In an article in the Washington Post, "Wellness Incentives Could Create Health-Care Loophole" there is a dire threat. Live by Our standards, or else. The health care "reform" package under consideration would allow employers to increase employee premiums by 50%. That's around $200 per month for a single person, $500 per month for a family. That is a HUGE penalty for being fat!!
Some fraction of those being penalized will drop their insurance, which may be in violation of the new law, resulting in a HUGE penalty for being fat.
Failing to be insured may also result in refusal of care, shortening the lives, productivity, comfort, and contribution to society by the despicable smokers, fatties, and poor lifestylers. "I shouldn't have to pay for porkers' health care!" people will scream. Some already do. "If you smoke, you deserve to die!" some cry. "I don't want gang members/gays/punks/alternative lifestylers/goths (or whatever group with some hypothetical health issue) taking up MY healthcare resources!"
People can come up with good reasons to hate the overweight, the smokers, and the other with health issues. Drug addicts, alcoholics, substance abusers will be given a bandaid and shown to the door at emergency rooms. There will be no compassion. It was a choice YOU made to be unhealthy! Only the wealthy will be able to get care. Poverty, likewise, is a lifestyle choice.
And then there's the issue of religious influence on health care. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, wisely or not, that the Biblical injunction against taking blood doesn't mean only drinking it, but accepting transfusions as well. This can be argued to mean they are at greater risk, require specialized (i.e., more expensive) treatment, and are more likely to die anyway, so why waste public health care resources on them? "Let 'em pray for health!" There are those who believe God can literally heal them when He chooses to. They are already under attack in the courts. I don't know who's right. Maybe they should be imprisoned for letting children die. Maybe they should be free. Maybe the state should take away their children for their protection. Maybe there should be some marriage license "do you believe in using doctors and hospitals" test to allow marriage. There's no easy answer here, other than perhaps the Reader's opinion. Are You a "Jail 'em!" or "Free 'em!" type?
This scares the crap out of me. I'm obese. And I, contrary to the supercilious opinion of 200 million non-obese people, can't stop being obese tomorrow! If I made a sincere effort with reasonable support (nutritional guidance, physical trainers, medical advice) I might be able to get off the obese list in a year. More likely two. But as the Washington Post article points out, there won't be any support. Health care will be reserved for the healthy. And as soon as an argument can be made that any particular health condition can be blamed on lifestyle, you'll be targeted too. Or perhaps just a family member, loved one, or friend.
What will you do when your mother tells you she's been denied medicare because she's "too active, and at risk for injury"? Say your goodbyes? Council her to stay home and be silent? Go through nursing home brochures for your entirely healthy mother, effectively ending her life because of a lifestyle choice? How about when you receive a "believed to be currently using tobacco products" letter, with an invitation to pee in a cup? Don't believe in "false positives"? "These tests are reliable, smoker! Get ready for a big cut in your pay!" Thinking you can sue? Yeah, see how that works for ya.
I know I'm obese. I know I need to change that, and I will, in my own time and my own way, with the best expert advice I can find, and without forcing my wife and children to make sacrifices, too. If this healthcare "reform" travesty passes, the right to make those decisions will be taken away from me, or I and my family will be penalized into submission.
It is extremely troubling when the government can dictate personal, private, and lawful behavior, and that day is coming when a bunch of misguided ivory tower politicians who won't be subjected to their own stupidity take over that ubiquitous industry, health care, and run roughshod over our rights. Think you won't be affected? If so, I Humbly think you're a fool.
My prediction is, people will be suiciding to spare their families. We'll read horror stories about the grandpa who was kicked out of the hospital after being caught smoking, and died soon after. We'll read about women who decided to abort rather than quit smoking cold turkey. The health, finances, families, and very lives of American citizens will be held hostage to the benevolent despots of the healthcare industry. And some politicians will hand them the power of life and death.
They're lining up the votes in D.C. right now.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
"Rights" and Wrongs
This is a strange one. In Maine, a woman was being arrested under an active warrant. She believed, without seeing the warrant, that it was bogus. She went in her house to, the officer on the scene believed, lock the house. She had apparently grabbed her "stun gun" electric dischage device, rated at 975kV. When the officer moved to assist her, she turned and allegedly fired on him, jolting the officer, but not disabling him. The officer took the noncompliant woman into custody.
This woman, 65-year-old New Sharon, Maine, resident, Carol Murphy, has had a history of bad relations with all levels of law enforcement, all levels of courts through State courts, even chastising a judge in court. All warrants, according to Murphy, were flawed as a result of an earlier "void" order. I Humbly assume this was in Murphy's head when she went to get her stun gun.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when the "knowledge" is regarding Law, the danger level can be off the charts. There is a legal precedent for resisting arrest when the attempted arrest is unlawful or materially flawed. With this in mind, a citizen facing an arrest warrant grabbed a weapon and (Allegedly) used it on a law enforcement officer while he was executing a warrant.
The thing is, that precedent applies firstly to "false arrest", being held without warrant or cause. In this case, there was a warrant. Murphy was told about it, and without asking to see it, (Allegedly) grabbed a weapon. Clearly she cannot argue there was no warrant, since she didn't ask to see it and was refused. The precedent also applies to warrants not sworn to with just cause, as is required of arrest warrants. And again, having not seen the warrant, she had no basis for establishing the validity of the warrant, other than the wording of the officer, and her own experience with the court which issued the warrant.
About that "void ab initio" order. It is apparently maintained by Murphy that the order obviates all previous fines, fees, penalties, and court orders resulting from the charges for which the order was handed. Therefore, I Humbly theorize, an arrest warrant for "unpaid fines" might sound flawed. However, the legal council voice in my left ear says, the officer was not actively pursuing Murphy when she (Allegedly) attacked him, and perhaps the just cause statement was demonstrably false, but in that case ALL arrest warrants made against innocent people are flawed, and arrest may be resisted with up to deadly force.
A just cause statement is an opinion sworn to that a law has been broken, and that someone is believed to have done so. Only when this opinion is known to be false by the person making the statement on the warrant, is the warrant flawed. All that would be necessary under this Humble legal theory is that the subject believe him or herself to be innocent. Not just mostly innocent, but really truly innocent. Thing is, innocent people can be wrongly convicted, sent to prison, and even executed. If we say, if you know in your heart you are guilty, you can't fight arrest, you make a presumption of guilt, AND are de facto admitting guilt by failing to resist arrest! Instead of fighting charges in court, they will be fought EVERYWHERE.
The precedent was intended to maintain the right of self defense even to those who are being wrongly arrested by corrupt law enforcement personnel, who may be acting under the unconstitutional authority of a oath breaking judge. By stretching the facts, Murphy will probably make just this argument. The officer on the scene might not have known any of this until the handcuffed, peppersprayed Carol Murphy was under lock and key.
The thing that really perturbs me is that people with less understanding of the law than I Humbly possess (which is pretty miniscule) are saying "Way to go! Too bad you didn't kill the nazi stormtrooper!" and "He deserved it, because in 2004, they killed one of her horses!"
What I Humbly fear, is that Murphy may be exonerated for retrieving a deadly weapon and using it to (Allegedly) assault a law enforcement officer executing a warrant. Instead of the "flawed warrant" test, she will create the "reasonable belief in lack of faith" standard. And that will allow hundreds of thousands of assaults upon police officers in the line of duty.
The fault is not with this woman, who might or might not be playing with a full deck, but with whoever issued that warrant, which may or may not be total garbage. If it is, the first shot has been fired on the dismantlement of law and order in this country. What cop will happily face attacks by criminals without the backup of the law? It takes a special kind of hero to go to those doors in the first place, knowing they might face a weapon. After an incident, though, they have a right to see their attackers prosecuted. The attacker can say, "I know I'm innocent, so the warrant was in bad faith, giving me the right to grab a gun and use it."
Not only cops will die. And Maine, you will be to blame.
This woman, 65-year-old New Sharon, Maine, resident, Carol Murphy, has had a history of bad relations with all levels of law enforcement, all levels of courts through State courts, even chastising a judge in court. All warrants, according to Murphy, were flawed as a result of an earlier "void" order. I Humbly assume this was in Murphy's head when she went to get her stun gun.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when the "knowledge" is regarding Law, the danger level can be off the charts. There is a legal precedent for resisting arrest when the attempted arrest is unlawful or materially flawed. With this in mind, a citizen facing an arrest warrant grabbed a weapon and (Allegedly) used it on a law enforcement officer while he was executing a warrant.
The thing is, that precedent applies firstly to "false arrest", being held without warrant or cause. In this case, there was a warrant. Murphy was told about it, and without asking to see it, (Allegedly) grabbed a weapon. Clearly she cannot argue there was no warrant, since she didn't ask to see it and was refused. The precedent also applies to warrants not sworn to with just cause, as is required of arrest warrants. And again, having not seen the warrant, she had no basis for establishing the validity of the warrant, other than the wording of the officer, and her own experience with the court which issued the warrant.
About that "void ab initio" order. It is apparently maintained by Murphy that the order obviates all previous fines, fees, penalties, and court orders resulting from the charges for which the order was handed. Therefore, I Humbly theorize, an arrest warrant for "unpaid fines" might sound flawed. However, the legal council voice in my left ear says, the officer was not actively pursuing Murphy when she (Allegedly) attacked him, and perhaps the just cause statement was demonstrably false, but in that case ALL arrest warrants made against innocent people are flawed, and arrest may be resisted with up to deadly force.
A just cause statement is an opinion sworn to that a law has been broken, and that someone is believed to have done so. Only when this opinion is known to be false by the person making the statement on the warrant, is the warrant flawed. All that would be necessary under this Humble legal theory is that the subject believe him or herself to be innocent. Not just mostly innocent, but really truly innocent. Thing is, innocent people can be wrongly convicted, sent to prison, and even executed. If we say, if you know in your heart you are guilty, you can't fight arrest, you make a presumption of guilt, AND are de facto admitting guilt by failing to resist arrest! Instead of fighting charges in court, they will be fought EVERYWHERE.
The precedent was intended to maintain the right of self defense even to those who are being wrongly arrested by corrupt law enforcement personnel, who may be acting under the unconstitutional authority of a oath breaking judge. By stretching the facts, Murphy will probably make just this argument. The officer on the scene might not have known any of this until the handcuffed, peppersprayed Carol Murphy was under lock and key.
The thing that really perturbs me is that people with less understanding of the law than I Humbly possess (which is pretty miniscule) are saying "Way to go! Too bad you didn't kill the nazi stormtrooper!" and "He deserved it, because in 2004, they killed one of her horses!"
What I Humbly fear, is that Murphy may be exonerated for retrieving a deadly weapon and using it to (Allegedly) assault a law enforcement officer executing a warrant. Instead of the "flawed warrant" test, she will create the "reasonable belief in lack of faith" standard. And that will allow hundreds of thousands of assaults upon police officers in the line of duty.
The fault is not with this woman, who might or might not be playing with a full deck, but with whoever issued that warrant, which may or may not be total garbage. If it is, the first shot has been fired on the dismantlement of law and order in this country. What cop will happily face attacks by criminals without the backup of the law? It takes a special kind of hero to go to those doors in the first place, knowing they might face a weapon. After an incident, though, they have a right to see their attackers prosecuted. The attacker can say, "I know I'm innocent, so the warrant was in bad faith, giving me the right to grab a gun and use it."
Not only cops will die. And Maine, you will be to blame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
