Health care legislation

I don’t know if I feel strongly that the U.S. Government should be responsible for providing healthcare for Americans. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea. There are so many variables to consider with regard to this controversial topic. Where should the money come from to support it? What would this healthcare bill do to private insurance companies? How would providers be affected? Would Americans “abuse” the system? These are just a few of many that come to mind. There has been a final plan proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California that could be up for a vote on the House floor next week. The final proposal would require employers to offer insurance to employees or face penalties, provide subsidies to lower income families to help them purchase insurance and would fine Americans who do not elect coverage. Funding for this particular bill would come from taxing high-income people and cutting $500 billion in payments to Medicare providers (whom are already reimbursed at lower rates than they are by private insurances). Taxing the “rich” people? Sounds like a good idea to me (probably because I am not one of them). I think employers should be required to at least offer health insurance to employees. However, I think it’s terrible and ridiculous to fine Americans who don’t purchase coverage. That seems a little excessive. I feel there are times when a line has to be drawn and the government should mind their own business, this would be one of them. How are they going to require people to purchase some sort of insurance? That’s not practical. I hate to sound cliché but you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. Despite all of the different variables that remain to be considered and ironed out, I think it’s a good idea for the government to offer Americans some sort of alternative to private healthcare.

Apparently, our First Amendment Rights don't apply in this case

I cannot believe that a court can make a child custody ruling based on a parent’s religious practice. Are you freakin’ kidding me?!? I (obviously) had never heard of this until I came across Eugene Volokh’s informative blog. In my opinion, this is a very well written article. He displays an excerpt from the case ruling he is referring to in this article. The author gently takes a stand without offending those who may crazily agree that a parent’s religion should play a role in the determination of child custody. It doesn’t appear that he is targeting a specific audience but simply informing the public of these absurd court rulings. I like that he supplied his readers with examples of similar documented court cases as well as the links to other informative posts. He has provided plenty of credible resources in order for one to take a well-informed stand on the issue.

If it’s not already obvious, I totally agree with Eugene Volokh’s take on this subject. Is it really anybody’s business (especially that of the court’s) if you participate in church activities or are even consider yourself to be a Christian? You know, there are many people who attend church and have their children enrolled in the church daycare, but yet are unfit and even abusive parents. There are also those who may not have any religious beliefs but prove to be wonderful parents to their children. So, the courts that make these rulings are also making the indirect judgment that those who belong to a church are better citizens than those who do not? Does it really matter? It is a total violation of the First Amendment for the government to infringe upon the rights of its citizens. How has this been allowed? After all, isn’t this America?

Does capital punishment cost too much?

I stumbled upon an interesting commentary in the New York Times arguing that states should abolish the death penalty. The unknown author makes a claim that the death penalty is, “immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately.” However, to encourage states to abolish the death penalty based solely on the fact that it costs too much is not a good enough reason. Anyone who agrees in the death penalty likely has other reasons for believing that it is an acceptable form of punishment, despite how much it costs. Did you notice that all of the “facts” provided in the article were gathered from the Death Penalty Information Center, which is “a research organization that opposes capital punishment”? I didn’t even know there was such an organization. For those who already oppose the death penalty, this commentary just adds more fuel to their fire. Apparently, the author is conservative and likely targeting fellow conservatives and those who oppose capital punishment. In my opinion, the author is not very credible, as he/she does not provide us with any information about him/herself. Obviously, this editorial is written from a biased perspective. It is concluded that, “If lawmakers cannot find the moral courage to abolish the death penalty, perhaps the economic case will persuade them.” Although I disagree with the author’s stand against capital punishment, he/she does do a good job of bringing this financial issue to everyone’s attention. Assuming that the “facts” presented are accurate, it does give something more to think about.