Posted on 07/29/2009 6:19:36 PM PDT by Ari Bussel
Government and Public Health Issues? A Pure Contradiction in Terms By Norma Zager
Aside from the obvious problems with government regulation over American’s health care, I fear the most obvious proof has been overlooked. The current proposal by President Obama may just be the greatest threat to the welfare of the American people since Russia got the bomb.
Time and again the federal government has shown its inability to deal with the problems concerning health issues.
I could site thousands of examples but will begin with only one, Creosote. Creosote is a dangerous chemical banned by the European Union in 1994.
On August 16, 1984 the New York Times published an article titled “A WIDE CREOSOTE BAN IS PROPOSED BY E.P.A.”
According to the Times, “The Environmental Protection Agency today proposed to ban creosote in almost every use except as a wood preservative, because of the cancer risk it is believed to pose.” The EPA restricted its use, but it didn’t ban the chemical because of its “economic” benefits.
These new revelations by the EPA were initiated after six years of tests showing creosote caused cancer and genetic changes in laboratory animals, and that it has been associated with skin cancer among workers handling it.”
Creosote is a wood preservative, but has other uses, including “herbicides in gardens to control fungus on canvas and rope and as insecticides to control gypsy moths, screwworms and mosquitoes and seed potato storage.”
The most dangerous aspect of its use in my mind was in the playground equipment used in schools and homes across America.
Six years for testing. Had it been banned? Perhaps placed on a watch list? Various states individually instituted bans on their own for use in wood products for consumer use. Today, years later, it is now considered hazardous waste by the EPA and subject to the limitations thereof. Were millions of Americans, including children, exposed to its carcinogenic properties? I’m afraid so.
It seems simple to a reasonable person that if the government cannot be responsible for outlawing dangerous chemicals near our children, it fails the test required to oversee our health.
The wheels of government move like a turtle. The only things that might inspire them to move like a rabbit are a Congressional salary raise or a stimulus package loaded down with pork goodies.
Decisions about the health and safety of the American people must be left to the individual. Politics and public health are at best a slow moving and deadly process.
The recent profusion of organic produce into the mass market and local farmers’ markets is proof the federal government is no longer trusted to protect public good. Americans mistrust the government ability to monitor pesticides used for their food supply.
An incident last year in California where sick cows were sold to numerous restaurants and outlets was evidence of the inability of government agencies to act as watchdogs of our food supply. Last year the number of recalls on lettuce, tomatoes and peanut butter were enough to strike fear in the hearts of every citizen who had been smearing the dangerous foodstuff on their kids’ PB&J or munching a “healthy” salad.
These facts are non-partisan. Government agencies once installed are designed to serve the public. Is that reality? No. In Republican years, the EPA was soft on pollution, going so far as to force the California Air Quality District to face the United States Supreme Court to enact laws to mitigate pollution in a state rife with toxic air. Democrats are tougher on pollution while the Republicans will consider the repercussions to business. This is the nature of the beast I’m afraid. Should political philosophy factor into public health concerns? I believe the answer is obvious to right-thinking Americans. But does it interfere? Unfortunately, it does.
Some changes are of course necessary in our health care system. Most people agree it needs to be fixed. Partisan politics aside, most Americans applaud the President’s efforts to fix the problem, or at least his good intentions.
The appropriate method of repair however, is at issue along party lines. Does this best serve the people? Experience has taught us it cannot. Who should be in charge and to what end? If new legislation in any way robs Americans of their rights governing their own health decisions, it is wrong out of the gate. Government is incapable and has proven this over hundreds of years.
One last example may serve to prove my point and remind modern journalists of their responsibilities to the people and not as an agent of a particular administration.
Upton Sinclair was a journalist who traveled to Chicago in the early 1900s to investigate conditions at the meatpacking houses. His efforts, coupled with the public outcry after publication of his book “The Jungle” forced President Theodore Roosevelt and the Congress to take action. The Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 established the Bureau of Chemistry that would become the Food and Drug Administration in 1930.
Roosevelt was sent multiple copies of The Jungle prompting his curiosity about meat inspection. After much persuasion from Sinclair, Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds were sent into the factories to investigate worker treatment, but instead the men reported only on the cleanliness, or lack thereof, describing them as “revolting.” Sinclair later commented, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."
The point of Sinclair’s story is this. The U.S. government has always been slow to move on health issues concerning its people. Why the rush now when it’s a life and death issue?
Let’s slow down, take a beat and examine the consequences of our actions. It’s obvious the life and death decisions affecting our children must be left to caring parents not slow moving government oversight.
### In the series “Postcards from Israel – Postcards from Home,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports about Israel, homeland of the Jewish People, as seen by two sets of eyes. This “point - counter-point” presentation has, since 2008, become part of our lives. It can be found in numerous websites around the world as well as in print in the USA.
© Postcards from Home, July, 2009 Contact: aribussel@gmail.com
Norma is a tad abnormal. The author, named, of course Norma, seems not know much about poisons.
Specifically, she seems unaware that “the poison is in the dose”. While creosote may be a problem with continued skin submergence at a factory, lesser exposures are not sufficiently harmful to justify a ban.
Historically, she seems unaware that creosote was used as an antiseptic wound dressing during the Civil War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.