Archive for the ‘Issues’ Category

« Older Entries

Why the Episcopal Church obsession over property?

Friday, March 19th, 2010

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

  1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
  2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
  3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been there many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those nasty traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait they do because the rector’s wife was associate pastor so I guess they do believe in women priests. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in ministry and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in nearby East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

Posted in Anglicanism, Ecclesiology, Law and Justice, Logic and Reason, News, Same-sex | 1 Comment »

What's so bad about national health care anyway?

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

People are willing to pay more for good care.

Talking with a friend from South Korea during our monthly fellowship meal yesterday. Cannot remember how we got onto the subject. In a nutshell he wondered why so many Americans are upset about the health care reforms that President Obama wants the Congress to pass. After all many nations have national health care in the sense that health care is provided by the government. Rich or poor – you receive the care that you need. It either is free or you pay a nominal fee.

(This friend from South Korea his boss is the head of the local Tea Party. Who used to be one of our active ministry volunteers and is a great guy.)

During an English Conversation lesson about going to the dentist one friend from Japan explained how in Japan you pay $10 to see the dentist. Typically you pay 10% of whatever the cost is. That sounds fair and reasonable to me. I especially appreciate a system in which dental care is not separate from other health care as it is in the United States.

My friends from South Korea and Japan say that people in those nations are generally pretty happy with the care they receive.

I have been greatly concerned about the health care reforms being pushed through(?) Congress. Will it mean what we spend each year goes up? Will it become more difficult to get an appointment with our doctor? Will it reduce the level and quality of care we receive? Because let me tell you right now our family is extremely happy with our doctors and very happy with the care we receive.

This is not to say there have been no problems. Speaking of the government limiting your choices – our private insurance has been limiting our choices. During the last few years we have been told that we can longer go to that excellent hospital we are only fully covered if we go to this hospital. Two of my doctors became so dissatisfied with our private insurance that they pulled out of the network. Because it is difficult to find someone else in those fields I still see them but must pay cash for each visit. So much for having private insurance.

I like the idea of every American receives the care they need. And I am not as repelled by the idea of a “single payer” system as most conservatives are. Talking with congregants from other nations one wonders “What’s so bad about national health care anyway?”

Do not misunderstand me. That does not mean the health care reform(s?) being proposed by President Obama and considered by the Congress are not problematic. There is little question in my mind that they will become another hugely expensive entitlement program. That they will further damage an already struggling economy. That proponents of these reforms have resorted to extensive dishonesty and demogoguery. And because we live in a finite universe there will be times the government will say “no you cannot receive that treatment or procedure because it is too expensive”.

But what exactly is so bad about national health care anyway?

Posted in Healthcare, Politics | 2 Comments »

Senator Alexander should have quoted the president

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Driving home yesterday listening to National Public Radio “All Things Considered”. Michele Norris interviewing Senator Lamar Alexander concerning the recent push to pass health-care reform in the Senate. She pressed him on the reconciliation issue. Basically “gosh you Republicans did it in the past and are against it now”. Senator Alexander attempted to explain the difference between reconciliation on tax or budget issues versus reconciliation on major policy changes. Ms Norris replied “I guess I still don’t see the difference”. Oh.

Ironically President Obama could have explained it better.

Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.

Ding ding ding. That was then Senator Obama in 2005. Ann Althouse assembles similar examples from 2004 2006 and 2007.

Senator Alexander should have just quoted the president. Wonder if Ms Norris would have understood it then.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

Posted in Healthcare, Media, News, Politics | No Comments »

Health Care Summit – finally an open debate

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Remember when many conservatives said that Republicans should stay away from the Health Care Summit called for by President Obama? Because it would be a sham? Because the president was not really interested in open debate?

Oh. My.

Jonah Goldberg was right when he said sham or no sham the Republicans should go. They did. The first day alone has been interesting.

The Republicans were given an opportunity to make their points without being filtered or misrepresented by the mainstream media. And boy did they use it.

I think in some ways this has hurt President Obama. He does not respond well when people disagree with him or challenge him. And he and the Democrats did not have good responses to some of the Republican arguments. They did not even try to respond to most of them.

But I also think it may help him. He has finally allowed an open debate. He sat there and took it. He has an opportunity to make some changes to his healthcare reform plan that just might gain bipartisan support. If he is willing to learn and adapt he just might get healthcare reform – even if it is not the reform he originally wanted.

{More later.}

Posted in Healthcare, News, Politics | No Comments »

Charles Krauthammer on election of Scott Brown (or) "It couldn't have anything to do with his platform!"

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

What astonishes me about the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate – from Massachusetts of all states that Democratic stronghold – is the lengths to which the left (aka “liberals” although a case can be made that conservatives of a libertarian stripe are the true liberals) is to explain this as having anything other to do with what is obvious and evident.

“The people could not possibly have made a semi-informed semi-rational decision. The people could not possibly have voted for Brown because they agreed more with his campaign platform”.

Oh no. It is because he is a man (in a state that recently had a woman governor who was the first to give birth while in office). It is because he is good looking (true – so what do we do with other Massachusetts politicians?) It is because of a generalized fear and anger. It is because Coakley ran a weak campaign (which is true – have to give them that). It is because Brown ran a brilliant campaign (which is also true – have to give them that as well). It is because people turn against incumbents in poor economic times. It is because. It is because. It absolutely could not be because Scott Brown said he would work to lower taxes and stop runaway government spending and growth and stop Obamacare. It could not be because of the issues Scott Brown actually ran on. It could not possibly be because even in heavily Democratic Massachusetts the people are concerned about the direction of this nation under President Barack Obama and (this part is also important) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It amazes me how supposedly intelligent people can be so dismissive of what is right in front of their eyes.

They can disagree with Brown. They can say “the people of Massachusetts are wrong”. But to say they had no earthly idea what they were doing? That it was a completely uninformed and irrational vote?

Here is the colossal problem with that kind of thinking. So… what about the election of Barack Obama?

Which is why I was careful to say “semi-informed and semi-rational”. The election of Barack Obama does indeed demonstrate that the American electorate is not always motivated by logic and evidence.

And for the president to say the people of Massachusetts were still voting against eight years of George Bush?!? Wow. What breathtaking power he has! It is like some Christians who blame everything on Satan.

Charles Krauthammer again applies his ruthless rationality to the left’s efforts to deny the meaning of Brown’s election.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one [referring to the tea party movement and town halls]. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

…

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley, or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Dear God – the people couldn’t possibly disagree with our agenda could they?!?

Posted in Healthcare, Logic and Reason, Politics | No Comments »

Not feeling the warm liberal fuzziness (or) "Bleep you and die Senator Lieberman!"

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

This may cross a line.

There is a man I love and respect – whom I regard as a better man/husband/father/minister than I am – whose social-political views are often very different from mine. We are “friends” on Facebook. He often posts opinions that are pretty strong – very critical toward conservatives and Republicans. Which is fine. Normally I ignore them because (a) not always in the mood for a debate and (b) we have day jobs.

He posted something that did not require a response but the chain of comments got interesting.

Someone #1: if you die of crime or terrorism you can blame the criminal or terrorist. :/
i agree with a___…somebody needs to take joe lieberman into the senate cloak room and beat him with a sock full of pennies

Friend: [Link to Daily Kos article: "F--k you Senator Lieberman!" I will not link to it.]

Someone #2: Tell him to sue those bitches when you guys die.

With me so far? So I took the risk of chiming in.

Rick: Hmm – disagree with a person (say Lieberman) even strongly. But “f–k you”? Not feeling the love or the warm liberal fuzziness here. Can one say “you are wrong” without saying “you are stupid and evil and should suffer”? Does such rhetoric persuade the opposition? Normally content not to chime in but this was a bit much.

The reactions were interesting.

Someone #2: We Democrats learned such tricks from the Republicans.

Someone #3: Richard – Hate to burst your bubble…but just cause everyone assumes that liberals are all tye-dye wearing, pot smoking and free loving…it is not so…and we are, at times, not so warm and fuzzy. [emphasis added]

And that boys and girls is why I normally avoid these exchanges.

What struck me about this was:

1) My complete and utter failure to communicate successfully. Which is “wait a second – you characterize conservatives as evil and stupid and even worthy of violence. Can I assume you think of yourself as a liberal? Can I also assume you regard yourself as being more caring compassionate loving tolerant and open-minded than conservatives? Maybe you do not – but I think that is a safe assumption. So why can you not just say ‘Lieberman is dead wrong and this is why‘? Why do you say ‘f–k you!’ and fantasize about beating him with a sock full of pennies? Do you think that conveys the impression – perhaps we should ask is that consistent with your assumption that you are caring compassionate loving tolerant and open-minded?”

2) The effort to redirect attention onto the person asking the question. “Everyone assumes that liberals are all tye-dye wearing, pot smoking and free loving” – speaking of assumptions.

3) Yeah yeah I know conservatives say it a million times each day but might as well say it again. How would self-described liberals respond if I said “Frak you Senator Reid! Someone should take you into a cloakroom and beat you with a sock full of pennies. You want hundreds of thousands of Americans to be enslaved to the government”?

For the record the issue here is not “liberals bad – conservatives good”. In fact the title of this post is problematic. “Liberals”? What kind of a gross generalization is that?

The primary prayer of the Christian is “Lord have mercy on me” not “Lord have mercy on that heartless scumbucket over there”.

The conservative websites I visit do sometimes exhibit (a) profanity and (b) hateful rhetoric (mainly in the comments – much harder to control). Conservatives are not immune to “you are not merely wrong – you are evil and stupid”.

Perhaps I should lay off asking liberals to remove the motes in their eyes and continue to work on the beams in my own. That sounds like a good plan.

Posted in Fun and Geek Stuff, Healthcare, Personal, Politics, Rhetoric | No Comments »

Unwashed angels in the passenger seat of my car (or) The challenge of strangers who ask for help

Monday, December 7th, 2009

During the last few weeks I have emptied my wallet 3 times for strangers who ask for help.

Last month getting ready for a Church of the Nations planning meeting in the chapel. Raining hard outside. Bible Study Fellowship is also at our church facility for their Monday gathering.

Bang bang bang.

Some fellow I have never seen knocking on the glass doors leading to the chapel. One of the BSF leaders brought him to me. He comes in and quickly goes on about gee whiz Christians are supposed to help each other and he used to be a pastor and complains no one would stop and help him when he was stuck on the side of the road – on his way home from working in the area has a slow leak in his tire some shop down Nicholson Drive will fix it and he needs something like $23.46. He talks and talks and talks and even calls me out when I respond with a slight frown or furrowed brow.

I do not believe a word he is saying. But frankly he does not seem open to “no I cannot help you” so I walk with him to his car – rather new rather nice (nicer than mine by far) and the tires look great – hand him everything I have in my wallet and send him on his way. I felt manipulated and forced into that and am a bit angry.

The next Sunday Church of the Nations leads worship for University Baptist Church. We do not normally have an invitation but the American church does so I lead it – and some fellow I have never seen walks up and says something about “get back with the Lord” and needing to be baptized so I present him to the congregation that says “thanks be to God”. (For the record I do not approve of this sort of instant receiving of people who make decisions – but that is how they do things.)

Afterward I find out he has an eviction notice in his pocket – tomorrow no less. *Sigh* I am so sick of people who come to the church asking for financial assistance the day before a deadline – they have known for three four or more weeks that their telephone or electricity or such would be disconnected. And we have to help them now without any chance of taking just a day or two to consider their request. For the record this gentleman does not ask for help – he just lets us know about the eviction notice.

I am supposed to be greeting people and driving internationals home – puts me in a bad spot. He says he is going to walk through neighborhood looking for yardwork – I ask him to come back at 5:00 p.m. when I will be back for Harvest Festival activity.

He does. I help him fill out benevolence application. Scan it. Email it to the committee. He prepares to walk home. I object rather strongly – I will drive him home. No no no – he would rather walk. I manage to persuade him. And drive him to the single darkest (as in no house/street lights) scariest neighborhood in north Baton Rouge I have ever been in. I have never been afraid to be somewhere in Baton Rouge but this time wonder if I am going to get shot. Drop him off. Pray with him first. Hand him $20 to buy some food for his kids. Am happy to help him out especially since he never asked for anything. Get the heck out of there and call my wife on the way just in case something happens on the way.

Turns out one of the benevolence committee persons checks things out – he is about three months behind on rent. We are talking more than $1000 – she takes care of it and calls the landlord who was at the courthouse. No kidding. No more eviction. But he needs a job and a car. Comes by the church later that week. Thanks us for the help. Might have a car to buy. Needs $200 – will look for yardwork again. I offer to hire him for $100.

Ah – but to get a permanent job he needs his cell phone on again. Can I advance him what it costs to reactivate? *Sigh* I go to my office and empty out my “secret emergency stash” and hand it to him. Tomorrow around 9:00 a.m. at my house – give him my cell number and address. This time I am irritated and feel manipulated and forced to give something I would rather not give – not until he shows up and does the work.

Next day I am working from home. He never shows. Or calls. I try to text him – his cell phone should be on again right? but nothing. Try not to judge him or jump to conclusions. Maybe something happened.

Next weekend he comes to church but does not find me. Says his bus was in a wreck they all got $700 from the transit company – my wife thinks it sounds fishy – and he has a car. Says he still wants to come by and do that yardwork for me. Cool beans. Theoretically he has a phone… and a car… so he can take that job offer that only requires him to have transportation. He still does not reply to phone calls or text messages. I saw him yesterday morning when I was in the “big sanctuary” to conduct a baptism. He did not come up to me or talk with me. That backyard is not getting cleaned up by itself.

With me so far?

Yesterday afternoon at 1:35 p.m. Do note the time – normally no one would be at the church at that time but Church of the Nations had a fellowship lunch. I was going to head to the hospital to visit Ellis family.

There is a man I have never seen. Wearing what look like hospital pants and an orange vest? shirt? and shoes with no laces. Homeless? He is asking for someone – no Pastor Jay has left. Oh no! He is upset because Jay has been so nice to him and helped him a lot with money. Now it is my turn.

I listen to him cry and stammer out his predicament – he is so distraught and his speech pattern such I can barely understand a word. He shows me various body parts to let me know how sick he is and he can’t sleep because he thinks he will die and not see his kids again and he needs to go to Tulane Medical Center for surgery.

Do you need me to take you and your wife to New Orleans? Yes.

But then how will we get back? My wife will stay with me but she will need to eat and we have no money.

At this point I am wondering how to help him… and get to the hospital… and even if I burn my afternoon driving him to New Orleans what happens a week later when he is discharged?

So I drive home. Get $50 from my other “secret emergency stash”. (I usually do not carry more than $10 on me if that.) Fill a bag with groceries from our pantry. And drive him home. The $50 is for “Mr James” who said he can take them down and back but needs (1) gas money and (2) money for a spare tire. (Yeah yeah I know – that second part sounds a bit strange.)

So I start driving him home along Burbank because I thought he lived off Nicholson. Quickly becomes apparent he led me down the wrong way – the interstate would have been better because he lives off Government. Ah well.

It smells pretty bad in my car at this point. A combination of urine and stale sweat smell.

But while I am heading down Burbank it suddenly hits me: Genesis 15.

What would an angel look like who shows up and asks you to give him lunch or something? I am not saying this guy really was an angelic messenger but I thought “perhaps I need to see how God is present in this person and in this situation”. Perhaps it is a kind of test. How will Rick Wright respond to some stranger in desperate need? Will I turn him away with “go, eat and be well”? Or will I sacrifice time money and resources? What kind of a Christian will I be in this situation? Plus I finally figure out his “language” (hard to explain – the point at which I know how to relate to someone) and we talk about cool cars and such. Oh and he does yardwork.

His apartment is right along where I drive to pick up my kids from school. I meet his wife(?). No kids in sight. I wonder if this whole situation was a scam of some sort. The tears looked real. And if you were working poor and got clobbered with cancer and liver problems how the heck would you get the medical care and the medicine you need?

I still have very mixed feelings about all this. And I still think “look – I can’t keep doing this I can’t keep emptying out my wallet for every stranger that comes by tells a story and expects me to give them something”. Or maybe I can.

I am almost 100% sure the first guy was scamming me. The second person – well he still comes to church although he does owe me yardwork. The third guy – not quite sure but once I thought of the situation as “opportunity/test from God” was much more able to deal with it positively. And it does make this conservative(?) free-market libertarian Republican(?) wonder how do we best help(?) people in such desperate need? The working poor when their lives get blown apart by a single illness or car repair? You know what I’m saying?

What do you think?

Posted in Ethnicity and race, Healthcare, Ministry, Personal, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Charles Krauthammer – yes healthcare reform but not *this* way

Friday, November 27th, 2009

I have before addressed the contemptible lie that conservatives (and Republicans – the two overlap but are not always the same) are against healthcare reform because they support the “status quo”. Conservatives do support healthcare reform. We like the idea of healthcare coverage for everyone. But we also believe results and reality are at least as important as good intentions.

Once again Charles Krauthammer – dubbed “Critic-in-Chief” by National Review – nails it. He points out what is dreadful about the healthcare reform bill being debated in the Senate and then offers an alternative reform plan in outline:

Worse, they [the hundreds of regulations and boards the healthcare reform bill establishes] are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs — is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency.

Read the whole thing at Townhall.

I do have mild concern about two points commonly raised by conservatives: (1) tort reform and (2) interstate competition.

Do not misunderstand me. I support them. But I have come across occasional articles by conservatives explaining why they might not help as much as we think. That there is a potential downside to tort reform. And interstate competition might actually make the situation worse. Unfortunately I did not note and bookmark those articles. I vaguely recall coming across them at American Thinker. But I did find this:

“The truth of the story,” producer Sarah Koenig explained, “is a little more complicated, a little less Machiavellian.” In 2001, Aetna was losing $1 million a day. Aetna did two things to turn the company around: It raised premiums, and it pulled out of markets where it did not have a large presence. It turns out, the less competition an insurance company faces in a particular market, the cheaper it can price its products, and the lower premiums are for the insured. Why? Because insurance companies have to wield a lot of clout in order to bargain effectively with the large health-care provider groups in a given area.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

I do not entirely understand that last point – perhaps someone else can explain it.

Remember – most conservatives support healthcare reform and healthcare for all Americans. Krauthammer states: “Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative” (emphasis added). Pretty strong language. But conservatives also care about reality and results. If we are going to do something – we need to do it right. In a way that makes things better – not worse.

Posted in Healthcare, Media, Politics | 2 Comments »

What hath universal health coverage wrought – in Massachusetts?

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

Since I care more about my country than my personal pride, here’s how I lost my insurance: I moved. That’s right, I moved from Washington, D.C., back to Massachusetts, a state with universal health care.

From someone who used to write speeches for President Obama – and for a host of other Democratic politicians.

Intellectual honesty is in my book a form of heroism. Being able to admit you were wrong about something – even wrong about things you used to say or write. Wendy Button notes if she had a dollar for every time she wrote “universal health care will lower premiums” she would be able to afford health insurance in Massachusetts.

(Which by the way is what I consider to be my home state.)

This is huge what she discovers. And what she discovers is that the well intentioned(?) theories of the left too often produce dreadful results.

I want health care reform. I need it, but I want Washington to start over. It doesn’t make me “un-American” or “astroturf” or “racist.” I’m a critic because what Washington is talking about doing has made health insurance unaffordable in Massachusetts.

If Washington won’t go for a simple clean move to a system like Medicare for All, then it needs to do one reform, one new law, at a time — not with a 1,000 page bill where strange things can hide. Line up the 80 percent of things we agree on and vote one at a time to change pre-existing conditions, cut that $500 billion in Medicare’s “waste, fraud, and abuse,” create meaningful lawsuit reform, and add some real competition to insurance companies whether it’s a public option or a pilot exchange program. Show the country that this is possible with lower premiums and more efficiency and then go for the tough stuff. Critics like me want something done right because we actually are up the creek without a paddle. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing at Politics Daily.

Addendum (10/12/2009):

First. A few years ago our family was “without” health insurance – when my wife was transitioning between her state job and her new career as a teacher. I did not have health insurance through the church. We were able to buy a high deductible plan for our family of 4 for about $450/month. If you run the numbers you will find a high deductible and high co-pay plan costs less over the course of a year than a “Cadillac” health plan.

Remember that the next time you hear a National Public Radio propaganda report about some family struggling to find an affordable plan with low deductible and low co-pay.

Second and more importantly. The writer of the above piece said she went from buying insurance for just herself for $200/month to $500/month. Now think about that. In Louisiana $500/month can cover a family of four. But in Massachusetts it covers just one person – thanks to universal health coverage. Why would anyone with any sense want to live there if they are self-employed? And why would anyone with any sense  want to start a business in that state with that kind of insurance overhead?

Posted in Healthcare, Media, Politics | No Comments »

In praise of honest liberals(?) – Camille Paglia strikes again

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

She voted for President Obama. Wants to see healthcare reform go through. But she has no patience for hypocrisy and stupidity. Camille Paglia is a liberal(?) I can respect.

(I put ? after “liberal” because what does that word mean exactly? And perhaps Prof Paglia does not think of herself as a “liberal”. It may not be appropriate in this context.)

Just a sample from an as always powerful essay:

But this tonic dose of truth-telling may be too little too late. As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. I suspect there had been private grumbling all along, but the media warhorses failed to speak out when they should have — from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis.

Read the whole thing at Salon. Oh – and Nancy Pelosi is white. Think about it.

But since one of the concerns of this website is how people think and speak – in other words how they argue it would be remiss not to include this:

Throughout this fractious summer, I was dismayed not just at the self-defeating silence of Democrats at the gaping holes or evasions in the healthcare bills but also at the fogginess or insipidity of articles and Op-Eds about the controversy emanating from liberal mainstream media and Web sources. By a proportion of something like 10-to-1, negative articles by conservatives were vastly more detailed, specific and practical about the proposals than were supportive articles by Democrats, which often made gestures rather than arguments and brimmed with emotion and sneers.

Notice she does not say who is right or wrong. Or whether she opposes or supports “healcare reform”. She simply points out the poor quality of statements and articles by Democrats: “gestures rather than arguments”.

Precisely.

Posted in Healthcare, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Rhetoric | No Comments »

« Older Entries