Friday, May 24, 2013
Last week, we witnessed a change in our relationship with our government.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ role in upholding the Affordable Care Act draws criticism from a local man who shares his name.
The Associated Press
First, I will explain that I am a Republican and as such I believe that the Constitution is the law of the land. I also believe every law that is passed has to fit into the parameters of the Constitution. I believe that we are a government of laws, not of men. In a constitutional republic, we are citizens and are equal under the law.
The change of which I speak concerns our citizenship. When a leader can rule through fiat in lieu of having to work through the elected representatives of the people, when a law is passed using bribery and other chicanery, then we are no longer citizens, we are now subjects.
England, the country from which we separated, has no Bill of Rights in its constitution. British people are subjects, not citizens. They are subject to the will of the crown and Parliament. Their rights are those which seem right for the time. When you are a subject, the law can change and isn't written in stone as our Constitution is.
After last week's ruling by the Supreme Court, our Constitution has been shelved and ignored. As an aside, I can only wish that the chief justice had a different name.
I will end this by quoting P.J. O'Rourke, who said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is 'free.' "
John M. Roberts
I am puzzled by some people's criticism of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that we all purchase health insurance. They claim this mandate infringes on their right not to buy insurance (the so-called "broccoli argument"). Furthermore they claim the mandate pre-empts the ethos of personal responsibility touted by conservatives.
So why should I, the insurance payer, absorb the cost of those not covered by insurance? As it is right now, some of us pay higher premiums to help cover the costs incurred by the uninsured. Their "right" not to buy insurance ends up making my "personal responsibility" more expensive. Where's the freedom in that?
In my humble opinion, the Affordable Care Act of President Obama and upheld by the Supreme Court on June 28 is a huge, exclusive, economic gain for the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry and the federal government and not for the real health or care of any American.
Why? Because real affordable health is really already free. Real health comes from our everyday decisions, our everyday choices, of what we put in our mouth. Our bodies can heal themselves when given the right food to eat and cannot heal from some medical allopathic treatment forced upon us to buy into. The industry benefits with expensive chemotherapy, radiation, pain killing drugs and new weight loss pills. In fact, more people actually die from the treatment than the disease itself.
Real health is in our kitchens, the place where we select, cook and eat natural food grown here in good-quality Maine soil for the continuation of humanity.
The Supreme Court upholding President Obama's Affordable Care Act shows the mental illness of our leaders and of our courts because they think that treating and suppressing our cancers, heart diseases and obesity can be solved with forcing health care on all of us. It cannot. What they would be better off doing is educating the public on eating well and exercising!
Calling immigrants 'illegal' disrespects their humanity
I greatly appreciate your paper's coverage of immigration reform throughout our state and country. I do, however, take issue with the labels and language used to portray those seeking immigration status in our country, especially with the term "illegal."
(Continued on page 2)