Posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Shortest Bible Verse: Jesus Wept
Life is a privilege you lose by attempting suicide no matter how slow the pace.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Must Carry/Must Cover Go Hand in Hand
There is much to discuss, debate and argue with Sunday’s passing of a Health Care Reform Bill. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. My first bite follows:
Two elements of the Health Care reform package must go hand in hand, requirement of citizens to carry coverage and requirement of providers to offer ‘affordable’ coverage regardless of pre-existing condition.
With the signing of the current Health Care Reform Bill, the US Government will require private insurance providers to accept as clients patients with existing conditions. The US Government will also now impose a ‘fine’/'tax’ (actually an important distinction) on people who do not purchase some minimum of insurance.
If the Government does not make such a requirement of citizens, they render the insurance business impotent with coverage requirements as users of these services will hold incentive to simply await expensive conditions of injury or illness before buying insurance only to drop said insurance once well.
You can’t have one without the other so I believe current strategy to regard the recent Bill as unConstitutional based on the notion that the government has never required a citizen to buy a privately supplied good or service misses a mark and serves a pervasive slippery slope. One argument commonly used to support this claim is that the government already requires one to buy a minimum of automobile liability insurance. This argument is quickly marginalized by the counter that one is not mandated to drive at all let alone on public roads.
So the distinction between auto insurance and health insurance becomes that one is being required to spend money for simply living. To make that last statement accurate one must add to it the words ‘in the USA’. We’ve already a precedent from which to draw acceptance of such a statement. We must pay taxes simply for living in the USA. No American is immune nor are any visitors.
UnConstitutional? I guess to the extent paying taxes fits the bill. But you can’t really argue against a tax for not carrying insurance without arguing against requirements of insurance companies to cover existing conditions. It would be like requiring Auto insurers to allow the purchase of comprehensive coverage of a vehicle that’s already been totaled. It would be like requiring providers to accept a new fire-insurance policy on a home already burned to the ground.
One might argue they should retain the right to choose out of the insurance scheme altogether. I agree so long as one can prove enough resource to handle a certain medical burden financially and is willing to forfeit his/her rights under Acts such as “The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” or EMTALA which take away a Dr.’s right to refuse care based on inability to pay for it. Ahhh, but now I’m nibbling on yet another piece of pachyderm.
More to follow.
Two elements of the Health Care reform package must go hand in hand, requirement of citizens to carry coverage and requirement of providers to offer ‘affordable’ coverage regardless of pre-existing condition.
With the signing of the current Health Care Reform Bill, the US Government will require private insurance providers to accept as clients patients with existing conditions. The US Government will also now impose a ‘fine’/'tax’ (actually an important distinction) on people who do not purchase some minimum of insurance.
If the Government does not make such a requirement of citizens, they render the insurance business impotent with coverage requirements as users of these services will hold incentive to simply await expensive conditions of injury or illness before buying insurance only to drop said insurance once well.
You can’t have one without the other so I believe current strategy to regard the recent Bill as unConstitutional based on the notion that the government has never required a citizen to buy a privately supplied good or service misses a mark and serves a pervasive slippery slope. One argument commonly used to support this claim is that the government already requires one to buy a minimum of automobile liability insurance. This argument is quickly marginalized by the counter that one is not mandated to drive at all let alone on public roads.
So the distinction between auto insurance and health insurance becomes that one is being required to spend money for simply living. To make that last statement accurate one must add to it the words ‘in the USA’. We’ve already a precedent from which to draw acceptance of such a statement. We must pay taxes simply for living in the USA. No American is immune nor are any visitors.
UnConstitutional? I guess to the extent paying taxes fits the bill. But you can’t really argue against a tax for not carrying insurance without arguing against requirements of insurance companies to cover existing conditions. It would be like requiring Auto insurers to allow the purchase of comprehensive coverage of a vehicle that’s already been totaled. It would be like requiring providers to accept a new fire-insurance policy on a home already burned to the ground.
One might argue they should retain the right to choose out of the insurance scheme altogether. I agree so long as one can prove enough resource to handle a certain medical burden financially and is willing to forfeit his/her rights under Acts such as “The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” or EMTALA which take away a Dr.’s right to refuse care based on inability to pay for it. Ahhh, but now I’m nibbling on yet another piece of pachyderm.
More to follow.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Marijuana: A Realistic Approach
Marijuana: From Reefer Madness to Fast Times at Ridgemont High, it is imbedded in our culture and has come to mean different things to different people. However most treatment of Marijuana, Hemp or just plain THC seems at least loosely entrenched in myth and emotion.
Probably the most notable and oft sited myth stems from the notion that Marijuana is particularly and unreasonably harmful to one's health and to society in general. By comparison to alcohol (black marketing aside) the harm Pot causes to society, the physical body or state of mind is minimal.
Reefer even holds real medicinal value. This is not a myth revealed by a grassroots movement to pervasively bring about legalization through some backdoor. Marijuana truly IS useful in treating side-effects associated with certain cancer or tumor treatments. It holds value as a pain killer. As a non-physically addictive psychotropic it can be used as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. It reduces symptoms of conditions such as Glaucoma. In fact, evidence exists that Pot smokers tend not to get cancers of ANY kind.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/
One common myth-based argument against it's legalization is the consideration of Marijuana as a 'gateway' drug that leads to other MORE harmful behaviors. While there is truth that Pot can lead to other behaviors, I postulate that it's only a 'gateway' drug BECAUSE it's illegal. Once one crosses the line into illicit drug activity, the barriers to cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin break down. If MJ were off the list of illicit drugs, the gateway effect would largely subside. The 'gateway drug' myth is hardly a legitimate argument for keeping Weed illegal.
On the other hand, advocates often perpetuate the myth that legalization of Marijuana will alleviate society of all ills associated with the substance. I think hasty legalization would bring with it a certain set of societal ills some old and some new. I think we are far from prepared for the consequences of all out legalization.
Perhaps the greatest burden to our society brought on by Marijuana stems from black market sales and all obvious associated pitfalls therein. One hurdle to overcome before legalization can realistically occur is the handling of Pot as a free-market competition and tax issue. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It would be relatively easy for a Weed farmer to grow enough Pot to supply the entire neighborhood whereas a brewer of beer would have to set up quite an operation to supply the congregation and compete with major marketers of good beer. By comparison to sharing one's latest crop of tomatoes and peppers from the garden for a pittance at the Gardner's Market, one could make a decent living growing only Weed in a small room or back yard lending allure to black market tax evasion made easier by society-wide acceptance of use.
Legit entrepreneurs would have to face regulations and liabilities similar to those faced by distillers of alcoholic beverages but bootleggers might undermine the finer points of free-market treatment for THC with little effort. If growing Weed is legalized without complicated regulation, the market remains underground and this is a bad thing.
Perhaps regulation could involve offering grow permits for a fee per plant, per year. To reduce the enticement for bootlegging, stiff penalties for growing without a permit and for black market sales are in order.
Regardless, with legalization the ATF becomes the ATMF or some such acronym inclusive of THC representation and none of it will happen until the challenges associated with sobriety measurement are met. It's difficult now to chemically detect how much time has passed since THC ingestion by an individual though technology is getting better. This has relevance to DUI enforcement and workplace management.
In conclusion, my experience has been that realism lacks from the perspectives of each side of the Marijuana legalization movement. Once the true value associated with this plant is realized and once the true pitfalls associated with a Libertarian-style free-for-all on the substance are acknowledged, Prohibition of THC and Hemp as marketable products might find its end.
Probably the most notable and oft sited myth stems from the notion that Marijuana is particularly and unreasonably harmful to one's health and to society in general. By comparison to alcohol (black marketing aside) the harm Pot causes to society, the physical body or state of mind is minimal.
Reefer even holds real medicinal value. This is not a myth revealed by a grassroots movement to pervasively bring about legalization through some backdoor. Marijuana truly IS useful in treating side-effects associated with certain cancer or tumor treatments. It holds value as a pain killer. As a non-physically addictive psychotropic it can be used as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. It reduces symptoms of conditions such as Glaucoma. In fact, evidence exists that Pot smokers tend not to get cancers of ANY kind.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/
One common myth-based argument against it's legalization is the consideration of Marijuana as a 'gateway' drug that leads to other MORE harmful behaviors. While there is truth that Pot can lead to other behaviors, I postulate that it's only a 'gateway' drug BECAUSE it's illegal. Once one crosses the line into illicit drug activity, the barriers to cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin break down. If MJ were off the list of illicit drugs, the gateway effect would largely subside. The 'gateway drug' myth is hardly a legitimate argument for keeping Weed illegal.
On the other hand, advocates often perpetuate the myth that legalization of Marijuana will alleviate society of all ills associated with the substance. I think hasty legalization would bring with it a certain set of societal ills some old and some new. I think we are far from prepared for the consequences of all out legalization.
Perhaps the greatest burden to our society brought on by Marijuana stems from black market sales and all obvious associated pitfalls therein. One hurdle to overcome before legalization can realistically occur is the handling of Pot as a free-market competition and tax issue. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It would be relatively easy for a Weed farmer to grow enough Pot to supply the entire neighborhood whereas a brewer of beer would have to set up quite an operation to supply the congregation and compete with major marketers of good beer. By comparison to sharing one's latest crop of tomatoes and peppers from the garden for a pittance at the Gardner's Market, one could make a decent living growing only Weed in a small room or back yard lending allure to black market tax evasion made easier by society-wide acceptance of use.
Legit entrepreneurs would have to face regulations and liabilities similar to those faced by distillers of alcoholic beverages but bootleggers might undermine the finer points of free-market treatment for THC with little effort. If growing Weed is legalized without complicated regulation, the market remains underground and this is a bad thing.
Perhaps regulation could involve offering grow permits for a fee per plant, per year. To reduce the enticement for bootlegging, stiff penalties for growing without a permit and for black market sales are in order.
Regardless, with legalization the ATF becomes the ATMF or some such acronym inclusive of THC representation and none of it will happen until the challenges associated with sobriety measurement are met. It's difficult now to chemically detect how much time has passed since THC ingestion by an individual though technology is getting better. This has relevance to DUI enforcement and workplace management.
In conclusion, my experience has been that realism lacks from the perspectives of each side of the Marijuana legalization movement. Once the true value associated with this plant is realized and once the true pitfalls associated with a Libertarian-style free-for-all on the substance are acknowledged, Prohibition of THC and Hemp as marketable products might find its end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)