The Uneasy Ties of Americans and Their Government

By Calvin Woodward | February 4, 2011

  • February 4, 2011 at 10:09 am
    ComradeAnon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Calvin Woodward? Seriously? Is that the best Insurance Journal could come up with on this subject. If you read something other than the NYT, WaPo or watch Fox, you find out that Vinson’s ruling is being questined by (real) legal experts for having so many errors of fact and judgement. Here’s 100 legal scholars that say it’s constitutionality is UNambiguous: http://www.acslaw.org/files/Legal%20Scholars_Health%20Care_Constitutional.pdf Did you know that there have been two other rulings FOR Romneycare, I mean healthcare reform. Probably not as they didn’t make page one. And I guess Woodward got the memo from the RNC about calling Social Security an entitlement. Its not. Its insurance. You pay a premium for and get some type of protection in return. I’m sure readers are familiar. Ever been notified that you have jury duty? Have to file a tax return? A few things the governmmant mandates you to do.
    And the government has already told us we have to own a gun. Back in the 1792. The Second Militia Act of 1792. Passed by Congress and signed and supported by George Washington. And that was 6 years before they told people they had to pay for healthcare. In 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance. This was a Congress that included many of the drafters of the Constitution.

    And President John Adams had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind when he signed it.

    Whatever your poitical lean, don’t read anything without factchecking it.

    • February 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm
      MoltarRocks says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      RomneyCare is only for Massachusetts. Last time I checked, states could do this.. the Federal government cannot.

  • February 4, 2011 at 2:57 pm
    Sarah says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well as Ronald Regan said, “Well, there you go again”

    “In most other richer countries,(WHAT) it’s an article of faith that government will help with health care, just as it provides public education and tightly controls guns. Universal health care programs are a source of national pride despite vigorous complaints about service and cost. (ASK SOMEONE FROM ENGLAND)

    Mr. Woodward (AP Reporter) should note. At the heart of our founding fathers efforts to form a more perfect union, created something much more different from the other more “richer” LOL… nations. And this document is called the Constitution of the United States of America, it protects us as individuals and the States from an overbearing federal governments laws and taxes.

    “Back when the big health care law was little more than a dream,(nightmare) a prominent figure spoke out against the idea of forcing people to get health insurance. He said that would be like solving homelessness by passing a law making people buy a house. A step too far. Not the American way. (Obama)

    That was Barack Obama, running for presidential. Now we have a secular progressive socialist.

    STOP IT WITH THE POLITICAL SLANT MEDIA BIAS, WE NOW CAN THINK FOR OURSELVES AND DO NOT NEED THE (AP) TO TELL US HOW WE SHOULD VIEW OUR PRESIDENT, CONGRESS OR THE TOTAL TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

  • February 4, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    Buckeye says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ComradeAnon, Something you wrote raised a question in my mind. I thought Social Security was, in fact, deemed not to be insurance since there is no contractual right to the benefits. I believe this was an important distinction resulting from constitutional arguments raised back in the 1930’s.

    I also believe this was critical to the original implementation of Social Security since the federal government was forced to admit funding was accomplished via taxation. Otherwise, attempting to categorize it as a benefit resulting from the payment of premiums (i.e. insurance or annuity) would likely have resulted in it being deemed unconstitutional. I could be wrong, but wanted to at least raise the issue.

    When discussing the role of government in the lives of individual citizens, I also find it rather ironic that Presidential Candidate Obama seemed to take a much different position as compared to President Obama. I believe he has also done a 180 degree turn on raising the debt ceiling when comparing the position taken by Presidential Candidate Obama and President Obama.

    Situational conviction seems to run rampant in our political / ruling class, but I think reasonable people could agree that President Obama seems to have a special talent in this area.

    Regardless of one’s political leaning, I think we need to significantly raise the bar on our expectation for those seeking public office relative to qualities such as conviction, honor and integrity. Either one possesses these qualities or one does not…..period.

    Tell us what you stand for and then proudly stand for it ALL THE TIME. No shucking and jiving. No hemming and hawing. No double talk, Washington-speak or spin. Is it too much to simply expect conviction and the courage of said conviction? If that is naive and old fashioned, then consider me guilty as charged.

    Regardless of the topic at hand (i.e. domestic policy, foreign policy, national defense, states’ rights, etc.), we should never be comfortable with political leaders who lack these qualities. I think our current state of affairs (which goes way beyond Obama, by the way, and includes the “darlings” of the Republican Party) perfectly illustrates the outcome of settling for men and women lacking in redeeming personal qualities.

  • February 4, 2011 at 6:13 pm
    mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If you ask most people, they think the government is too big, it spends to much, and we need to cut down the size of it..

  • February 4, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    Prytania says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The only thing electing Obama should have shown is that people are sick and tired of the same boring fare that is served every election. Obama provided something different, a promise of change, and I believe many Americans didn’t even bother to look as deeply into what policies they were voting for, but instead chose to vote for what they thought would be the beginning of a new era.

  • February 7, 2011 at 9:49 am
    Sarah says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    READER POLL to the side of this article. Another IJ attempt to make you draw a conclusion that is false.

    The states require employers to pay for Workers Compensation Insurance in exchange for employer immunity from law suits from injured workers. Therefore it is also a benefit to each and every employer to purchase Workers Compensation.

    An employer is not a person, it is just a legal entity which can be a corporation, limited leagal company,or an individual acting in the same capacity and does not have the same legal standing as an individual with regards to constitutional rights. Making someone purchase a product just for living in our country is unconstitutional. No doubt about it!

    Thats if the political body we call the Supreme Court rules by reading the constitution with a websters dictionary instead of Saul Alinski’s rules for radicals.

    • February 7, 2011 at 10:12 am
      Watcher says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Sarah

      Nice description of an employer, which “could be a corporation, limited legal company or an individual…and does not have the same legal standing as an individual with regards to constitutional rights.” Guess the politicized Supremes didn’t buy into that argument (which was made by the liberals, by the way) when they allowed corporations to contribute (anonymously) to our political caqmpaigns.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*