The presidential candidates in the US offer different views of the American future. Thie goals are different and the voters should vote for the candidate that offers something different.
Millions of Americans have convinced themselves they don’t really have much of a choice for president this election, but when it comes to health freedom and the right to choose medicinal treatments, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton co-owned and is co-opted by the same corporate medicine interest groups that have been denying us the right to choose alternative treatments, cannabis and naturopathic health solutions. While the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, is not. In fact, he has made it a point throughout his campaign to remind voters that his candidacy has not been bought and paid for with corporate dollars – especially not from Big Pharma or Big Medicine.
For her part, Clinton has pretended that she will “rein in” Big Pharma companies that have a tendency to overcharge patients. In this briefing from September 2015, Clinton lamented drug company profits ($80-$90 billion annually) and said she “believes that we need to hold drug companies accountable to lower drug costs for Americans.”
Owned and operated by Big Pharma and the health industry
In a subsequent briefing a year later, she decried dramatic price increases for drugs that have been on the market for years and years, like a 400-percent increase in cost of Epi-Pens and a 5,000-percent hike in the cost of pyrimethamine, for AIDS patients.
Is she serious? Hardly. According to publicly available donation filings, Clinton is the top recipient of Big Pharma donations this election cycle. The Hill reported:
Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field…
Cash from drug companies poured in despite Clinton’s tough public stance on the industry.
By contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who gave Clinton a run for the nomination (leading the Democratic National Committee to rig the contest to stop him) turned down a $2,700 donation from Martin Shkreli, the one-time CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who raised the AIDS drug price, The Hill reported.
As for the remainder of the health care, International Business Times reported that, as of January, Clinton’s campaign had collected over $13 million from health-related industries. While closing out her campaign in Iowa, Clinton declared that the Medicare-for-all, single-payer plan pushed by then-candidate Barack Obama during his first campaign would “never come to pass.”
This is the same Hillary Clinton who pushed for single-payer, government healthcare early in her husband’s first presidential term, and who said she backs Obamacare, which was designed to fail so Washington’s big government progressives could usher in single-payer. It seems $13 million was enough to change her mind.
As for vaccines, Trump has said he favors a longer vaccination schedule for children – stretching them out over a longer period of time, a position taken by two of Trump’s GOP rivals, Ben Carson and Sen. Rand Paul, both of whom are physicians.
Clinton is loyal to whomever pays her
Clinton, on the other hand, is a full-throated supporter of vaccines and, like her Democratic brethren in the state of California, many believe she will push for a nationwide vaccine mandate if she wins next month.
No medical exemptions. No religious objections. Just an iron-fisted, big government vaccine mandate, enforced by the barrel of a gun and mandatory jail time. Trump has never expressed any interest in a vaccine mandate – or mandates of any sort, really.
The fact is, we can’t judge Clinton by what she says on the campaign trail, because she says one thing one day and another thing the next. The only time she is candid is when she’s getting paid. As she noted in a 2013 speech, it’s only normal for politicians to lie to the public, by having a “public position” on each issue and a “private position” (like when you’re stoking donors).
She’ll treat health care issues the same way and pursue (or keep in place) policies her donor/masters have paid for.