Did you know that a very high percentage of children are poisoned by medications? In my state, it’s about 45%.  That is a very high percentage.  There ought to be a law.

Well there is. There are child safe medicine bottles. You know the kind. I often have trouble opening them, but then I am way over sixty and sometimes I can’t get a grip on the caps.  I just cannot get them open.

In 1982 the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed their Tamper-resistant Packaging Regulations to prevent poisonings. That was a long time ago.

You have to ask why then are so many children still poisoned by medicinal drugs? One suggestion is that parents and grandparents leave the bottles open because they too have difficulty getting them open. Consequently, inquisitive little tots get to them.

That might be a good explanation. Here is another, remember that TV show I mentioned at the beginning? Well, it turns out a bunch of kindergartners were given empty tamper-resistant bottles to open. The game was to see how fast and if they could open them.

What do you think happened? Yep, the bottles were opened. Some were opened in less than a minute! I checked around and found that throughout the country the results are the same.

This begs the question, are our children any safer now than they were before 1982? I doubt it. Ultimately, it is the adults’ responsibility to keep children out of harm’s way.

All this raises another question, who paid for this? Who has paid for the salaries of the enforcers, the bureaucrats, the designers, engineers, and the manufacturers of the tamper-resistant bottle caps? Can you guess? Yes, you are right again. You and I.

If there were a proven benefit, then maybe it would have been worth it . There hasn’t been.

Just another law by those who know better than you do and know what is best for your welfare.

Am I right?

Bookmark It

The United States of America is a Republic. That is right. I said a republic. The media, politicians, bureaucrats, and all of us have mistakenly labeled our country a democracy. A democracy is not synonymous with a republic. Let me repeat, we are a republic. There is big difference.

Majority rules a democratic nation. A republic is a nation ruled by law. You may ask. What is wrong with being a democratic nation? Allow me to explain with an example.

Let us assume a community of people. We will also assume that there is a rapist or murderer among them. Someone of the community names and identifies a suspect.  Fearing for his well-being, the suspect runs away. A group of people set out to find him and they capture him.

In the heat of emotion and because the crime was so horrendous, the group decides that justice must be served there and then. They take a show of hands. Most agree that he deserves swift and just punishment. The majority decides to punish the suspect.

I hesitate to call this group a mob. They are God-fearing, rational people. They are convinced of the suspect’s guilt. The majority believe in his guilt. The suspect’s fate is sealed, majority rules. That is a democracy.

Luckily, for the suspect the police chief arrives and says, “Stop! You cannot take the law into your own hands. This man must be judged by the rule of law. He must be tried before a jury of his peers.”

Not only must the suspect be tried before a jury of his peers, but also the jury’s verdict must be unanimous. In a republic, the rule is by law not by a majority’s consensus.

Are you living in a democracy or a republic? You get to choose.

There are those that will argue that a movement like Civil Rights is proof of democracy in action. Wrong, again.

The Civil Rights movement and subsequent enacted laws did nothing but follow the rule of law, our Constitution, the law of the land. It guarantees equal rights before the law. At the time, that was something that was not recognized.

You and I know that some of the signers of the Constitution were slave owners. But, by design or by forgetfulness the Constitution harbors no allusion to the superiority of one individual over another. If such language did exist, it was wisely omitted or discarded.

Politicians love democracies because they need only appease the majority. If politicians governed by the rule of law, some would agree and some would disagree, but all would know that the rule of law protects their rights.

Are your rights protected? The Constitution is no more than an extension of the Golden Rule. Are you following the Golden Rule?

Bookmark It

Regardless, it seems to me that it is not within Congress’ authority to dictate to any citizen whether or not an individual must carry health insurance. How about you? How do you feel about it ?

It’s like the automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. In my naive way of thinking I can’t accept being fined for not wearing my seat belt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seat belt will hurt any one else.

So then, this law, the seat belt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by “do gooders” for my own good. Whatever happened to my unalienable rights? I realize that those unalienable rights are not part of the Constitution but they are words on which this nation was founded (The Declaration Of Independence).

I am sure that there are some that would argue that enacting a Public Health Policy where you are required to have health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional  right to and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree. Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation.

However, it is not their duty or right to dictate the general welfare. Promoting and dictating are two distinct words with completely different meanings.

Any law that would require a citizen to be insured for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is an enforcement, not a suggestion.

Do not confuse the likes of auto liability insurance which is an enforced law in most of the country with a required health insurance mandate.

Liability insurance protects you from the consequences of someone’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Health insurance, protects you for you. It does not protect you from someone  else.

Requiring me or anyone else to have medical insurance under penalty of prosecution is just plain wrong.

That there are many who do not have coverage is not the fault of those that do have insurance or of the employers that provide it.

God forbid , but let us use logic and reason to tells us why someone is not able to afford medical expenses.

Bookmark It