Health Care Op Ed…

Here is my attempt at promoting the position of “the other side.”

Conservatives argue against just about any version of health care legislation proposed by the President or Congress. It is true that many millions of Americans have little or no health coverage – Democrats want to do something about it.

Many in our capitalist society are not “socially responsible.” Many thousands of companies hire “contract” employees as a way around providing a health care benefit to their workers. Or they cut costs by hiring part times help – sometimes up to 39.9999 hours per week to avoid paying health insurance costs. And what about the unemployed, underemployed and those between jobs? Most of these millions are without any form of health coverage.

Conservatives argue that the government and special interests such as unions are simply legislating a power grab. They call it a “control issue.”

Proponents of a health care overhaul argue that providing some form of universal coverage is the moral and right thing to do. That is hard to argue against. The current system favors those among us who are fortunate enough to work for companies that offer and supplement the cost of good coverage. The “haves” have it – the “have nots” don’t.

Practicing Christians and others who strive to act civilly and morally would have to conclude that the current system is selfish. If we are to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and take care of widows and orphans, why are we not also called to care for the sick and infirm? The churches aren't stepping up. Other non-profit organizations are not equipped and able to assist the millions who can’t afford health insurance. This being the case, what is so wrong with the federal government filling this gaping void through creation of a mechanism to fill the health insurance black hole wherein millions of Americans are lost?

From a moral perspective: Proponents – 1 Opponents – 0

OP-OP ED

Not willing to let a good argument lie peaceably, I am compelled by some inner wonkiness to present a counter argument. A good op-ed deserves a good op-op ed.

The moral argument is a good and valid one. But let’s peel back the morality onion one more layer, because there are other aspects of morality that are being ignored.

We’ll look at this from two perspectives:

1. The role of government, and
2. The responsibility of individuals, including employers, employees, and others

First, the role of government. Since when has health care in this country become the responsibility of our government? Once they are responsible for our health care, how far will it go? Will government provide everything the patient needs? Will they mandate what treatments can and cannot be provided? Will they reduce the quality of coverage many now pay for and enjoy?

If the resources of government were unlimited; if the efficiency of government was award winning; if the ethics of government were above reproach; then there would be little to argue about. Health care is one of those services where the cost can be infinite – a bottomless pit. We never cease hearing the plea “what is the value of one human life?” There has to be rationing. Should the government be doing the rationing?

Fact check:

• The resources of the government are limited.
• The efficiency of government is not award-winning.
• The ethics of government are not above reproach.

The government as middleman and arbiter of who gets coverage, what kind, how much, how often, when and at what cost does not sound like the way to go. The governments role should be limited to three things:

1. Promoting efficiency - enacting tort reform to eliminate costly lawsuits and reduce medical malpractice insurance costs.
2. Promoting competition – open up competition across state borders for example
3. Prohibiting coverage discrimination – eliminate “preexisting condition clauses” while allowing premiums to be higher for those who have avoided paying for coverage during their healthy years.

These are legitimate functions of government. They are things they can do reasonable well because they involve minimal bureaucracy and taxpayer funding.

Second, the role of the individual. What should be the responsibility of the individual for his/her own health care? Should they rely on government? Should they rely on their employer if they have one? Should they rely on their insurance company for 100% of their health care needs?

Sometimes there is no employer or insurance company. Should he rely on his own resources or just leave things to chance? What if the individual simply chooses to be irresponsible by being indifferent or remain in ignorance? Is it the government’s job to make him responsible?

We are responsible for feeding and clothing ourselves. The great majority do a decent job. Able bodied people are responsible for productive work and earning a living. Why shouldn’t able bodied people be responsible for providing for their health care needs? Is it the government’s job to bail out people for irresponsible health care decisions the same way it bails out banks from irresponsible financial decisions?

The responsible individual will do whatever it takes to provide for her health care – self insure if she has the money; get a job with an employer that has a good plan; or sacrifice and prioritize to pay for her own coverage. Pop culture “necessities” drain away the personal resources that should go toward our personally responsible health care. Personal priorities are often upside down. Ahhh, it’s so much easier to let the government do it.

“Oh, the cost , the cost. It is too great,” they cry. That is because most people, especially the ones who can’t afford it, expect health insurance to cover everything – with $15, $5, and zero dollar co-pays and low out of pocket limits. Insurance is designed for catastrophic events, not every little cold and sniffle. Many ignore the current option for major medical coverage. Major medical is quite reasonable – a fraction of the comprehensive coverage most seem to expect. A $1,000 a month plan can be reduced down to $100 a month with many major medical plans. This greatly reduces the numbers of those who claim they can’t afford it. Prioritize better. But at the same time, don’t penalize those who CAN afford more comprehensive plans.

Here is the ultimate moral question:

Who should be responsible for your health care decisions and priorities? You or someone else?

Our Problems: More "Us" than Obama and friends

Rick Newman has an excellent article documenting many themes I have presented in Muccings over the years.

• We (our younger people especially) don’t want to work – we think we are too golden for that
• A larger proportion of us than in the past don’t want to sacrifice
• Too many of us are uninformed – and informed only by our uninformed pop cultural icons
• Too many of us feel “entitled”; entitled to the “best” and entitled on someone else’s dime

Read the excellent article below and see if you agree.

4 problems that could sink America

American ingenuity has solved daunting problems before and could again. But it would be a mistake to assume that American prosperity is on a preordained upward course.

[Related content: financial crisis, Barack Obama, recession, health care, China]

By Rick Newman, U.S. News & World Report

If we're lucky, the recession is winding down, and life will start to feel a bit more comfortable before long. But that doesn't mean things will go back to the way they used to be.

The global recession that began in America's housing market has shaken the world's economic order and possibly knocked the United States down a notch or two. The spendthrift American consumer is out of money. American wages are flat. Despite some hopeful signs, the U.S. economy could muddle along for years.

Meanwhile, actions in China -- rather than in the United States -- may have been the trigger for a global economic recovery. Many other nations will grow faster than the United States over the next few years and command an increasing share of the world's resources.

"The message to Americans," says Mauro Guillen, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, "is you need to redouble your efforts to be more competitive."

American innovation has solved daunting problems before and could again. But it would be a mistake to assume that American prosperity will continue on some preordained upward course. Nations rise and fall, often realizing what happened only in retrospect.

Here are four problems that are undermining our future prosperity:

We don't like to work

Sure, now that jobs are scarce, everybody's willing to put in a few extra hours to stay ahead of the ax. But look around: We still expect easy money, hope to retire early and embrace the overly simplistic messages of bestsellers like "The One Minute Millionaire" and "The 4-Hour Work Week."

Unfortunately, the rest of the world isn't sending as much money our way as it used to, which makes it harder to do less with more.

Kids in Asia spend the summer studying math and science while American mall rats are texting each other about Britney and Miley.

White-collar jobs are now migrating overseas just like blue-collar ones. Kids in Asia spend the summer studying math and science while American mall rats are texting each other about Britney and Miley.

"We need a different mind-set," says Guillen. "People need to invest more in their own future. Instead of buying stuff at the mall, spend the money on evening classes. Learn a language or skills you don't have."

I recently interviewed entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk, who transformed his father's neighborhood liquor store into a $60 million business anchored by the Web site winelibrarytv.com. An overnight success? Hardly. Vaynerchuk has big plans, and he works at least 16 hours a day to achieve them. "If you want to work eight hours a day," he says, "you're going to get eight-hour-a-day results. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't want to hear you bitch about money if you're only willing to work eight hours a day."

Vaynerchuk is only 33, but he has something in common with John Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard mutual fund company, who's 80 years old. I talked to Bogle recently about how Americans need to change their approach to work and money. He told me this: "We need more caution, more savings and we may have to work harder. Maybe we need more people who like to work and don't count down every day till retirement."

Nobody wants to sacrifice

Why should we? The government is standing by with stimulus money, banker bailouts, homeowner aid, cash for clunkers, expanded health care and maybe more stimulus money. And most Americans will never have to pay an extra dime for any of this. Somehow, $9 trillion worth of government debt will just become somebody else's problem.

When he was campaigning, candidate Barack Obama dabbled with the "personal responsibility" theme, and in his acceptance speech in November he called for a "new spirit of sacrifice." But now that he's in office, there's less interest in such quaint ideas.

During Obama's prime-time news conference about health care reform in July, a reporter asked the president if ordinary Americans would have to give up anything in exchange for better, more widely available care. Obama's answer: "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier." Hooray! Something for nothing! He may as well have said, "Here's a magic pill that will make all your problems go away."

Obama's plan is to get a tiny portion of the American public -- the wealthy -- to pay higher taxes for the benefit of the majority. Hey, while we're at it, let's see if we can convince 1% of the population to bear the entire responsibility for fighting two open-ended wars that are supposedly in the interest of every American. It would just be too uncomfortable to tell the middle class that if they want something, they need to earn it themselves.

We're uninformed

The health care smackdown -- sorry, "debate" -- is Exhibits A, B and C. The soaring cost of health care is a problem that affects most Americans. It's shrinking paychecks, squeezing small businesses, bankrupting families and swelling the national debt.

Yet outraged Americans seem most concerned about fictions like death panels and government-enforced euthanasia, while clinging to the myth that our current system of selective availability and perverse incentives somehow represents capitalist ideals.

But let's take a break from that burdensome issue to examine the likelihood that President Obama was born in a foreign country and hoodwinked America into believing he was eligible to run for president.

People who lack the sense to question Big Lies always end up in deep trouble. Being well informed takes work, even with the Internet. In a democracy, that's simply a civic burden. If we're too foolish or lazy to educate ourselves on health care, global warming, financial reform and other complicated issues, then we're signing ourselves over to special interests who see nothing wrong with plundering our national -- and personal -- wealth.

The iCulture

We may be chastened by the recession, but Americans still believe they deserve the best of everything -- the best job, the best health care, the best education for our kids. And we want it at a discount -- or better yet, free -- which brings us back to the usual disconnect between what we want and what we're willing to pay for.

Rationing is a dirty word, so we can't have a system that officially rations something as vital as health care or education. Instead, we have unacknowledged, de facto rationing that directs the most resources to those with the best connections, the most money or the savvy to game the system.

What keeps the rest of us content is the illusion that we, too, will eventually be able to game the system -- as long as the government doesn't interfere.

Solutions that serve some public good -- like Social Security and bank deposit insurance in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s -- usually require everybody to give something to get something. If it works, the overall benefits outweigh the costs.

Good programs leave individuals the option to pay more if they want more. Bad programs promise more than they can deliver. But often we don't know that until it's too late.

___________________

Update: Just a day after posting this, the veracity of this article was confirmed in a small way via a brief conversation in a restaurant with a recently retired couple and their 30-something daughter. During the course of conversation about current events, the trio showed vague understanding and no insight, and the daughter was entirely clueless as so many of us remain.

Are We to Believe God?

A friend of mine was angered and upset by an e-mail she deemed "hate mail" because it cited Biblical prophecy that the writer applied to New Orleans.

She chastened the writer as follows:

Katrina did not cause destruction to the Gulf coast because the people are ungodly. Katrina was a force of nature that could have hit anywhere; it could have just as easily hit [our community]. Events like Katrina, 911, Tsunami's, etc. are the fault of no one. Rather, they are "of the world" because of original sin. Lots of bad things happen to good people who don't deserve it. Good, caring and loving people can get cancer and suffer so much. To become judgmental and point fingers may be a knee-jerk response coming from fear. It may also be a response taken by those who need to feel superior spiritually and in other ways to their brothers. Hate is not the solution here.

Here is an excerpt of the comments that angered my friend:

Was hurricane Katrina an act of nature, or an act of an angry God? There's no way to prove either way. One can, however, state that New Orleans had turned its back on God, and was the most crime ridden and sin ridden city in the U.S. . Witchcraft, Black Magic, and everything you can imagine was taking place there. What city will be next? Only God knows the time and place.
_____________

The question was asked: "Was hurricane Katrina an act of nature, or an act of an angry God?" Is asking this question "hate?" I don't think so. Is quoting Old Testament prophecy and trying to understand how it might be applied to our time "hate?" Diligent preachers try to make the connection all the time. Is it true that many in New Orleans who promote or participate in corruption and the sleaze that made that City famous have "turned their back on God?" I think so. Call me judgemental - or call me observant and discerning. Certainly God doesn't want us to lose our discernment, does He?

There are several points that I believe my friend is missing:

God is a God of mercy and a God of justice. Most Christians understand that Jesus made a way for us to receive God's mercy and eternal life. But the bad behavior of so-called "Christians" as well as pagans, Muslims, Jews, aetheists, and secularists will not "save" them despite what they might say with their voices. One of the biggest lies we are told is the "faith alone" lie, that is, declare your trust in Jesus Christ and go on sinning; continue asking for forgiveness and keep on showing the same disregard for the commandments of God. Continue disliking your neighbor, indulge yourself, and think you will be blessed by God.

Here is my take on Katrina and New Orleans:

Some folks endorse the "supernatural punishment for sin/intervention of God" interpretation of Scripture and declare that Katrina was God's punishment to a wicked people. I cannot go that far. They base their interpretation on the Sodom and Gomorrah Old Testament story (for those of us who believe it really happened - I have no reason to believe it didn't). Preachers and ministers all over our nation preach that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was God's punshment for the evil of those people. I have recently come to supplement my understanding of the cause of the demise of those cities in two ways.

One: There have always been natural disasters - earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, pestilence, etc., just as my friend explained. People throughout history have reacted to and prepared for those disasters in various ways. Those who become self-absorbed in their sins will not be as prepared or care about the coming destruction as those who are diligent and responsible. Picture the drunken "hurricane party" that you often hear about. Are those people prepared? Do they care? There will be many more casualties among those who don't care or who are ill prepared than those who are prepared. Likewise, the governments that tend to be less responsible or more corrupt will be less effective in good disaster preparedness. The government of the City of New Orleans bore this out. In this county, the government is the people. Katrina demonstrated that the "relatively corrupt" government of New Orleans failed its people in many ways, not just during Katrina, but decades before as well.

Two: The natural disasters that God allows to take place impact the righteous and unrighteous alike. All have an equal chance to exhibit their righteousness during such times. Some choose to plunder and loot. Others choose to rescue and repair. Job of the Old Testament is an example of this universal truth of God's workings. Job was tested as severely as anyone on earth. He could have blasphemed God, or he could have remained faithful. He chose the latter. He remained faithful. He passed the test. He grew in strength and faith.

These two points being made, it remains my understanding, based on many passages of Scripture, that God judges, both here on earth and in the life to come. I agree it is not for us to judge. But those who think that God does not NOT judge blaspheme God. They are simply in error. Those who deny that God judges through natural events deny the power and discretion of God. Perhaps more accurate: What God allows He allows so that we may judge ourselves by our actions. We may respond with prudence and faith and love, or we may respond with imprudence, doubt, and hate. It is these actions that will be ultimately judged by God.

One final point of doctrine: Original sin. My friend declares natural disasters exist because of "original sin." I do not believe this to be true. We are responsible for our own sin, not the sin of others several thousand years ago. It is so convenient to blame another person - even more convenient to blame another person who lived so long ago! A lot more of God's children today need to claim responsibility for their own actions. Doing so, we are likely to be a lot more diligent and successful in anticipating, sensing, and responsibly preparing for natural calmity.

I have a bad feeling that New Orleans still doesn't get it. The prevailing chatter on New Orleans talk radio, one week after the storm, is their committment to their next Mardi Gras in February. Wouldn't it be more pleasing to God (not to mention the lives of people whose government they too often depend on for their very lives) to get their flood control system in order - to discuss rebuilding their City to a less vulnerable status? The beat goes on.