The Contradictions of the Healthcare debate

I am certainly no healthcare expert, nor am I a noted economist (or even an ignored economist), so I don’t feel adequate to delve into the nitty gritty of the current House bill. However, it doesn’t take an expert to observe that over the course of the debate about health care from the current administration, there have been numerous contradictions, both in terms of logic and fact. Many of these get short shrift in the 30 second analysis we get from the media.

 One of the first logical contradictions one notes has to do with the ‘Healthcare System wastes 800 billion dollars’ vs. ‘Insurers regularly deny care’ claims. On one hand we presented with a picture of stingy health insurers, who routinely deny care in order to line the pockets of their greedy CEO’s. Meant to elicit support for healthcare legislation by generating hatred for the imaginary rich, this is standard class warfare language.

 Yet, on the other hand we are presented with a recent study, much touted by government healthcare advocates, that our current healthcare system wastes up to ‘$800 hundred billion a year’ (which coincidently at the time was exactly the same as the cost of the healthcare legislation). This waste was said to be the result of a a number of conditions, including unnecessary procedures and inefficiencies in paperwork. It would follow if the healthcare legislation could fix these cost overruns, it would practically pay for itself.

 But it only takes a minute to realize the unlikelihood that both of these arguments are generally true. If health insurers really are money-grubbing dictators trying to squeeze every last cent out of the health system, then why are they completely ignoring the waste of 800 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they shut down those extra procedures and eliminate the paper work? That’s a lot of cash for those penny pinchers to ignore. Perhaps fixing such problems isn’t so straight forward. Indeed, the government already insures nearly half our population through Medicare and Medicaid – and it has shown no propensity to contain such costs.

 In fact, another assumption of the health reform bill is that congress will cut billions of dollars in Medicare programs in the near future. That’s great; but why haven’t they started until now? A lot of the fraud and waste is the product of the Medicare system, which is after all a government run public health insurance option – why should the electorate trust that the broader public option will create efficiencies when we already have a budget busting example of a government run program that has been anything but efficient, by the Democrats own admission?

 And finally, we come to the discussion about the public option. Perhaps the most controversial part of the current House bill, the public option will provide a government funded healthcare option, much like Medicare, for those who currently have no health insurance.

 The primary argument for this option has to do with the fact that a certain number of people in our country –either 60, 40, or 30 million people depending on the day and who is counting – don’t currently have insurance. The public option would provide for those folks who either due to lack of funds, or some pre-existing condition, have been denied private healthcare. So far so good; it’s hard to deny that basic healthcare should be more accessible.

 But the second argument is that a public option will provide ‘competition’ for the private insurers, causing them to bring down costs, and become more efficient. The problem with this though is that it is never explained how it is that insuring folks already deemed ‘uninsurable’ by the private industry will create ‘competition’; competition after all only occurs when two entities vie for a single market. Those who can’t afford insurance and those who can are in fact two different markets – so insurance companies will have no incentive to bring down costs, since they aren’t losing out by maintaining their current practices.

 The only way such a situation would be competitive is if the government were to structure the public option so that it was available to those who already had insurance, giving individuals and employers incentives to drop private insurance and adopt the ‘competitive’ (and publicly funded) public option.

 If this happened on a wide scale (and why wouldn’t it?) it would inevitably move us toward a government run, publicly funded, single payer healthcare system in our country, much like the socialized systems seen elsewhere – but I am sure that isn’t the intention behind all this at all, is it?

Another brick in the wall

I have pretty vivid memories of the Berlin Wall falling; in large part because it was the last thing I ever expected to see in my lifetime. I spent a significant part of my college years as a bit of an activist, at first on the left, and later on the right. Like a lot of people my age I felt the fear, sometimes expressed, but more often than not, that the long cold conflict we had with the Soviet Union would burst into hot war, replete with world ending bombs. That was why Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall!” was at the same time frightening and exhilarating – it framed freedom as a gift so precious that not even the threat of annihilation could deny it. Nonetheless, I never expected to see that yearning fulfilled in my lifetime.

 Perhaps that was what made the recent 20^th anniversary celebration a rather disappointing affair. Unlike the still vivid memories of my youth the recent remarks of our President made no mention of Reagan – no mention of Thatcher, or Pope John Paul, or Lech Walesa. No mention of the Soviets or communism. He does however oddly make mention of himself as an icon of freedom:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it,”

 As President of the United States, Obama is free to set his schedule and agenda as he sees fit. If he wants he wants to personally appear to lobby to have the Olympics in Chicago and then skip out on the celebration of the one of the greatest advances of freedom in the 20^th century, that is his prerogative; however, his office doesn’t give him the liberty to re-write history, and his failure to make note of the true champions of freedom constitutes an abrogation of duty.

Life in the balance in South Dakota

Interesting news from South Dakota concerning the recent strict anti-abortion law passed in the state legislature. Opponents of the law have managed to gather the required number of signatures to place the law on the Nov. 7th ballot, allowing SD citizens the option to vote keep the law as is or have it removed from the books.

There appear to be three possible outcomes to this effort; the first being that the opponents win the day in South Dakota and the legal barriers to abortions are removed (again). In that case, they have undermined a regular argument they have made, namely that the courts must act to preserve a women's right to abort because democratic processes aren't sufficient protectors of essential rights.

The second outcome might be that the law holds up, in which case the oft repeated idea that Roe v. Wade is a 'popular' ruling will be dealt a blow.

Of course, in the case of a loss, an appeal to the Court is likely. But this is a rather circuitous route to take; normally abortion rights groups run directly to the local judge; why attempt a democratic solution first?

I suspect this is because abortion rights advocates are afraid that the tide has turned on the court; a series of appeals is more likely than ever to end with an erosion of legal support for Roe. In that case, a number of states may move to enact such laws.

Overall this seems to be a lose-lose-lose proposition for the pro-abortion bunch; they must now utilize the democratic process they have so far disdained, and in doing so, undermine their primary venue for advancing their cause – liberal pro-abortion courts.

Of course, in the interim, the greatest loss continues to be the lives of the unborn.

Last Stand in Clark County

Comes a story out of out of Las Vegas Nevada not unlike the recent events I detailed earlier in Kentucky. In this particular case, rather than banning a prayer, the school administrators took restrictions a step further; they shut off the microphone of a valedictorian when it was perceived she might voice religious sentiments, or more specifically, credit her success with it's source; faith in Christ. From the report:

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her — Christ — her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Presumably had she given praise to the public school systems, a disciplined homework regime, or positive thinking, Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb would have been free to say whatever she pleased. Indeed, had she criticized the current government, the supposed 'intolerance' of more conservative thinkers, or any other presumed enemies of the American educational system, she certainly would have been applauded by those in charge.

The ACLU, long the protector of speech, no matter how vulgar or vile, seems wholly complicitous with the administration. Allen Lichtenstein, an ACLU lawyer, who finds school dress codes to be "Orwellian" finds the systematic review and editorial removal of references to Christ to be wholly inline with the administrator's duties.

I think this is a further demonstration of the restrictive nature of the secular state. By attempting to parse the sentiments of a young woman who by all measures was a an educational success in one of the largest districts in the US, the school in all respects acts as advocate of anti-religious ideologies. Far from being neutral, the school teaches it's captive audience that the only true freedom is a godless one.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. My own children attend a charter school here in Minnesota. It is a fairly unique school, originally begun by home-schoolers and sponsored by a local Christian college. Even though it is a 'public' school, because of our charter system it flies under the radar of many of the restrictive policies normally found in our nation's public schools.

Last year, for our graduation ceremony, an academically accomplished young woman was asked to speak. Her story was quite amazing by all accounts; she came from a significantly broken family, her mother dealing with drug addiction and a string of bad boyfriends, her father completely absent. I remember reluctantly dropping her off at her home one time; the sagging roof, the plastic over the windows. It just didn't seem the place one would leave a child.

And yet this girl thrived, nurtured by a church family and a school that encouraged rather than opposed her faith. And for the graduation ceremony, she requested that she be able to say a prayer rather than give a speech; a request that administrators, not bound by the 9th District Court, happily allowed. What preceded was the most beautiful prayer I think I have ever heard, one that brought tears to the eyes of the most skeptical; its power being primarily in the life of a young woman whose experience had obviously exceeded the expectations of her circumstance.

It is ironic, that in our age a relativism where truths are thought to be mere personal expressions, people are allowed to express in our schools anything they percieve to be true so long as they don't really believe that it actually is.

A Place for shame

A recent article reported in the Agape press centered around the current practice of a group in Indiana of posting pictures of patrons of one 'adult' store in order to shame them into avoiding the place, and presumably, having the ultimate effect of closing the shop down.

The posting of pictures was just one part of the battle, which also included 24 hour protests.

At issue in a recent discussion group was whether it was 'Christ-like' to publicly shame pornography patrons by posting pictures of them on the internet; as one poster said, "This could potentially cause someone alot of embarassment, psychological distress, and pain, which doesn't strike me as the best way to spread the gospel.".

One wonders if 'spreading the gospel' requires a casual acceptance of the intrusions of adult industry juggernaut into our cities, neighborhoods and homes.

And that is where we need to be clear; the Goliath in this battle is the pornography industry. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that subjugates tens of thousands of young men and women to the most pernicious of activities; the buying and selling of their bodies. It is prostitution once removed. It is protected by numerous court cases, and is ubiquitous in its availability. It reaches easily into every American home via the internet and for other forms of 'adult' entertainment not easily transmissible over cable lines there are numerous legal outlets in every major city, and a number of not so major ones.

To the discerning and thoughtful it's damage is readily apparent; the entrapment of millions of men in addiction, the destruction of marriages, the scarring of children exposed to lies enticingly presented by the pornography moguls.

This industry has relied in recent years on two things; the anonymity of its customers, and the increasing public acceptance of deviant behaviors.

Indeed, those who would never defend the activities of the pornography industry seem intent on protecting the people who contribute a few dollars at a time to its continued existence.

What of the point that Jesus was above shaming the unrighteous?

While Jesus of course notably loved and reached out sinners, he also seemed intent on publicly vilifying the unrepentant and hypocritical. Scribes, lawyers, Sadducees, Pharisees, money changers, would be stone casters, and even his disciples came under public rebuke when necessary. Indeed, he actually voiced a methodology by which those who failed to repent of there behaviors would be subject to increasingly public pressures.

And of course, John the Baptist, the harbinger of Christ, notably lost his head for publicly shaming Herod for being involved in what amounted to an adulterous relationship with his brother's wife.

So I am not so sure the distaste displayed by some Christians against the protestors is wholly warranted; indeed, I would say their outrage against the growing sexual industry is much too subdued.

Does this mean that Jesus would have stood outside a porn shop snapping pictures of the patron's comings and goings? Probably not; but then again he might very well have cleared such a building with a scourge for corrupting the lives of people whom he loved – an action which in this day and age might get him jail time, and in an earlier age gotten him … well, crucified.

The sociology of influence

I wrote below about the battle that recently occurred in Kentucky over religious liberties, and about how responses typically line up; the fears of marginalizing the irreligious with public displays of religious sentiment, and the fears of the religious that their rights are being suppressed.

  In such discussion it often comes down to what are essentially political considerations; that is what our political laws and rights allow us to do. Because our religious liberties spring primarily from a very simple constitutional structure, that is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", ideas about it are many and varied. A good part of the court's time has been devoted to settling the issue, with little success over these last two hundred years.  

In discussions about religious liberties, I tend to take a slightly different approach to the issue, which is often confusing to some. I think the political left in our country has succeeded in making the issue primarily a political one; and as much as they have, they have succeeded in limiting religious expression in the public venue. I don't think it is primarily a political issue, but a sociological  one. Now up front I will admit both the political and sociological sciences are difficult frameworks by which to conduct discussions, both of them being 'soft sciences', that is studies that can't be readily conducted with in the confines of the lab (which would be expected, as they both concern human choices and the ways our societies interact; one can't exactly haul 21st century America into a lab on campus, can one?) and which don't lend themselves to readily available quantification.  

Nonetheless they are important frameworks by which to consider issues in our society, albeit radically different ones. Politics concerns itself primarily with the distribution of power and methods by which decisions are made in our society; in short, who wins, and who loses; or more properly, as Laswell  put it, "who gets what, when, where, and how". Sociology though concerns itself with our social lives; with the behavior of humans as they interact with each other, the formation of relationships and communities. They are related, but take different approaches.

  I think in the early part of the 21st century, evangelicals have allowed themselves to become defined in our society politically. I think this has happened because they have followed the secular left's lead in dealing with our societies ills; we have approached them politically. Whether we are talking abortion, or gay rights, or public expression of prayer, both the secular left and the religious right have battled within political institutions for power. By in large, the left has won in this arena; and the reason they have is because political solutions are really about acquisitions of power, and ultimately (despite popular perception) believers in Christ aren't by and large concerned about acquiring secular power.

  We are (or should be) concerned however with the sociology of our country; that is, they way humans interact and relate to one another. It is quite obviously a primary concern of our Creator, who established both societies (like Israel) and the means by which they would live, as well as commissioning communities (the Church) and structure with which they would relate. Obviously Jesus was concerned with human interaction and behavior, as exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount  and the parable of the Good Samaritan . Our country springs in large part from the influence of such early believing communities.  

Now I don't mean to say we should ignore politics all together; I think it is very important for us as good citizens to be informed and involved in our political processes. Indeed, I have spent a number of years doing just that. That involvement has allowed me to see first hand the danger;  the danger of becoming political beings, seen primarily through the lens of a set of political issues. As much this is so, I think we lose influence in our society. We may stop gay marriage until the next election, but we will also be seen primarily as the political group that must lose power because they oppose gay marriage.  

And that brings us back to the Kentucky revolt. I think that action came closer to what we need to be doing with a sociological rather than political approach. Rather than continue to fight the issue through the courts, the students just lived the way their community always had; they prayed. They didn't say, "this is our right", they just prayed, saying in effect, this is who we are; this is how we live, this makes our community what it is, and they acted accordingly. I think Christians on the whole could learn much from this; we need to stop trying to seek to have rights or political power granted to us, and start living according to the faith that we say we have. We pray, we celebrate God, we love our neighbor, we oppose what is evil; this is who we are, this is the way we interact - you can vote us out of office, but you cannot diminish us or the way we live in this society.

Revolt in Kentucky

There was a minor revolt recently in Russell Springs Kentucky, at the Russell County High School. A group of about 200 hundred students stood and began to recite the Lord's Prayer during the opening remarks by the Principal; this despite an order by the judge banning prayer at the event. The revolt continued with remarks by senior Megan Chapman, who gave credit to God for her success in life.

Surveying a discussion group about this event revealed a number of typical responses. Those against cited fears of ostracizing the non-religious, while those for brought up the need to defend religious liberties.

One commenter put it this way:

this is the reason we don't support prayer as an institutional feature, because it marginalizes people. and there the kids go, marginalizing people.

to sum, they weren't standing up for their rights because those rights were never in danger. they're creating an in-group/out-group atmosphere, and that's… well, "mean of them" is the most negative term i can use on this forum, but i assure you, i don't like this at all.

One wonders if the same commentator would be equally offended by recent commencement addresses by Jodie Foster or Thomas Wolfe, comments certain to 'margenalize' a number of listeners.

Both views I think somewhat miss the mark; I don't think what is at issue here is as much religious concern as much as it is a cultural one. Students, parents, and administrators of a southern Kentucky high school are apt to be be more religious than say those at the University of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the article quotes a resident of the town, saying, "In our little town, we've always had that prayer at commencement…Why not? That's part of our everyday life." I think the students weren't attempting to impose a particular religious belief on anyone as much as they were attempting to keep a belief system, albeit a secular statist one, from being imposed on them.

In the founding of this country our forefathers gave great leeway to the individual states to determine their own courses of action, provided they follow certain limited provisions of our Federal Constitution. There is no indication they intended to impose a monolithic secular culture on the nation, and no reason Federal judges should be attempting to impose one on the citizens of Russell Springs.

The Da Vinci Ode

I spoke recently at our church about the Da Vinci Code, introducing it's themes and it's foundation in Gnosticism. The audio is available here. Be kind.

Censorship, Libertarianism, and the Da Vinci Code

As expected, with the current controversy surrounding the Da Vinci Code, some are calling for a boycott of the movie; and of course, others, motivated presumably by libertarian sensibilities, are calling such actions censorship, and vowing to see the movie simply as a support for the free exchange of ideas. The story they say, is after all fiction and as such shouldn't be condemned in the same way someone might of if the work was said to be fact. Of course, libertarianism would be equally protective of a presumed factual attack on Christianity.

To test the argument they are making, I think a thought experiment is in order. Rather than a fictional account attacking the fundamental tenets of Christianity, instead imagine a book that posits that the Jews secretly run the world, or one extolling the benefits of a race war, won by whites.

 Two such books actually exist, the first being the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a bestseller currently in the Middle East. The other of course is the The Turner Diaries , a fictional account of the future following a race war – a novel said to have influenced the likes of Timothy McVeigh.

 In such cases would we expect that a major Hollywood Director would produce such a film? Would well-known stars eagerly involve themselves and defend such a project, because, after all, it's only a story? Would we see the press staunchly defending the right of those same players to produce such drivel?

I would presume not; and that presumption would be soundly based on the understanding that even in the case of fiction, there can be an agenda and an intention to influence popular thinking. It would be not be wrong to strongly condemn such fiction in writing and film, indeed it is critical that we do so, even if such criticism peaks the curiosity of some. In the same way we need to be strongly and wisely critical of the Da Vinci Code and it's claims, whether or not those making the claims hide behind the moniker of fiction, art, and storytelling.

Despite their claims to the contrary, libertarians ultimately lean toward those philosophies which are critical of Christianity; and that is one of the primary reasons as a Christian I couldn't be a libertarian, nor attend the Da Vinci Code movie in good conscience.

Reality Check

Joe Carter has posted a piece about the unwarranted pessimism that pervades our society today. I think his conclusion, "Americans don't need to fret about the economy (booming), the situation in Iraq (improving), or crime (falling). What they should be worried about is the outbreak of pessimism. That plague is reaching pandemic levels" misses the point a bit. His determination concerning the warrants of our pessimism is based on standard measures – the economy, the state of the Iraq war, and crime rates; and I agree, by those measures, we aren't doing nearly as bad as the current popular tenor would seem to indicate.

What I think drives the current pessimism though has little to do with those factors; instead, I think it has everything to do with the realization we all had on the morning of September 11th, 2001. We came to understand that day that even when the economy was booming, there are no apparent threats to our national security, and crime and poverty seemed to be fading, the very fabric of our national and personal confidence can be shredded by a small group of determined individuals who think that causing mass death is a legitimate means of political expression. We were hit again with the tenuous nature of our civic existence after Katrina smashed into our coast.

Our society still reels from those events, and like a parent who lost a child in a senseless act of violence, no amount of beneficent circumstance will relieve us of the gnawing concern that nothing is certain, that we are powerless to prevent the tragic from invading our lives at its leisure.

It calls for us not to be rooted in hopefulness about the latest military advance or economic forecast, but to anchor ourselves finally in something true and eternal; something our society seems to have lost its desire or wisdom to seek.