Questions
1. Mr. Marshall’s argument to the representatives of the state legislature would be that the osteoporosis medication had been working well and any person taking the medication has a high chance of never getting osteoporosis so long as the said individual continues to take the medication for the rest of their life. By making people take the osteoporosis medication, the public will have a higher life expectancy rate and will have less medical visits regarding osteoporosis. The benefits of taking the osteoporosis medication outweighs the risk of simply taking calcium supplements, as taking only calcium supplements is better than not intaking any calcium at all, but does not guarantee that the individual will not take osteoporosis the
…show more content…
way the new drug can. 2.
People should not be required to take care of their health, as in doing so, many companies would lose money and could potentially go out of business by forcing people to look after themselves more. Although requiring a person to take medication is ideal for the greater good of the said person, by forcing/requiring someone to do something they may not want to do, the enforcer is infringing on the person’s right of choosing and deciding their own fate. Not everyone wants to live a long life; it is and should always be up to the individual as to whether or not the person wants to live a longer life without a chance of getting a disease by taking medication.
3. The government’s part in our health care decisions is finding an affordable way for people of all races, classes, genders, etc., to be able to pay for this type of expensive medication. If the medicine is going to be require for all individuals starting at puberty, an insurance policy must be put in place, as well as a plan to compensate patients being forced/required to take the medication; however, requiring people to take medication and then forcing the said people to pay for the expensive medication will only bring about resistance and anger toward the medical
industry. 4. Insurance companies would not be pleased with the law by itself as the law might also require insurance companies to cover some, if not all, of the cost of the expensive medication. This would mean that the insurance company would lose money or might have to deal with more troublesome requests because of the requirements forcing a person to take the medication. 5. The courts might fine a person for breaking the law, or might even arrest the person for doing so; they might let the person in prison/jail be disclosed to someone who would be required to make sure that the law-breaker starts taking the medication. If the law-breaker decides not to do so, the person would either be sent back to prison/jail, or would be fined for once again breaking the law.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Overdosed America bestows a powerful allegation of the evidence that guides medical practice. It may seem absurd that Abramson is challenging greatly accepted academic research, but Abramson’s detailed analysis of the existing data is hard to overlook. The earnestness with which Abramson examines clinical issues merits a great dispute over those issues found in the leading medical journals. In order to understand the logic of many of Abramsons arguments, it is worthy to analyze his argument on osteoporosis.
Constitutional Question: Does the State of Maryland have the power, under Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18, to impose taxes on an institution created by Congress? Does Congress have the power under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to establish a bank?
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
One of the most controversial topics in the United States in recent years has been the route which should be undertaken in overhauling the healthcare system for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It is important to note that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to make healthcare affordable; it provides low-cost, government-subsidized insurance options through the State Health Insurance Marketplace (Amadeo 1). Our current president, Barack Obama, made it one of his goals to bring healthcare to all Americans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This plan, which has been termed “Obamacare”, has come under scrutiny from many Americans, but has also received a large amount of support in turn for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include a decrease in insurance discrimination on the basis of health or gender and affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of uninsured. The opposition to this act has cited increased costs and debt accumulation, a reduction in employer healthcare coverage options, as well as a penalization of those already using private healthcare insurance.
OKKAnother friend of Donald Marshall Denied being at the park during the stabbing then later gave a statement saying he was there, later when Pratico was re-interviewed he gave a statement saying he saw the stabbing. Both Chant and Pratico’s statements were contradictory but apparently there was no other evidence to base a charge on. The royal commission received evidence that ten days after Marshalls conviction, Jimmy MacNeil came forward to tell police that he saw Ebsary stab Seale but the officer in charge of the investigation disarranged it and the inspector did not properly interview people and assess the newly found evidence. In addition, Roy Ebsary’s daughter confided to a friend that she saw her father washing what appeared to be blood from a knife on the night of the murder, although, when she told the police, the police
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
Our healthcare system has developed into a burden for most people and has terrible consequences for others. It consists of everyone paying for healthcare as a whole, instead of people paying for themselves. This system of healthcare has burdened the people who take care of themselves and have money, but extends the life of people who do not take care of themselves and live in poverty. This is not pleasant for the one’s who decided to go to school and make well over minimum wage. In turn, they are the individuals who end up paying for the people who decided to make bad decisions in their life that put them in the minimum wage position. Clearly, laws regulate the insurance companies but these regulations do not make any sense to many. Balko explains that, “More and m...
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
The patient has to be completely free to make this decision, with absolutely no power whatsoeverin the insurance company's hand to force it. On the other hand, giving the opportunity to the patient to consider the expenses against the advantages and them make this decision about their own health care would be morally incorrect.. Indeed, only the patient can justify the morality in the situation which makes this hard decision for himself or herself, instead of some third party government or insurance company bureaucracy. Also, basic economic logic tells people that somebody should be making this decision.
...ing in the U.S. The Affordable Care Act expands the affordability, quality, and availability of private and public health insurance through consumer protections, regulations, subsidies, taxes, insurance exchanges, and other reforms. I believe mandatory health coverage is a step in the right direction towards a future with universal health care. Although Obamacare may help americans to better afford quality health insurance, it is not a national healthcare program provided to the U.S citizens free of cost. The fact that citizens will be forced to purchase ObamaCare plans or be fined or penalized on their taxes for not doing so, further suggests that healthcare today is a priviledge not a right.
The United States passed bill that health insurance should be mandatory in the year 2014. Under the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, each person is required to have at least a minimum level of health insurance failure to, the individual will face a penalty. The mandatory health insurance issue has faced reactions from both sides with some people supporting while others opposing. It is mandatory for every individual to purchase a health insurance depending on their earnings. The health care insurance is mandatory for all US citizens, and all legal residents in America. It is considered as an individual responsibility requirement, and those without this insurance are subject to a tax penalty of $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,250) per family. However, there are exemptions for financial hardships, incarcerated persons, religious objections, and undocumented immigrants. Mandatory health insurance is important, and should be applied in all states because, everyone gets ill and at one time, they have to visit a health care facility for medical services. In addition, it protects the health future of families, and protects people from unexpected high medical costs because they are covered.