is four more years of lies: The economy is great, your future is secure, we're winning the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Cancer and every other lie you can imagine. Oh yes, and don't forget: Deposit your life savings in dollars, please, and don't question anything we tell you, or we'll label you a terrorist and have you arrested.

Of course, despite all this talk about Clinton's disastrous health insurance proposal, let me be clear that electing a Republican for President will likely only continue Big Pharma's powerful influence over Washington. The drug companies have been very, very cozy with the Bush Administration, and there is a fundamental lack of understanding about nutrition, Mother Nature and natural medicine in the Republican party. So in terms of health care, I don't support any of the Republican candidates either (other than Ron Paul, due to his "freedom" platform and the fact that he's really a Libertarian).

The way this election is shaping up right now, it looks like we're going to be given a choice between bad and worse. Sound familiar?

For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

Become an OCA Member! Sign up below:

First Name
Last Name
Email
Email Preference
Phone
Street
Street 2
City
State
Zip
Country

kparcell
post Feb 8 2008, 08:11 PM



Is it possible that this yellow journalism has found a home on these yellow pages?

MarinaSnow
post Feb 8 2008, 09:40 PM


And no doubt Hillary's plan will include forced vaccines.

lianagan
post Feb 9 2008, 06:12 AM


QUOTE (MarinaSnow @ Feb 8 2008, 02:40 PM) *
And no doubt Hillary's plan will include forced vaccines.


Before jumping to conclusions it is better to verify sources. Media has a slant, why should the NY Times be an exception? Better yet, write to Hillary.

dairydiva
post Feb 9 2008, 10:02 PM


If Hillary (and all the other canidates) took the money they spent campaigning and put towards health care, we could easily have affordable health care for everyone, but instead they all spend it traveling accross the country telling their made up promises once they get elected.

MarinaSnow
post Feb 10 2008, 08:25 PM


QUOTE (lianagan @ Feb 9 2008, 12:12 AM) *
Before jumping to conclusions it is better to verify sources. Media has a slant, why should the NY Times be an exception? Better yet, write to Hillary.

The mainstream "news" media does not have a slant, they report what conforms to the Zionist/Illuminati/Luciferian plans. The mainstream media is neither right, nor left.

Art_glass_Ann
post Feb 17 2008, 04:47 PM


My concern about opting out of a plan as Obama has suggested, is that it will become like public education in the southern states. The rich or anyone who can afford to opts out and goes to private schools and the poor are left. Those who can opt out no longer care about the quality of the public school services and they vote to poorly fund it and it gets progressively worse. This is what I expect will happen if anyone is allowed to opt out. I think health care has to be universal or it won't work. If we have the right person as president, the health plan is more likely to inclide alternative medicines. Another concern I have is that, not all parents are good parents. Probably any parent on this website is...but in the school I work in there are parents who either can't or don't make good decisions for their children. If they had a choice between getting health insurance or an xbox they would probably get the xbox. I know that sounds harsh, but it is the reality. Some parents are depressed, some on drugs or alcoholic. We need to care about children. We all pay for social security and I personally believe that is a good thing. People complain that the government can't do anything right. I don't agree. If it was funded appropriately, it would be done right, but politicians are afraid to tell you the actual cost. We already pay more for our health insurance because MA only pays about 30% of the amount that is billed. The rest of the cost gets added onto the bills of those not on MA.

diana
post Feb 17 2008, 10:20 PM


QUOTE (Art_glass_Ann @ Feb 17 2008, 04:47 PM) *
My concern about opting out of a plan as Obama has suggested, is that it will become like public education in the southern states. The rich or anyone who can afford to opts out and goes to private schools and the poor are left. Those who can opt out no longer care about the quality of the public school services and they vote to poorly fund it and it gets progressively worse.

According to Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, there are whole cities in the south where the rich have opted out of the towns, their schools, their police departments, all governmental structure, and so the poorest people are left behind and unfunded, while the rich live in their newly-created walled cities with their new armies to protect them. 'Mercenaries for the rich' is a growing industry.

We really need a paradigm shift, an awareness of community, caring for one another, concern for kids in our sphere who aren't necessarily our 'own,' and the realization that we're in this mess together, that no walls and no mercenaries will really protect us from greed, or stupidity, or plain old fear.

QUOTE
I think health care has to be universal or it won't work.

I seem to remember Hillary saying this back a buncha years, and most of the country was ready to hang her. My, we've come a ... short ways, if that, haven't we?

QUOTE
If we have the right person as president, the health plan is more likely to incl[u]de alternative medicines.

I see this as dangerously close to waiting for The One to save us. Even IF we had a Naturopath as president, it'd still take us behind/beside/in front of her/ him to make any difference. I don't disagree; I just think we're the major factor, no matter what.

QUOTE
...but in the school I work in there are parents who either can't or don't make good decisions for their children. If they had a choice between getting health insurance or an xbox they would probably get the xbox. I know that sounds harsh, but it is the reality. Some parents are depressed, some on drugs or alcoholic. We need to care about children.

I think this is ALL planned out, and those who are conforming to the abysmally low standard are doing what you and I were supposed to do, too. But somehow we missed the memo ... on depression, or alcoholism or maybe our exact neighborhood hasn't been flooded with cheap drugs, high-alcohol liquor, added to an intentional high unemployment rate. The whole purpose of most of our civic organizations -- the chambers of commerce and so forth -- is to keep wages low so that businesses can make more money. It's all tied in together, and it's all stacked against us succeeding, individually or especially collectively. We're supposed to hate and distrust one another across whatever 'divides' can be brought forward. And, yes, we screw children over in the rush to split, stay 'safe' and separate and walled in.

QUOTE
We all pay for social security and I personally believe that is a good thing. People complain that the government can't do anything right. I don't agree. If it was funded appropriately, it would be done right, but politicians are afraid to tell you the actual cost. We already pay more for our health insurance because MA only pays about 30% of the amount that is billed. The rest of the cost gets added onto the bills of those not on MA.

I think you have a number of good points, here. Yes, we're groomed to believe that big government is bad and so small government will somehow save us -- but lax, or small, government got us the FDA we all hate. It's gonna take bigger -- and more involved -- government to create an FDA that works for us, or a healthcare system that does, or any other thing we need, and just can't get as easily small and local ... where we need to spread the cost out among the rich in their walled cities and the poor who are being walled out .... Again, lots can be done locally as far as getting the system full of involved citizens, but only involved citizens are going to make enough of a difference to make real change. And that means saying 'no' to the xbox, and turning off the teevee (and the computer, too) and getting practice again at human dialog. We need block meetings and town meetings and to engage our brains in understanding the complexities of the issues our politicians face -- with corporate 'guidance' always in the ready.

I participate in my town and my government workings, and you probably do, too. It's the only way I know to make a difference, and I wish more people would become involved. I do four, five, six meetings a week, and as energized as they make me, I still get real tired ... don't you? --diana