Comment on a colleague's work #2

I could not agree more with you Abigail, it is absolutely absurd mandating this type of intrusive request. If a company has a clear reasoning not to cover this type of health coverage then they shouldn’t have to. This is very similar to revision of the pledge of allegiance. So because this affected some of the public and their religious beliefs of praying to another GOD it was revised. Therefore, I believe the same thing such happen here; the law needs to be revised immediately. Every company has the right to offer or opt out of offering contraceptive drugs as part of their health care coverage.

Also issuing a fine to any company that refuses is insane, I don't see the logic behind this except the fact that the government just wants to make A LOT of money off of people's personal beliefs. But I can almost bet money that Hobby Lobby will get shut down just the ETWN Global Catholic Television Network.

Warrantless Blood Draws????!!!!!

Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Draw Concern from Supreme Court, this article was written by Mark Sherman in the Huffing Post and it left me speechless. This article describes a man named Tyler McNeely who was stopped for erratic driving in a small town located in Missouri. The state trooper then performed several field sobriety test in which McNeely failed, and he proceed to refuse a breathalyzer test to measure his alcohol consumption. After refusing the breathalyzer test the state trooper determined he should have his blood drawn since he clearly had enough evidence for a warrant but the arresting officer failed to obtain one. The officer drove the handcuffed suspect to a hospital where he got his blood drawn from a technician.

Is the 4^th amendment being ignored in America now? Last time I checked the Constitution's prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures of person and their home. Not to mention the behavior of police officers feeling that they have the power to exact a person’s blood without a warrant is very scary. Police do not have that right unless the delay of the blood drawn could threaten a life or could possibly affect potential evidence. But the office already had enough evidence to charge McNeely with a DUI, he failed all of the field sobriety tests, slurred his words and was very unsteady on his feet. So the fact the state trooper took went above the law to get this man’s blood is absurd.

Thankfully this month, the Supreme Court agreed stating “that by not getting consent or obtaining a warrant from a judge, the blood test constituted an illegal search.” "...The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court.

All in all McNeely may have had a fantastic reason to refuse the breathalyzer and the blood draw. McNeely had two drunk driving convictions on his record already and would be facing a felony charge with a prison term of four years with the two previous convictions.

Commentary #1

I can definitely agree with this blog #4, I am still in shock that the seven year was suspended. What good does making him miss school, teach him about inappropriate behavior? Now I do think he should be talk to about the situation but suspension is going too far. And no the young boy didn’t hurt anyone with his “inappropriate gesture.” If students are well informed about gun safety and the correct procedures about what to look for in an actual gun threat then this situation would have never resulted in suspension.

As far as the high school student having to turn his shirt inside out is absolutely ridiculous. Until schools start enforcing a real “dress code” meaning no cut-off shorts and baggy pants then I don’t want to hear about shirts supports Marine Corps. Furthermore I feel like if it’s that big of an issue than maybe mandatory uniforms should be implemented throughout the United States.

Health Care Reform Helping or Hurting?

Health care, it’s a necessity that every American should have access to, at an affordable cost no matter what their status is but only IF they choose to. However, now that “ObamaCare” is kicking into high gear which officially starts at the beginning of 2014, will unfortunately increases costs for younger and healthier Americans. Not only is it going to cost more for that population of people but if they do not acquire some type of health insurance they will get a penalty against them for noncompliance.

 
This action comes to no surprise as many insurance companies deny patients that need certain necessary procedures or charge them an outrage prices. Insurance companies will now make their premiums higher due to this new law that everyone must have some type of health coverage. So is the government and the insurance companies working together to rise costs of health insurance and then charge people if they do not have the insurance?

 Yes, because if they both had the best interest of Americans in mind they could make more options for low cost premiums or create more health care companies that could accommodate younger and healthier Americans basic health coverage. Not everyone can afford health care premiums, so many low income individuals and families will be forced to get Medicaid. This law is forcing Americans to acquire health insurance without any choices. The government is about to officially control all health care situations, insurance companies, and our health decisions. How much control is enough for the government to have on our health decisions?

Having the burden placed on some many Americans is ridiculous, both the government and health insurance companies are making money from this “ObamaCare.” And Americans are the ones who have to pay the price.

 
After reading The Truth About Obamacare From Someone Who Actually Read It, Health care Reform is Here to Stay and several other news articles relating to ObamaCare I have concluded that there is something more to this new law that is going to be imposed on the United States. Americans should not be forced to maintain health insurance while all the health care companies are raising their prices.

 

 

Youngsters and Incarceration

The author's intended audience for the editorial Better Care for Young Offenders is directly aimed towards the states. The author even stating at the end of the editorial saying, "Mr. Listenbee should encourage the states to lock up fewer young people." I believe the author's credibility was to be just that, credible. He brought up some very interesting facts up about the punishment of juveniles and the effects of the harsh punishment. He argues that if state would change the policies of juvenile punishment to investing more in community rehabilitation instead of incarceration; then the juveniles would have better success in life in the long run. The author uses a few percent values and numbers value for his evidence, to support his claim that as more states change their policies the rate of incarcerated juveniles is becoming reduced. There is great logic in this editorial, I mean why would states incarcerate the youth? I completely agree with this author, I to understand there will be some juveniles that may need to be behind bars like ones that commit murder or rape. But I definitely think there should be an alternative method of punishment before incarcerating a juvenile. Becoming involved with the community and making positive changes with family like through counseling or self-improvement classes could benefit the youth offenders greatly.

 

 

Gun Control Laws

Last week I came across this article called Gun Control Laws-10 Better Ways the Government can Reduce Violence, this caught my eye because of all the talk swirling around the nation about gun control and what can be done about it. Everyone has their own opinions about the laws surrounding the problem but this specific article made more sense to me than anything else I’ve heard about actually “solving” the problem. The author of the article John Ashman had a lot of validate points in his article and backed them up with a few facts surrounding gun ownership and violence. He stated something that really hit home for me by stating that there are things that can be done right now to reduce violence instead of debating about who is right or wrong about the guns laws. Ashman says, that while he is aware that guns can be dangerous, let’s try taking a different approach and have more consequences for repeat offenders and have some preventive measures in place. He ends by saying if the government is going to take our Second Amendment away because it will save lives then they need to be “able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that it simply isn't necessary.”

Stage One Assignment