What makes America healthy again means for the nation

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been pronounced in shining the problems of chronic diseases, obesity, mental health and the failure of this nation to confront and tackle the underlying dynamics that have led to these in -depth health problems. He has also discussed the strategic profile of these issues, which suggests that they have consequences for the safety of our nation and its future. He is pronounced in his Criticism of the food industry And just pronounced in his contempt for the failure of congress and administrative supervision of the food supply of the nation. He rightly challenged the nation because he cannot act on the number of harmful additives in our food supply that we know contribute to many of the chronic diseases that bully the US, including cancer.

‘Make America healthy again‘Can be a rally crysting throughout the country, regardless of someone’s political ties. Imagine a nation that takes the importance of regular exercise seriously, thinks of what it eats, understands the relationship between physical and mental health, bringing goals for mental health and personal well -being and accountability to personal choices that the quality of life to influence.

Kennedy has challenged the nation to confront the unhealthy lifestyle, to investigate the Food Production Practices of the Land, wondered which taxpayers for their meal programs for children in our public schools, underlined the survival of food deserts in our inner cities and the costs they Present on the nation, and emphasized the easy availability of empty calories with long shelf lives and the scarcity of fresh fruit and vegetables.

In a relatively short time, Kennedy forced America to at least acknowledge that the food choices they make have significant consequences for their overall well -being. He forced us to start a public conversation and to acknowledge that the nation has a problem with chronic diseases that drives the life expectancy of the nation lower. And he has attributed a lot to the failure of the regulatory authorities to observe what scientists have known for years about the effects of food.

Kennedy has been challenged on positions he has taken against the pharmaceutical industry, in particular with regard to vaccines. Painted as a wide “anti-vax” he tried Walk that back In his heated hearings of the Senate. The data is overwhelming that vaccines have been crucial in the prevention of outbreaks of polio, measles, mumps and the harmful effects of flu and COVID-19. Although of crucial importance from the perspective of public health, idiosyncratic reactions to vaccinations and other medicines occur.

There is no way to discover every response to a medicine or a vaccine based on testing a sample of the population, regardless of how well designed and controlled an investigation is. Until the size of your sample approaches the size of your population, there will always be idiosyncratic reactions that are not positive, as endless as they can be. And that is what specific departments within HHS have to do – critical and independent evaluation evaluate science and make decisions about the relative risk and benefit of a certain pharmaceutical agent or vaccine. After a considerable scientific study, the FDA decides whether the active in question yields more benefits than potential damage.

If approved, it is the task of CMS to determine how that must be actively reimbursed on the basis of its relative value in economic and clinical terms. It is also the task of CMS to supervise the judgmental use of resources when providing care for the seniors of the nation and to evaluate more recently to what extent care is safe and suitable. Unfortunately, the ‘health care system’ of the nation itself is a disease system, designed to treat disorders, including chronic diseases, instead of preventing it. If the new HHS secretary is committed to making America healthy again, the underlying business model for the ecosystem of health care and its stimuli must change.

If we were smarter about regulations about our food, the nation could be healthier. And setting up a health -oriented business model for the industry would create more accountability and better results. Whether or not Kennedy is confirmed by the Senate, he has made an important contribution to the dialogue about the health of our nation. He has been a voice in the wilderness. He has already had a significant impact by increasing the consciousness of congress leaders and the American people about the criticism of health and our national responsibility to act before it is too late. Of particular importance, his alleged position is about seizing drugsocentries and taking draconian measures to control the price of medicines. Such action would not be bad for the health of our nation and not solve the underlying issues.

The new secretary of HHS must be surrounded by expert people who understand science, the mandates of the countless agencies that fall under the enormous umbrella and the fact that they often work on cross purposes. These powerful department directors must have a different vision of what is possible, be able to navigate the challenge of systemic change and to create excitement for a business model with which we can make America healthy again.