The Independent Voice

Posted By carlos on December 7, 2009

One of our local TV stations regularly does a health care bit as a community service. This one was particularly interesting.

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

Category: Politics | No Comments »
Tags: bottle caps, children, Federal Drug Administration, Packaging, poison, seat belts, tamper-resistant

Posted By carlos on December 6, 2009

There is daily coverage of the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill pros and cons. The coverage is incessant and well it should be. It will change our lives. However, there is a fundamental question that is ignored, what about the Constitution?

Very recently, Speaker of the House Pelosi was asked by CNS News, “… where does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her response was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNS News: “Yes, yes I am.”

Later, Pelosi’s press secretary went on record as saying, “That is not a serious question.” My question: “Asking for Constitutional clarification is not a serious question?”

I have another question just how many of our Senators and Representatives do you think have actually read the Health Reform Act? Yes, I think you are right. Not very many.

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

It is like automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. Still, in my naive way of thinking, I cannot accept being fined for not wearing my seatbelt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seatbelt will hurt any one else.

So then, this law, the seatbelt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by those that know better 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).

Some would argue that enacting a Public Health Policy requiring health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional prerogative or right and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree.Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation. However, it is not their prerogative, 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 insure himself for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is 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 else’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Liability insurance protects you from someone else’s negligence not your own.

Requiring liability insurance is promoting the general welfare. That mandate protects you from others. 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.

Maybe we should also require mandatory life insurance, so that I can pay those exorbitant funeral costs. What do you think?

Bookmark It

Category: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Tags: constitution, health care reform plan, insurance, Obama, Pelosi